Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
08 - City Participatory Planning

08 - City Participatory Planning

Ratings: (0)|Views: 73 |Likes:
Published by architectsforum

More info:

Published by: architectsforum on Jul 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





City Participatory Planning
“Development interventions should try to create space for people to bethe doers, for them to be able to lead the development process with confi-dence. We just need to understand the techniques to unlock this people’senergy and to channel it into a creative new force for city development.” 
Somsook Boonyabancha
ByFor With
I. City-Wide Community Upgrading Movementin Chum Pae Municipality, Khon KaenLocation:
Khon Kean,Thailand
 Architect Team:
Sakkarin Sapu and Community Architect of CODI
(Community Organization Development Institute)
Story Contributor:
Sakkarin Sapu
Although Chum Pae district is only a small town in Khon Kaen prov-ince, it has played an important role in commercial activities as thegateway city between Northern and North-eastern region of Thailand.Both agricultural and manufacturing products are tracked and dis-tributed through Chum Pae city. It might be said that this city never sleeps because of hyper-commercial activities. This is one of pos-sible reasons why labourers and poor people have migrated into thecity for jobs, income, and hopes of a better quality of life.
18 low-income communities and 1,076 households were registeredby means of both official registration and community surveys in 2006.
The registration of these communities triggered the community up-grading process. A community and people driven process wassteered by diverse activities such as mutual learning, interactive com-munications, collaborative tasks, and consensus-building. The firstpilot project was designed through a city-wide meeting; the SawangSang Sri squatter community on-site upgrading project was chosen.Seventy three households which were on public land belonging to theTreasury Department were upgraded, solving both environment andland security problems.The second phase of planning in the urban poor communities target-
ed 7 communities, including Baan Rom Yen (30 households), NhongKanae (43 households), Jang Sawang Patana (45 households), KudChum Pae Pan Raj (57 households), Mankong Patana (60 house
holds), Nong Pai Patana (46 households), and Sri Ram Thong (49
households). These communities were not squatters, but living inrental housing with extended families; consequently, they needed tofind new land for relocation and building their own houses. Followinga participatory land survey, two main groups were formed. On the
one hand, Baan Rom Yen, Nhong Kanae, and Jang Sawang Patanarelocated to public land with 15 year long-term leases. Kud ChumPae Pan Raj, Mankong Patana, Nong Pai Patan, and Sri Ram Thong
settled on private land purchased with a soft loan.Physical and environmental improvement was the primary objectiveof urban poor development in Chum Pae town. Additionally, socialand community capital was encouraged through community savingmechanisms. City programmes, such as socio-occupational welfares
   C   i   t  y   P  a  r   t   i  c   i  p  a   t  o  r  y   P   l  a  n  n   i  n  g
ByFor With
and production collectives, were initiated through the community-driven process. With regard socio-occupational welfare, communitysavings groups were the fundamental mechanisms for saving moneyto encourage the welfare programmes. Each of the savings groupsbelong to a city network, resulting in a dramatic increase in availablecapital. The agglomeration of community capital can directly fundthe socio–occupational programmes.In terms of the production collective, they sought to address the eco-nomic issues which also affect the urban poor. Household savingsand incomes are often insufficient for the poor people. Thus, com-munity organisations considered alternative collective programmessuch as sewing groups, cooking groups, and importantly, farmer groups.
In 2009, eight of the eighteen urban poor communities were steeredtowards the “Baan Mankong” programme or “Secure Housing for thePoor”. Meanwhile, nothing has been changed in the remaining10
communities. As a result, a city committee and the community net-work brainstormed and created a city development fund. This fundconsists of a yearly-municipality subsidy, international support, suchas the ACCA programme, a government budget, and importantly, lo-cal community savings groups. The matching of funds between com-munities and government agencies has been established for urbanpoor housing development purposes.In summary, the urban poor development programme in Chum Pae
city initiated from one pilot project and spread to 7 community re
-location programmes. After that, these organisations were weavedinto the city network, hence combining community capital with citycapital, creating possibilities for affordable alternative welfare pro-grammes. Additionally, city capital can contribute to city develop-ment funding, by matching the funds of the poor.
Community developmet in Chumpae municipality
Mankongpatana Sriramtong
Loan5,896,800bath5 phases= 3,447,360bath
5,353,200 bath5 phases=2,254,928bath
Mankong patana
Loan9,244,000bath2 phases=1,670,760bath
Loan8,812,800 bath9 phases=3,823,200 bath
Loan6,111,000bath6 phases=1,052,500bath
Loan4,348,800bathAchievement=4,348,800 bath
Loan6,534,400bath3 phases=1,965,600 bath
8 projects391Household CODI infrastructure subsidy23,540,000 bath
9,244,000bath2 phases=1,6770,760bath
 C i   t   y  a t  i   c i   p a t   o y l   anni  n g
ByFor With

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->