Having lived in Brazilian slums, it really is just a matter of memorizing one's way through the mazes of sidestreets, alleys, etc. It's very hard for me to imagine maps taking hold with the residents themselves, though with the gentrification that's happening in "famous" favelas, maybe maps will be useful after all for the foreigners moving in.
What slightly worries me are recent efforts like those of Google and Microsoft [1] in some of Rio's favelas where these tech giants have the population do the work for them, via local NGOs and community associations, in order to later serve advertisements.
There's a quote that basically says that "only intellectuals are interested in poverty; the poor, however, just want to consume." One problem I saw firsthand just after the favela pacification process in Rio was how many services and businesses were entering these areas, hungry for new clientele while getting them all used to the idea of credit (and, later, debt). Not to mention, the government coming in with the offer of national IDs (read: "the better to start taxing you with!")
Slum politics and culture are never simple to explain as there are always many ways to effectively discuss them.
The slum mapping projects are not really "crowdsourcing", although there are elements of it.
They are primarily participatory mapping exercises, the visible digital output at the end is the map. The participants are primarily those who live in the slums. Public participatory mapping projects have happened for decades now, often happening without computers and more tied into the planning side of things. The article is quite correct, for these types of mapping projects, the map is a visible end result, not the intended object. The planning part of the process is required and needed.
What the confusion with "crowdsourcing", humanitarian mapping and public participation mapping is with OpenStreetMap - anyone can contribute from anywhere to anyplace, therefore it's crowdsourcing. And with the recent Ebola humanitarian mapping, anyone can trace aerial imagery and add in whole towns that were never mapped before ever to a map for use by aid organisations primarily. So they both use the same stack, they both are in developing countries, but the people doing the mapping are different. local people mapping their own area and it being used not mainly by aid organisations for humanitarian purposes, and international (the true, faceless crowd) people mapping crises areas and it not being used by the local people for local planning.
All this doesn't contradict what the article states. It's even more important that these mapping projects are being used for local planning. But it's important to see that OpenStreetMap mapping in developing countries is not all crowdsourced mapping.
Well, they've been on a growth trajectory since the late 1800s (at least in Rio), and their official numbers within and around the city are not even known. The 2010 census says there's 763, but the unofficial number is likely to be over twice that.
I don't even see gentrification holding in the 5 (or so) favelas that are home to the largest groups of foreigners.
And if we're talking pacification, recent local news of shootouts shows peace is not a sure thing (just in the first few months of 2014, 7 of the 40+ pacified favelas broke out in shootouts/violence). Most favela residents in the several favelas I've lived in are also divided as to whether it's actually positive or not. For instance, there used to be something loosely known as "favela law" which meant that inside the favela one does not steal, cheat, harm or kill others who also live there. Because, if you did, there'd be severe consequences, enforced by the favela bosses. Now that the drug lords are hiding or gone (usually operating from other locations but maintaining the same flow of trade and distribution), bad actors can do what they please without reprimand from their own community.
Anyways, I don't see much happening with favelas, aside from more growth, in the next 5-10 years.
Do you think it's desirable to get rid of the favelas, or people who live there (some of which moved specifically there) prefer to have this "free society"?
That's what I want to know about. Is it something to be preserved, or is it something no one really wants but is forced to live in?
That's definitely a good question, and a hard one. No one there due to having a low socio-economic status wants to live there but they can't afford other places that would give them the same access to work (and even leisure). Location-wise, it's extremely practical to live in a favela (and it's interesting that in California, for example, the rich people generally live on the hills, whereas that's not the case in Rio).
There are several prime cases of favela removal in Rio (Pinto, Catacumba, Esqueleto) in and around the 1960s and 70s. The residents were removed to City of God, and some run-down areas near the international airport (Complexo do Maré, etc). Also, in the first few years of the 20th century, there was a large mandate to destroy and remove favelas in downtown Rio (called the "bota-abaixo") which did beautify these areas, allowed for sanitary services to be installed, etc. Most of these residents just moved to other places like Rocinha and Vidigal on the other side of the city. So, even if they're "removed", they end up equally poor in a less desirable (to them) location in the same city.
At this point, as it has been for a long time, favelas are just part of Brazilian life and they've grown to have their own culture, social norms, vocabulary, etc. So, if favelas are to be done away with, it will have to be done with sufficient resources, extreme care and to the liking (can't think of a better word) of the residents themselves.
While they live in favelas, they want dignity, respect, and access to basic services (ex, Rocinha has an open sewer at the bottom of the hill). So these things will have to exist where they end up living, and during the transfer process.
What slightly worries me are recent efforts like those of Google and Microsoft [1] in some of Rio's favelas where these tech giants have the population do the work for them, via local NGOs and community associations, in order to later serve advertisements.
There's a quote that basically says that "only intellectuals are interested in poverty; the poor, however, just want to consume." One problem I saw firsthand just after the favela pacification process in Rio was how many services and businesses were entering these areas, hungry for new clientele while getting them all used to the idea of credit (and, later, debt). Not to mention, the government coming in with the offer of national IDs (read: "the better to start taxing you with!")
Slum politics and culture are never simple to explain as there are always many ways to effectively discuss them.
1 - http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/09/google-and-microsoft-put...