Syndicate content

Recent comments

  • Reply to: Success when we deemed it failure? Revisiting sites and services 20 years later   1 week 8 hours ago
    Land was assembled by the govt for the sites. Your instinct is right, though.  Assembly of land often took a long time and this was one of the key reasons why project implementation periods were long.  It is worth noting that even today many state/local govts in India continue to assemble land and allocate it for different uses, such as infrastructure development and housing for low-income families.  Several questions remain, however, regarding the most effective ways of delivering land or housing -- at scale -- in a manner that can also reach lower-income families. This blog and the (forthcoming) paper on which it is based are one contribution to that discussion. Many thanks for your excellent comments! 
  • Reply to: Success when we deemed it failure? Revisiting sites and services 20 years later   1 week 8 hours ago
    Fascinating that Mongolia is using it now.  Many thanks also for sharing project locations and the names of your pioneering colleagues on this blog! We know several, but not all, of the people named.  It would be interesting to have a discussion with all of you, regarding your thoughts on the potential of this approach for managing the forthcoming urban propulation growth. 
  • Reply to: Success when we deemed it failure? Revisiting sites and services 20 years later   1 week 8 hours ago
    100,000 plots have been added through such programs.  Thank you for sharing that!  It would be excellent to document the broader experience in Tamil Nadu, and assess what happened in cities of different sizes.  But, more importantly, it is terrific that CMDA continued to use this approach -- thereby, significantly broadening the impact of the idea.   
  • Reply to: Success when we deemed it failure? Revisiting sites and services 20 years later   1 week 1 day ago

    We fully agree with the findings and views of the Authors of the story.
    I work in CMDA and part of Project Managment Group under TNUDP, that covered 10 towns in Tamilnadu including Chennai where sites and services and slum improvement projects were implemented.
    Arukambakkam probably most researchers and Bank people cited. Thre are many other sites and services scheme, examples of dynamic and diverse community, compact and mixed developmet, one of the best example of affordable housing thro cross subsidy. More than a lakh plots have been added to the housing stock through these schemes. The percentage of people living in slum is comparitively loe in Chennai when compared to similar cities because of these schemes. It is highly unfortunate that thsee schemes are not replicated or continued.
    once again thanks to the Authors

  • Reply to: Success when we deemed it failure? Revisiting sites and services 20 years later   1 week 3 days ago

    As one of the pioneers of Sites and Services (S/S as we called it in the '70s), I was extremely gratified to come across your blog. Having done my dissertation on Chile's national S/S program (Operation Sitio) in the '60s, and subsequently designed and implemented a national WB S/S cum upgrading progam in Tanzania in the '70s, while others such as Richard Martin did so in Zambia and Nairobi, I was happy to see the concept persist in Indonesia (KIP-Kampung Improvement). However, attempts at S/S were overcome in the Philippines due largely to politics and private land ownership in the Marcos era. Along with other pioneers (Jerry Erbach, Roy Brockman (ADB), and others, we're still trying to keep it alive through ger (read yurts) area upgrading in Mongolia...even in -40C weather! FYI, in addition to Bob Buckley, there's some of us still around: Alberto Harth (El Salvador), Alain Bertaud (Bertaud Model), etc. etc....just check out some of the old WB S/S Appraisal documents.
    Thanks so much for documenting the work in India!