Reply

Introduction

In his commentary regarding my 2018 article for Planning Theory ‘Asking “Third World questions” of First World informality: Using Southern theory to parse needs from desires in an analysis of informal urbanism of the global North’, Francesco Chiodelli argues that the framework for analysing informality presented there within, which attempts to separate informal practices born of ‘desire’ from those born of ‘need’, must be pushed further in order to adequately serve as a useful tool for evaluating informal practices. Chiodelli points specifically to the case of informal housing in Italy as an example that has the potential to stretch the need/desire framework beyond its explanatory and evaluative capacity. He argues that in moving beyond the need/desire dichotomy, future work must wrestle more with the grey area that exists between the two categories, both in empirical/descriptive and in normative/evaluative terms.

In my response to Chiodelli’s commentary, I want to make two main points. The first is to reiterate and clarify the underlying purpose of the initial article, which was intended as a first cut into what I argued had become a unhelpfully muddled discourse about informality in planning circles of the global North (particularly the United States). While this first cut was made with an admittedly blunt tool, I argue that the purpose of this initial exercise still holds. There is a need for planners to make normative and analytical distinctions between ‘elite’ informalities of convenience and informal practices that fulfil basic needs. Clear understandings of motivation, purpose and the levels of vulnerability of informal actors can and should drive policy decisions about enforcement, tolerance and/or processes of upgrading and formalisation. That being said, any binary analytical tool will inevitably be reductive and obfuscate nuance. Which brings me to the second point. The analytical intervention undertaken in the 2018 article should not be the last word on evaluating informal practice. I therefore welcome and largely agree with Chiodelli’s call in his commentary to enrich the study of informality with more place specific, nuanced and grounded theory building.

On the continued importance of analytical and normative distinctions in evaluating informality

One positive development in the study of informality over the last few decades has been the decoupling of the concept with poverty. By the early 21st century scholars such as Roy (2003, 2009), Yiftachel (2009) and Shatkin (2004), McFarlane (2012) and others were focusing attention on how the state and other elite actors use informality both as a method of governance and of urban production. In much urban scholarship today, the informal is no longer viewed purely as a condition of deficit or lack. Rather, the study of informality is fundamentally the study of a zone of flexibility that exists outside of formal legal, political or economic structures, a zone that can be manipulated and utilized to various extents and to various ends by a plethora of actors, from government officials to recent urban migrants. U.S.-based scholars in planning and urban studies have invoked the term ‘informal’ to describe everything from unpermitted settlements (Ward, 2004) and unlicensed street vending (Devlin, 2011) to decision making strategies of government officials (Innes et al., 2007). As I argue in the 2018 Planning Theory paper, while this blossoming of informality studies in the North and particularly in the U.S. is welcome, the pervasive use of the concept of informality required some conceptual clarity and boundary defining.

I was particularly concerned with the uncritical lens being applied to the study of informality ‘from above’ in the U.S. and broader global North. Unlike some more nuanced work, like that of Chiodelli et al. (2021) and his Italian compatriots where informality of the state is analysed rigorously, much work gaining traction in U.S. planning circles treated this type informality as a new planning ‘hack’; a way to ‘disrupt’ ponderous bureaucracy and plan more efficiently and directly. Approaches like Tactical Urbanism (Lydon and Garcia, 2015; Silva, 2016, Wohl, 2018) view the realm of informality as a tool for planners and urban professionals (in both in the public and private realm) to harness rather than as a widening zone of extra-bureaucratic practice on the part of a variety of social actors that presents both opportunities and perils. Perhaps even more frustrating was that the growing fetishisation of flexibility and rule breaking in professional planning practice was coming at the same time as continued crackdowns on rule-breaking and informal practice of lower income urban residents many of them immigrants and people of color. ¹

For people living at the margins, informal practices are simultaneously critical for meeting needs and the source of deep uncertainty and potential peril. The conditions of informality experienced by a city’s most vulnerable residents is fundamentally different from those experienced by groups who turn to informal practices primarily for convenience, recreation or disposable (rather than primary) income. And while there should always be room for parsing and hair-splitting when it comes to categorical conceptualisations of complex reality, I continue to insist that the informality of need should be marked off for particular attention by planners. At the end of the day, needs expressed through practice should be viewed by planning scholars and practitioners as a form of planning from below, a kind of communication by doing undertaken by urban residents who are often excluded from ‘invited spaces of citizenship’ (Miraftab, 2009). It is through informalities of need that otherwise marginalized residents show urban professionals what they need the city to be and to become.

Pushing beyond binaries and exploring conceptual grey space

This brings me to my second point. While I stand by the importance of intervening in what had been a muddled literature, and staking out some specific ground for the study of informalities of need, I fully accept and agree with Chiodelli’s calls to push this conceptualisation further. The need/desire binary is admittedly (and in my mind necessarily) bluntly constructed. It was meant as a first cut, rather than a be all end all of conceptual exercises. For this reason I welcome Chiodelli’s commentary and commend the excellent work being done by him and others to push these categories further. The phenomenon of informality defies grand, all-encompassing theorisations. Its manifestations, born as they are of situated specificities in urban practice, governance and economies, require grounded research, even as work that sketches out broad conceptual outlines can serve as helpful signposts for this work.

I also recognize that there is often plenty of grey space between the hard lines of need and desire, and that this grey space is important to explore. Take, for instance, the case of informal housing in New York City. Informal residential units are very common in New York, a city beset with astronomical housing costs. Residents of all types, whether they be college students, artists, recent immigrants or wealthy real estate speculators, participate in various forms of the illegal housing market – that is renting out or living in units that do not conform to Department of Buildings rules, zoning ordinances and/or the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law. One of the purposes of drawing lines between ‘need’ and ‘desire’ was to set up distinctions to help guide planners and public administrators when addressing informal practice. For instance, in the case of informal practices undertaken by higher income residents for convenience or extra income, such as illegally renting out luxury apartments as permanent Airbnb units, I would argue there is less of an imperative for conciliatory administrative approaches. The negative externalities of this informal practice (taking units off the rental market, constant turnover of guests in residential buildings, noise and nuisance) outweighed the limited social benefit derived from the practice. On the other hand, the example of an illegally subdivided unit housing new immigrants with few housing options requires more careful approaches on the part of city administrators. Despite the serious negative externalities (fire safety, overcrowding), this practice nevertheless serves as one of the few housing options for the lowest income New Yorkers. Therefore, the needs being expressed in this example should be taken seriously, and overtures towards gradual compliance or reconciling the most dangerous factors of the living situation may be more appropriate wholesale crackdowns.

But the differences between need and desire are of course not always so clear. Take for instance the example of informal basements apartments in parts of Queens or Brooklyn. In working class immigrant neighbourhoods with large stocks of single family homes, basement apartments are pervasive. Despite the fact that basement apartments violate building and zoning codes, working class immigrant homeowners often rely on income they receive to from renting out basements to afford mortgage payments. The practice is so common that anticipated rental income from basement apartments is often included as part of the financial analysis performed by lenders and real estate brokers in these communities. Now, this certainly straddles a line between ‘need’ and ‘desire’. To call the practice of renting basements purely a practice of need would be stretching the conceptual boundaries of the category. But it also is not clearly a practice born solely of desire. What we have here is an example of an informal practice that can be understood as existing in a grey area between the poles laid out by my 2018 paper. To fully understand this phenomenon would of course require going beyond simply designating the practice as falling into one or another category. It would require a deep understanding of the interlocking web of processes, from city regulatory practice, to real estate markets norms, and even patterns of immigration and mutual aid (many tenants of basement apartment are co-ethnics of homeowners, often very recent immigrants hailing from the same nation as the owner). But having a guiding ethic that reminds planners to pay attention to needs being expressed by informal actors, even when these needs may be bound up with less critical desires, is a necessary component of an ethical, empathetic and socially responsible planning practice.

To conclude, while I stand by the argument that informalities of need require specific and particular attention by planners, I view the need/desire framework as a jumping off point that can and should be added to, refined and revised when placed against real-world complexities. In the end, I am excited that the 2018 Planning Theory article has sparked discussion and I am grateful to be part of this ongoing dialogue.