Inequality is one of four scans that forms part of The Economics of the Built Environment theme for RIBA Horizons 2034.
Over the last few decades, the tackling of poverty internationally has transformed millions of lives. [1] Despite this, we still live in an unequal world. The stark reality is that the poorest half of the world’s people have just 2% of the total wealth whereas the richest 10% have 76%. [2] This is a critical issue for the next decade to 2034.
Inequality happens when resources and opportunities are unequally distributed among members of a society. Inequality can be unjust where it is based on characteristics such as race, religion, sex and citizenship status. It can also unjustly arise from the unearned income passively derived from wealth or capital. [3]
Unfortunately, the problem is persistent and stands in the way of socio-economic development. This was acknowledged by the UN, whose global commitment to reducing inequality within and among countries is articulated in the Sustainability Development Goal (SDG) 10. [4]
Studies on inequality are often related to economic globalisation issues, international migration, and neoliberal government policies, relying almost exclusively on national income data. However, merely addressing poverty alleviation is treating the symptom rather than the root cause, which arises from unjust structural systems of wealth accumulation and power and has multifaceted economic, social, environmental, and political dimensions.
Of course, moves to improve inequality in the built environment need to be done sustainably, without breaching limits for carbon emissions. This is because wealth inequality between countries is directly linked to emissions inequality. Currently, the wealthiest 1% emit more carbon than the bottom 50%.
As emerging countries develop and their people are lifted out of poverty, their emissions will increase. To compensate, wealthy countries, whose own economic advantages were at enormous carbon cost, have an ethical responsibility to reduce their emissions while redistributing their wealth to parts of the world in greatest need.
At its most basic level, inequality manifests spatially in residential segregation and neighbourhood development. Therefore, a critical factor in effecting beneficial change is to rethink the built environment – its development, governance, funding, and affordability. As Soja put it: “If the geographic space formed by the social process is not socially just or fair to all, the space formed in this way affects the society and lives of individuals in unjust ways.” [5]
Inequality has a postcode
Inequality in the built environment arises from the location of economic and service facilities. Simply put, where a person lives to a large extent determines the quality and level of access they have to public resources, including education, health and public spaces. This pattern is perpetuated when people in a particular social class enjoy all the opportunities and benefits, leading to spatial injustice.
The so-called platform economy has accentuated this divide. Those selling short-term rentals – Airbnb, for example – reinforce existing spatial patterns of inequality and segregation. In neighbourhoods occupied by privileged people, this exacerbates uneven development. It also increases disparities in areas with a locational advantage by blurring traditional boundaries between residential and tourist areas in the city. [6]
Political choices with the built environment can have lasting positive and negative impacts on inequality. For example, in South Africa, the built environment is still dominated by the impact of apartheid planning policies that continue to entrench racial and economic segregation.
On a more positive note, South Africa’s mixed-income public housing policy deliberately and directly seeks to counter existing spatial and social segregation across the country. [7] This positive bent is a direct result of participatory decision-making that prioritises planning with, rather than for, the people.
Planning and anti-planning
Socio-spatial inequality can also be exacerbated through land use regulations. For example, land use zoning can be a way to hoard opportunities. A study of Dublin found that, while land-use regulations can be sensible and fair, they can make it easier for a small subgroup within the community to seize all the economic benefits. [8] This, of course, limits the wider community’s diversity and social mobility.
On a larger scale, recent waves of gentrification and the proliferation of gated communities, elite enclaves, new cities and special economic zones have all exacerbated socio-spatial inequalities in large cities. From London to New York, Mexico to Lagos, this form of elite capture, is often accompanied by extensive land grabs and forcible displacement of local communities and attempts to produce aspirational visions of a utopian city where only the rich belong. [9]
These grandiose visions, driven usually by the vested interests of the political and economic elite, are given material expression through the professional expertise of architects, urban designers, urban planners and other built environment professionals. This reinforces the stereotype that those who envision the built environment have a disregard for the practicalities of everyday life. [10] It also calls into question city-making processes and their governance, with all their implications for the future of human settlements.
The immediate and longer term impact of these decision-making trends is that they promote the design and planning of socially unjust spaces. Real estate investment by the rich often results in an architecture of fear in middle and high income neighbourhoods and growing public discontent in lower income ones.
In London, for example, development is almost entirely in the interests of capital investment rather than creating social value, with empty housing units priced out of the reach of those who need housing most. [11] In a city where people wait months or years for a home and have to compete hard when one becomes available, this inequity – unsurprisingly – breeds a sense of conflict. The effect is compounded by the relative neglect of the infrastructure supporting residential and commercial spaces patronised by mostly lower income households.
Planning and design for a more equitable world
The future of cities and indeed all human settlements rests on the vision and actions of built environment practitioners. In transiting to a more equal world, how can we catalyse spatial justice?
The first thing to recognise is that the social and environmental implications of design decisions are equally as important as ones to do with aesthetics and functionality. Therefore, to ignore them risks unintended consequences.
As custodians of the built environment, it behoves architects, planners and built environment professionals to prioritise these considerations early during the conceptualisation stages of projects. Also, curricula for architecture and planning education, and how they are taught, must treat social awareness as equally important as those disciplines’ other skill sets. (A good example of this is Architecture for Social Purpose, a mandatory topic in RIBA’s core CPD curriculum.)
Future-proofing human settlements also requires embracing full participatory consultation. This means going beyond mere tokenism to engage with the communities impacted throughout the project lifespan. This has been shown to have multiple benefits, including increasing the likelihood that developments will be fit for purpose, be sustainable in the long term and enjoy full community support.
The good news is that many built environment professionals are already at the forefront of promoting such socially just spaces. Examples abound of architects, urban planners and urban design teams engaging in the conceptualisation, design and implementation of equitable urban and climate resilience strategies and action plans.
Many tactics have already been accomplished. For example, they have developed urban regeneration plans and programmes predicated on expanding land tenure and access for vulnerable groups. They have championed the provision of mixed income, low cost social housing and advocated against environmental despoilation and direct interventions in natural and built environment heritage conservation.
However, it is not yet nearly enough. What is required is the scaling up and expansion of such efforts beyond current levels. As building professionals looking to the future of cities and other human settlements, social and spatial justice must be enshrined in their ethos.
For instance, the RIBA Code of Professional Conduct requires that: “In performing professional services Members should promote stronger communities and improve equality, diversity and inclusion in the built environment.” [12] It is only by paying attention to this ethical dimension that professionals can truly contribute in a tangible manner to a more equal world.
Author biography
Taibat Lawanson is Professor of Urban Management and Governance at the University of Lagos, Nigeria where she leads the Pro-Poor Development Research Cluster and serves as co-director at the Centre for Housing and Sustainable Development. Her research focuses on the interface of social complexities, urban realities and the pursuit of spatial justice in Africa.
Professor Lawanson is a member of the board of directors of the Lagos Studies Association and the steering committee of Future Earth’s Urban Knowledge Action Network. She is a fellow of the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners and an alumna of the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Centre.
RIBA Horizons 2034 sponsored by Autodesk
References
[1] United Nations (11 July 2023). Rapid poverty reduction in some countries, data missing in many others
[2] World Inequality Lab - L. Chancel, T. Piketty, E. Saez, G. Zucman et al. (2021). The World Inequality Report 2022
[3] T. Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
[4] United Nations - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (n.d.). Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries
[5] E.W. Soja (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. University of Minnesota Press
[6] H. Rabiei-Dastjerdi, G. McArdle, W. Hynes (2022). Which came first, the gentrification or the Airbnb? Identifying spatial patterns of neighbourhood change using Airbnb data. In Habitat International 125
[7] Emerald Publishing Limited - G.O Onatu, W.E. Thwala and C.O. Aigbavboa (2023). Mixed-Income Housing Development Framework for South Africa and Global South. In Mixed-Income Housing Development Planning Strategies and Frameworks in the Global South
[8] The Brookings Institution - R.V. Reeves and D. Halikias (16 August 2016). How land use regulations are zoning out low-income families
[9] T. Lawanson (2023). Alternative Urbanisms: Beyond Utopian Visions of the ‘Emerging’ African City. An Inaugural Lecture at the University of Lagos, 87
[10] MIT Press - A. Picon (2017). Notes on Utopia, the City, and Architecture. Grey Room 68, 94–105
[11] R. Atkinson (2018). Necrotecture: Lifeless Dwellings and London’s Super-Rich. In International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 434(1), 2–13
[12] Royal Institute of British Architects (2021). RIBA Code of Professional Conduct
