Options
Research article

Informal housing settlements and code compliance: the case of Santa Marta favela

Authors
  • Debora Verniz orcid logo (Department of Architectural Studies, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA)
  • José P. Duarte orcid logo (Chair in Design Innovation, Director of Stuckeman Center for Design Innovation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA)
  • Mário Márcio Queiroz orcid logo (Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil)

Abstract

This article discusses the impact of building and planning codes on the improvement of affordable housing settlements. It is part of a larger research project that proposes a framework for the planning of affordable housing, based on the model of a type of informal Brazilian settlement, the favela. The purpose of this article is to contribute to the literature that reveals how planning and building codes relate to opportunities for the improvement of affordable housing settlements. The article also demonstrates how alternative assessment tools can provide a more holistic evaluation for a housing settlement, offering suggestions for the general improvement of the neighbourhood. This article considers affordable housing that is produced specifically for low-income families. Its production is subsidised by the Brazilian government and the monthly payment of the loan (or rent, in some rarer cases) cannot be more than 30 per cent of the family’s income. Despite the government’s efforts, the estimated housing shortage in Brazil in 2024 totals 6 million residences. Throughout the twentieth century in Brazil there were numerous efforts by the federal and local governments to address the problem of housing shortage. There were also many attempts to eradicate favelas, which were always seen by the public as places of poverty, misery and criminality. This article analyses how a case study, the Santa Marta favela in Rio de Janeiro, complies with local and building codes. It also uses a qualitative tool for assessing housing quality to evaluate the same case.

Keywords: informal settlements, affordable settlements, code compliance, housing quality evaluation

How to Cite: Verniz, D., Duarte, J. P., Queiroz, M. M. ‘Informal housing settlements and code compliance: the case of Santa Marta favela’. Architecture_MPS 31, 1 (2025): 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2025v31i1.003.

Rights: 2025, Debora Verniz, José P. Duarte and Mário Márcio Queiroz.

Downloads:
Download PDF
View PDF
Download XML

2795 Views

195 Downloads

Published on
25 Jun 2025
Peer Reviewed
License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

Introduction

The housing shortage is a worldwide issue.1 Many countries have been taking initiatives to try to address it. These initiatives reached varied levels of achievement as their success depended on local characteristics, especially those related to their level of governance, besides social and economic structures.2

In the Introduction, we briefly comment on the conditions for housing in Portugal, Colombia, the UK and Brazil. The directives (programmes, policies and legislation) that address the housing shortage in such a diverse cultural and economic context need to consider the different systems involved in housing production, including the housing market and the urban and architectural quality of the housing units.

Even though the examples introduced here are important in their own national context of housing production, those countries have very different economic conditions and consequently the quality of these housing projects are also very different. It is important to add that the concept of ‘quality’ is difficult to define and that we will address this later in the article. In this context, the examples from Portugal – the Local Support Ambulatory Service (Serviço de Apoio e Ambulatório Local [SAAL]) – and from Colombia – the Comprehensive Urban Plan (Plano Urbano Integral [PUI]) – aim to address the coexistence of diverse urban spaces dedicated to users from different social classes, bringing social cohesion into the urban space of those places.

In the UK, the interaction of settlements containing the various social strata has been a condition for urban planning. Consequently, the housing programmes designed for low-income residents are already integrated within urban spaces. It is important to remember that England was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century; the socio-spatial deterioration shaped by the economic transformation imposed on the city of Manchester is discussed in the work The Condition of the Working Class in England, by Friedrich Engels.

In Brazil, where several housing programmes have been launched since the last century,3 it is estimated that the housing shortage is about 6 million residences. The most recent programme, called ‘My House, My Life’ (Minha Casa, Minha Vida), is unable to place housing production in well-established urban areas that are equipped with facilities and infrastructure to serve the population. The case study presented in this article illustrates the omission and inefficiency of planning actions in slum communities in Brazil, and particularly in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which already has 1,100 informal settlements housing 2.2 million inhabitants, which is 26.7 per cent of the population of the city4 and whose functional urban condition has become spatially segregated, with differentiated access allocated to residents, militiamen and drug traffickers who impose differentiated results for the urban and construction quality of the real estate stock produced.

Based on the examples mentioned above, we can affirm that urban spaces in cities around the world need better planning before the land is settled. Although several legal instruments are applied to each specific example, it is clear there is a need to control the socio-spatial conditions for the expansion of urban areas, thus avoiding land speculation. Researchers have proposed different ways of assessing and quantifying the quality of the urban space for housing. ‘Urbanism for affordable housing: Management and policy for affordable housing areas in Brazil and Portugal’ by Mário Márcio Queiroz5 enumerates the principal points to consider when planning for housing areas, including the presence of urban, mobility and accessibility qualities related to the urban areas. Similarly, the Housing Quality Evaluation Method (Avaliação da Qualidade Arquitectónica Habitacional [QUARQ]), by Portuguese architect and researcher João Branco Pedro,6 presents a comprehensive study of key characteristics of the built environment that are important for housing. While Queiroz’s work is focused on the larger urban scale and how the housing area may interconnect with other areas of the city, Pedro’s work is more focused on the micro context, with three scales by which one can evaluate the quality of housing: the room, the housing unit and the small neighbourhood.

Background

Informal settlements are a modern phenomenon linked to the housing shortages and the rapid growth of cities that were first identified in the mid-nineteenth century in countries in Europe, America and Asia. The characterisation of these settlements varies worldwide, but one main trait is that these places present informality (or illegality) relating to one of the following: the building, the land, the type of use or compliance with a local or national code. They are the population’s answer to an unmet need for housing in urban areas. In Brazil, the first informal settlements, also called favelas, emerged at the end of the nineteenth century and expanded exponentially during the twentieth century.

Favelas emerged in the larger Brazilian cities at a time when there was a lack of public policies to provide affordable housing and the rural exodus intensified. It was only in the 1930s that the public sector started funding the production of affordable housing while also allowing the removal of existing favelas.7 Despite numerous attempts to eradicate favelas during the twentieth century, they grew exponentially in size and number. The latest Brazilian census estimated that in 2022 there were 12,348 favelas, with 16.4 million people living in them.8 In Rio de Janeiro, the second-largest Brazilian city, 1.3 million people live in favelas. It is important to mention that this is not an isolated phenomenon. The number of people living in slum formations in the world increased between 2020 and 2022, which is a reversal of the decreasing trend observed from 2000 to 2020. It is estimated that around 1.12 billion people are currently living in slums, that is 24.8 per cent of the world population.9 The housing crisis is one of the main factors driving up the numbers related to slum formation. The way to improve the conditions for housing offer is by offering diverse and flexible options, quality public transportation and the availability of basic services that meet the needs of residents.10

With time, the word favela became synonymous with poverty and misery, a ‘place for outlaws’.11 It was only in the 1960s that public opinion about favelas started to change. In the 1980s, there was a national movement for urban reform that aimed to improve opportunities for housing and the living conditions in urban areas of Brazil.12 Following that movement, a series of legislation became effective. The most important legal action was the recognition that the land has a social function in Brazilian society. The Brazilian constitution of 1988 predicted that unproductive land could be redistributed to those in need.13 The same constitution also instituted the master plan, a legal tool that cities should develop and approve for their urban development. These changes were important as they represented a change in how public power dealt with informal settlements.

In Brazil, planning and building codes are approved and reinforced at the municipal level. Although there are national recommendations on building, requirements for the industry (like the work done internationally by the International Organization for Standardization [ISO]), they are only minimally incorporated in local codes. These codes determine the minimum acceptable dimensions for attributes like building openings for ventilation, construction setbacks, street width and maximum block length. Together with the municipal master plan, they determine the general urban features that different areas of the city should present.

The case study addressed in this article is located in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The city’s master plan was first approved in 1991 and was reviewed twice, in 2011 and 2021. The revisions were collaborative,14 taking into consideration suggestions from the community. While there was a committee responsible for the revision, the municipal power would hold public meetings where the residents could attend, discuss, suggest and vote on specific topics in the document. The master plan reserved areas within the city intended for affordable housing, including favelas. These areas are considered special areas of social interest (SASIs).15 Each area of favela that is considered a SASI then receives a specific piece of legislation regarding its land use and building code, given that those areas present very specific characteristics.

In other areas of the city that are not considered SASIs, all new constructions and building renovations, as well as land developments, should comply with the local codes by having their design approved by the municipal administration before the construction phase starts. Though they are necessary, rigid, unreasonable and outdated codes can make buildings and developments unaffordable for low-income residents as meeting these codes often increases construction costs and leads to very low-density indexes, hampering the complete development of the land.16 Historically, low-density indexes have been used in Brazil to discourage rural exodus.17 However, density control and higher housing costs limit the quantity of housing offered by the formal sector (the one operating within legal regulations) and encourage slum formation.18 In the same way, building codes that specify minimum dimensions for interior rooms and common areas foment the consumption of more material and land, which also increases housing costs.

Research conducted in India has shown that reviewing planning and building codes without lowering the quality or safety of construction can reduce house construction costs by 12.7 per cent and decrease land consumption by 42.86 per cent.19 It is important to mention that both India and Brazil use similar construction techniques, the most common being the use of reinforced concrete for structures and brick and mortar for vertical walls. Such a rationalisation offers a better alternative to the current Brazilian paradigm for lowering housing construction costs, which is building housing on the urban periphery20 and using poor-quality construction materials.21 These practices, though they reduce the final cost of housing, generate other costs for the municipality, which needs to expand its urban infrastructure, and for residents, who spend money and time on daily commutes.22 Residents also have additional future costs due to house maintenance and having to replace those poor-quality materials.23

In summary, although planning and building codes are established with the best of intentions, they need some flexibility to facilitate the production of affordable housing.24 The master plan is a powerful instrument in this context. It can determine the zoning of the city, where different areas comply with different codes.25 In fact, the city of Rio de Janeiro already has a tool in its master plan to designate special zones within the city that may be subject to specific legislation. The plan considers areas for affordable housing to be SASIs and each area is under specific and individual urban and building codes.26 By law, the master plan should be reviewed every 10 years.27 The reality, however, is different as these revisions are costly and depend on the interest of the politicians that are in office.

Materials and methods

The research presented in this article is divided into three main steps:

  1. (1)

    data collection: physical survey of the case study, local building and planning codes and an alternative housing assessment method

  2. (2)

    assessment results: comparison of the physical aspects of the case study with the planning codes, as well as using a more holistic evaluation tool to assess the case study

  3. (3)

    conclusions.

We performed three physical surveys on the case study. At the time this research was developed, there was no official map of the Santa Marta favela. During those surveys we collected topographic charts of the area, an unofficial map of the settlement created by a non-governmental organisation. After we gathered all that information, we compiled a map of the case study with updated measurements of buildings from the physical survey, when we performed physical measurements on site and collected pictures and videos.

We consulted the current legislation that was applicable to the case study, including the special legislation for the SASIs in the Santa Marta favela and the local codes for planning and building. Then, we analysed how the Santa Marta favela complies with those codes.

Additionally, we analysed the case study using the QUARQ proposed by Pedro.28 The method evaluates the architectural quality of housing settlements with four independent levels of evaluation: room; dwelling unit; building; and neighbourhood. Due to the scale of this research, we only considered the neighbourhood level. The computer implementation of QUARQ has an interface that works in Microsoft Access’s environment and it foresees the assignment of quantitative values that correspond to different evaluation criteria. The user inputs information into the interface and the software calculates the final score of the neighbourhood. At the end, one can get a detailed description of the score on all criteria, as well as a report with recommendations to improve characteristics with a low score.

Data collection

The authors performed a physical survey on the Santa Marta favela and a literature review to collect information on requirements in local planning and building codes. The Santa Marta favela is one of the oldest informal settlements in Rio de Janeiro and it is next to one of the richest areas of the city.29 The settlement is an example of how informal settlements coexist within the formal city, providing the residents with access to urban amenities and avoiding long commutes. The Santa Marta favela is located on the slope of Dona Marta Hill. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the settlement.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Aerial view of Santa Marta favela (Source: Adapted from Google Maps) 

The physical survey was carried out during three visits to the settlement. In this survey, data about the slope and its relationship with urban morphology was collected. Building typologies and other physical characteristics of the case study were also recorded through standard, wide-angle and 360-degree images and videos, while an analogue topographic chart of the site was obtained from the town hall. With this data, an updated map of the settlement, to scale, was generated (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Figure 2

Map of Santa Marta favela (Source: Debora Verniz and José P. Duarte) 

Legislation

Santa Marta favela is under its own building and land parcel code, the Legislation for the SASI in the Santa Marta Favela,30 which divides the settlement into subzones and defines building requirements for each of them. The legislation on land use also indicates areas that are unsuitable for construction in Santa Marta. Overall, most of the settlement is considered inadequate and the areas that are deemed suitable for construction are already occupied by buildings.

The code divides the settlement into three subzones (Figure 3): subzone A (red), which is considered a high-risk area that is unsuitable for construction; subzone B (blue), where building height is limited to two floors; and subzone C (yellow), where building height is limited to three floors. The code only permits the construction of new buildings if they are initiated by and under the responsibility of the public power and/or designated for relocating residents from one area of the settlement to another.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Santa Marta favela subzones (Source: Debora Verniz and José P. Duarte) 

Because this legislation is restrictive to the point of forbidding any new construction in the favela, without giving any information about code compliance, we also analysed Santa Marta using the general building and planning codes, the Municipal Law for Urban Land Parcelling and the Municipal Building Code, to have an idea about how the favela would comply with those general codes.

The Municipal Law for Urban Land Parcelling31 sets the requirements for land parcels in the city. It also divides the city into zones, determining which activities should prevail in each area. The requirements that are applicable to Santa Marta favela are:

  1. (1)

    Minimum street width: local streets must have at least two lanes in opposite directions. Each lane should measure a minimum of 3 metres and the sidewalk must be at least 2.5 metres wide

  2. (2)

    Maximum street inclination: the preferred maximum inclination for streets is 6 per cent. However, sections of 100 metres or less can have an inclination of 8 per cent. For special cases with steep inclines, progressive inclination is accepted, alternating between 25 and 15 per cent, for no longer than 100 metres

  3. (3)

    Maximum block length: a city block should have a maximum length of 200 metres

  4. (4)

    Minimum lot size: a plot should have a minimum area of 125 square metres, with a minimum front alignment of five metres.

The Municipal Building Code32 specifies minimum requirements for buildings regarding windows for access to daylight and natural ventilation, internal circulation width and room dimensions, among other features. However, for affordable housing, the code permits requirements lower than those that are regulated by specific legislation governing buildings for such purposes. In the case of Santa Marta favela, these lower requirements should have been specified in the Legislation for the SASI in the Santa Marta Favela. The only requirement applicable to Santa Marta in the Municipal Building Code is the minimum plot setback: the building code specifies a minimum setback of 1.5 metres for lateral and back limits and a frontal setback of 5 metres, excluding garages, ramps and other elements needed for access.

Housing quality assessment

To perform the evaluation of a neighbourhood, the user needs to enter data related to the case to be evaluated. The Microsoft Access platform (Figure 4) assigns quantitative values to the information about the case.

Figure 4
Figure 4

QUARQ interface. Right: original image. Left: (informal) translation (Source: Debora Verniz and José P. Duarte) 

In Figure 4, on the left we have a (informal) translated version of the initial interface of the software. With the first option, Data, the user enters the data about the case to be evaluated. Some examples of required data for the small neighbourhood scale include queries about the number of units, the neighbourhood area and the total number of parking spaces. More specific questions are related to, for example, the views of the area, the presence of trash bins or foul smells, the presence of urban furnishing, parks and open spaces and so on. With the second option, Indicators, the user can change the scale of the case to be evaluated. The options for scale are the room, the housing unit and the small neighbourhood. The third option, Evaluation, is where the user can see the results of the assessment of the case and print reports. As the user enters different data, changes the scale of evaluation or has more refined and specific data, these results change automatically. The last option, Close, is to exit the software.

The final score is a weighted average of those quantitative values, ranging from 0 to 3, divided into four different levels: optimum, recommended, minimum and unsatisfactory. Table 1 shows the scores’ levels and the criteria that are used to evaluate a case at a small neighbourhood scale.

Table 1

Levels of evaluation, criteria and subcriteria of QUARQ33 

Level Score
2.51–3.00 Optimum: it fully satisfies the daily needs of the residents and the permanent use of space by people with disabilities
1.51–2.50 Recommended: it allows different uses and the eventual use of spaces by people with disabilities
0.51–1.50 Minimum: it satisfies the daily needs of the residents minimally
Below 0.50 Unsatisfactory
Criterion Subcriteria
Articulation Accessibility and privacy
Personalisation Appropriation and adaptability
Pleasantness Environmental comfort
Safety Daily use and protection against robbery
Spatial adequacy Capacity and spaciousness

QUARQ includes four levels of score and the result is a weighted average of the different data entered in the system. The highest score (2.51–3.00) is called ‘optimum’ and the criterion with this score fully satisfies the requirements of daily living, also offering accessible spaces that need minimum to no adaptation for wheelchair use. A good example would be regarding open areas: an optimum score would mean that, besides offering them, the neighbourhood would also have different accessible attractions for different age groups, besides fully and well-maintained urban furnishing. The next score (1.51–2.50), ‘recommended’, indicates that the criterion offers options for some of the needs of the residents. Using the same previous example, a recommended level for open areas would mean that the neighbourhood may offer quality spaces but that they are only minimally furnished or offer amenities that contemplate some of the different demographics but not all. The lower score (0.51–1.50), ‘minimum’, indicates that the criterion being evaluated addresses the minimum needs of living at the level evaluated, and does not have any safety concerns. Considering the same example for open areas, a minimum level would mean that the neighbourhood offers, or may not offer, them but these areas would not have many attractions for the different demographics or may even be lacking urban furnishing such as benches.

The criteria considered in the evaluation of Santa Marta at the neighbourhood scale were articulation, personalisation, pleasantness, safety and spatial adequacy. Articulation is divided into accessibility and privacy. Accessibility is evaluated considering the distance between houses and exterior areas (pen areas, services, commerce and so on) and through several Boolean statements. Privacy is evaluated considering the settlement’s configuration and its ability to preserve the privacy of its residents. This category is also evaluated considering the distance between houses and exterior areas (pen areas, services, commerce and so on). A reference table specifies the ideal distances and the score considers the deviation between ideal and measured distances.

Personalisation is divided into appropriation and adaptability. Appropriation is evaluated considering how integrated natural and urban elements are in the neighbourhood, as well as the possibility of residents intervening in the settlement’s open spaces. Adaptability is evaluated considering the diversity of building typologies and uses in the settlement.

Pleasantness is related to standards of environmental comfort. This category is divided into visual comfort, air quality and hygrothermal comfort. Visual comfort is related to buildings being exposed to sunlight and having visual control over unpleasant views in favour of pleasurable views towards natural or urban landscapes. Air quality is related to the protection of open spaces from dominant winds, the avoidance of wind tunnel effects and the non-exposition of spaces to foul smells. Hygrothermal comfort is related to the protection of its residents from extreme temperature and humidity.

Safety is subdivided into safety in daily use and protection against robbery. Safety in daily use is related to avoiding the occurrence of accidents during the daily use of the settlement’s equipment. Protection against robbery is related to how the settlement offers an environment that promotes the protection of people and goods against robbery.

Spatial adequacy is subdivided into capacity and spaciousness. Capacity analyses the availability of urban furnishing and the existence of open/leisure areas for residents and visitors. Spaciousness is measured by the interrelation between different density indexes and it can be influenced by the way buildings are placed and shaped, how open spaces are dimensioned and how the parking lots are dimensioned and placed.

Results

In the previous section, we presented the codes and assessment tools that we used to evaluate our case, the Santa Marta favela. In this section, we show these assessment results. We start with the Specific Legislation for the SASI, which would be the main (and only) code that regulates the settlement. However, this code only forbids new construction in the area and does nothing related to accessing the quality of the space. Then, we try to evaluate the case with the standard codes for building and urban parcelling, namely the Municipal Law for Urban Land Parcelling and the Municipal Building Code. These codes are also very generic, establishing minimum distancing between buildings, the maximum width of a block and so on. By evaluating the case with QUARQ, we have a more specific set of results and are able to identify exactly the characteristics that need improvement.

Specific Legislation for the SASI

Although the code specifies maximum heights in each subzone, this is only applicable to new constructions. The most problematic aspect of this code is that it forbids new constructions unless they are under the initiative of the public power. This code is unrealistic as the great majority of buildings in favelas are self-constructed.

Municipal Law for Urban Land Parcelling

The Municipal Law for Urban Land Parcelling sets the requirements for land parcels in the city. It also divides the city into zones, determining which activities should prevail in each area. Table 2 shows the requirements that are applicable to the case study, what the code states and how the case study complies (or not) with them.

Table 2

Code compliance of Santa Marta favela for the Municipal Law for Urban Land Parcelling 

Code Santa Marta favela Compliance
Minimum street width 3 m/lane 2.5 m/pavement N/A N/A
Maximum street inclination 6% (8% if less than 100 m long) Up to 15% N
Maximum block length 200 m 78.7 m Y
Minimum lot size 125 m2, 5 m for front alignment One out of 1,069 buildings comply Partially

The Municipal Building Code specifies minimum requirements for buildings regarding windows for access to daylight and natural ventilation, internal circulation width and room dimensions, among other features. However, for affordable housing, the code permits requirements lower than those that are regulated by specific legislation governing buildings for such purposes. In the case of Santa Marta favela, these lower requirements should have been specified in the Legislation for the SASI in the Santa Marta Favela. The only requirement applicable to Santa Marta in the Municipal Building Code is the minimum plot setback: the building code specifies a minimum setback of 1.5 metres for lateral and back limits and a frontal setback of five metres, excluding garages, ramps and other elements needed for access.

Municipal Building Code

The Municipal Building Code specifies minimum requirements for buildings regarding windows for access to daylight and natural ventilation and internal circulation width and room dimensions, among other features. The only requirement from the Municipal Building Code that could be applied to Santa Marta in the Municipal Building Code is the minimum plot setback. Table 3 shows the code compliance with that requirement.

Table 3

Code compliance of Santa Marta favela with the Municipal Building Code 

Code Santa Marta favela Compliance
Minimum plot set back 1.5 m lateral, 5 m back 25 buildings comply Partially

Realistically, Santa Marta favela does not have plot division. To take these measurements, we opened our map with the Rhinoceros 3D software and performed the analysis using the Grasshopper3D plug in. Figure 5 shows the case study. Buildings in magenta would meet the minimum requirements for lateral and back distances; buildings in green would meet the minimum front distance requirements; and buildings in cyan would meet all the distance requirements. In blue are the buildings that would meet the setback specifications for lateral and back borders, if the limit were lowered from 1.5 metres to 1 metre.

Figure 5
Figure 5

Detail of Santa Marta favela (Source: Debora Verniz and José P. Duarte) 

Housing quality assessment – QUARQ

Table 4 shows a summary of the QUARQ evaluation, including categories, their respective scores and the quality level they reached.

Table 4

QUARQ evaluation of Santa Marta 

Category Score Quality level
Articulation 1.25 Minimum
Personalisation 2.87 Optimum
Pleasantness 1.20 Minimum
Safety 1.51 Recommended
Spatial adequacy 0.91 Minimum

Santa Marta scored an average of 1.25 (minimum) on articulation. Recommendations for improving the settlement include suggestions for having more homogeneous pathways, with fully connected network; proper stairways dimensioning; available outside shelter from bad weather over the circulation network; and better parking availability, including accessible spaces.

Santa Marta scored an average of 2.87 (optimum) on personalisation. Because this category received a score close to the maximum (3.00), the report did not make suggestions for improvement.

The score for pleasantness in Santa Marta is 1.20 (minimum). The report containing recommendations for improving the settlement includes suggestions for on offering options for protecting open areas against severe weather (rainstorms and wind) and that shield users from unpleasant views (of landfills) and foul smells in open areas.

Santa Marta scored an average of 1.51 (recommended) on safety. The report featuring recommendations for improving the settlement includes suggestions on restricting the slope on pathways; avoiding stairways with less than three steps; and offering sturdy handrails or fences on ramps and stairways.

Santa Marta scored an average of 0.94 (minimum) on spatial adequacy. The report with recommendations for improving the settlement identifies the need for more urban furnishing (benches, rubbish bins, picnic tables and so on) and offering space for public parking.

Discussion

This article presented an analysis of the favela of Santa Marta using current legislation to show how the settlement does not comply with existing legislation and how restrictive that legislation is. This can be seen by how the Special Legislation for the SASI does not address minimum or maximum requirements for Santa Marta favela, instead forbidding any new private construction. The fact that it allows the public sector to build on the area indicates that the prohibitive rules are more an instrument of control than a safety concern (for example). However, the legislation in force foresees SASIs, which should be regulated by specific codes. Santa Marta is classified as one of these areas and its specific regulation is from a 2009 decree. However, this decree is rather restrictive, only regulating some of the existing buildings in the settlement and not allowing any new construction in the area. Because the 2009 decree was so restrictive and did not specify any type of requirements for the case study, we also compared the Santa Marta favela with the local codes.

From the Municipal Building Code, the only specification that applies to Santa Marta was the minimum limits of setbacks within the plot. The existing buildings in Santa Marta were analysed, showing that only a small number of buildings comply with these restrictions. It was also shown that, even if the limits were lowered, only a small number of buildings would comply.

The Municipal Law for Urban Land Parcelling regulates land development within the city. The specifications in this law that apply to Santa Marta are the minimum width for streets, the maximum inclination for streets, the maximum block length and the minimum lot size. The dimensions of all the blocks in Santa Marta are lower than the allowed maximum block length, which is not surprising considering that circulation was created for pedestrians. However, only a small part of the settlement complies with the other specifications of this law.

Using a housing quality method to assess the Santa Marta favela allowed a more sensitive analysis of the characteristics of the settlement, to identify those that really needed improvement. Using the QUARQ methodology, it was possible to assess the quality level of Santa Marta and identify the physical characteristics in the settlement that needed improvement. By following a more flexible and holistic approach, it is possible to find positive qualities in the settlement and pinpoint the physical characteristics that need to be improved.

Although Santa Marta does not comply with the current construction law, it obtained a positive score with the QUARQ housing quality evaluation, reaching at least the minimum level in all five criteria considered. Rather than simply determining whether certain characteristics complied with the legislation, the QUARQ method enabled a more comprehensive analysis of the settlement, considering very specific and rigorous criteria. This methodology allowed for the identification of the built characteristics of the settlement that needed improvement.

Conclusion

Local planning requirements are important to determine the overall urban characteristics of a city. However, they should not hinder urban development. Informal settlements, like favelas, are the materialisation of an unmet need for housing. The bigger proof that they are financially sustainable is that some of these settlements have existed for over a century. Although these settlements do not present ideal urban conditions, deeming them illegal and potentially subject to demolition is a rather drastic measure. A much more suitable approach would be to create less restrictive legislation that would allow for upgrading interventions on such existing settlements.

The need for more flexible planning and building codes is latent. A participatory endeavour, where residents have the chance to voice their issues and concerns, could help to add flexibility to those codes. These flexible codes would allow the construction of more affordable settlements than those permitted by the actual legislation by giving access to housing within the city limits to the underprivileged population, thus guaranteeing their right to the city. As construction technologies advance and different ways of living become common, these codes need to be reviewed to accommodate the changes.

Future work includes using the results and recommendations from the QUARQ evaluation of the Santa Marta favela to develop a framework for planning affordable housing. We will address the negative points identified by the QUARQ evaluation and its recommendations for improvement.

Notes

  1. Davis, Planet of Slums. ⮭
  2. Ministério das Cidades, ‘O que é habitação de interesse social?’ ⮭
  3. Bonduki, ‘Origens da habitação social no Brasil’. ⮭
  4. United Nations Human Settlements Program, Practical Guide; Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, Censo Brasileiro de 2022; Ministério das Cidades, ‘O que é habitação de interesse social?’ ⮭
  5. Queiroz, Urbanismo Social Para Habitação Popular. ⮭
  6. Pedro, ‘QUARQ’; Pedro, Programa Habitacional; Pedro, ‘Definição e Avaliação da Qualidade Arquitectónica Habitacional’. ⮭
  7. Soares, De Oliveira and Sampaio, ‘Rocinha’; Compans, ‘A cidade contra a favela’; Bonduki, ‘Origens da habitação social no Brasil’; Compans, ‘A cidade contra a favela’. ⮭
  8. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, Favelas e Comunidades Urbanas. ⮭
  9. United Nations, The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. ⮭
  10. United Nations, The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. ⮭
  11. Valladares, ‘A gênese da favela carioca’. ⮭
  12. Lefevbre, Writings on Cities; Prefeitura de São Paulo, Direito à Cidade. ⮭
  13. Brasil, Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil; Compans, ‘A cidade contra a favela’; Prefeitura de São Paulo, Direito à Cidade. ⮭
  14. Ultramari and Silva, ‘Planos Diretores em linha do tempo’. ⮭
  15. Brasil, Lei n° 6766, de 19 de dezembro de 1979. Dispõe sobre o parcelamento do solo urbano e dá outras providências (Law n° 6766, from 19 December 1979. It Gives Characteristics of Urban Land Parcelling as well as Other Specifications); Poder Executivo da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro, Lei Complementar 16. ⮭
  16. Patel, Byahut and Bhatha, ‘Building regulations’. ⮭
  17. Patel, Byahut and Bhatha, ‘Building regulations’; Salingaros et al., ‘Favelas and social housing’. ⮭
  18. Lall, Wang and Mata, Do Urban Regulations Influence Slum Formation? ⮭
  19. Patel, Byahut and Bhatha, ‘Building regulations’; Cherian et al., ‘Comparative study of embodied energy’. ⮭
  20. Bonduki, ‘Origens da habitação social no Brasil’. ⮭
  21. Ferreira, ‘Autoconstrução e autogestão habitacional no Brasil’. ⮭
  22. Patel, Byahut and Bhatha, ‘Building regulations’; Salingaros et al., ‘Favelas and social housing’. ⮭
  23. Ferreira, ‘Autoconstrução e autogestão habitacional no Brasil’. ⮭
  24. Patel, Byahut and Bhatha, ‘Building regulations’. ⮭
  25. Lall, Wang and Mata, Do Urban Regulations Influence Slum Formation? ⮭
  26. Poder Executivo da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro, Lei Complementar 16. ⮭
  27. Brasil, Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. ⮭
  28. Pedro, ‘QUARQ’; Pedro, Programa Habitacional; Pedro, ‘Definição e Avaliação da Qualidade Arquitectónica Habitacional’. ⮭
  29. Frere-Medeiros, Vilarouca and Menezes, ‘A Pobreza Turística no Mercado de Pacificação’. ⮭
  30. Poder Executivo da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro, Decreto 30870. ⮭
  31. Câmara Municipal do Rio de Janeiro, Projeto de Lei Complementar 29/2013. Institui a lei de parcelamento do solo urbano da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro (Complimentary Law 29/2013. Defines the Law for Urban Land Parcelling of the City of Rio de Janeiro). ⮭
  32. Câmara Municipal do Rio de Janeiro, Projeto de Lei complementar 40/2017. Institui o código de obras e edificações simplificado do município do Rio de Janeiro (Complimentary Law 40/2017. Defines the Disciplinary Conditions of Use and Occupation for Territorial Planning of the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro). ⮭
  33. Pedro, ‘QUARQ’. ⮭

Declarations and conflicts of interest

Research ethics statement

Not applicable to this article.

Consent for publication statement

Not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently blind the authors during peer review of this article have been made. The authors declare no further conflicts with this article.

References

Bonduki, Nabil Georges. (1994).  ‘Origens da habitação social no Brasil’ [Origins of affordable housing in Brazil].  Analise Social 29 (127) : 711–732.

Brasil. (1988).  Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil, https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm. Accessed 13 September 2019

Campos, Ana Cristina. (2024).  ‘Brasil registra déficit habitacional de 6 milhões de domicílios’ [Brazil registers housing deficit of 6 million of houses].  Agência Brasil, April 24 2024 https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/geral/noticia/2024-04/brasil-registra-deficit-habitacional-de-6-milhoes-de-domicilios. Accessed 19 December 2024

Cherian, Philip; Palaniappan, Sivakumar; Menon, Devdas; Anumolu, Meher Prasad. (2020).  ‘Comparative study of embodied energy of affordable houses made using GFRG and conventional building technologies in India’.  Energy and Buildings September 2020 223 : 110138. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110138

Compans, & Rose. (2007).  ‘A cidade contra a favela: a nova ameaça ambiental’ [The city against the favela: The new environmental threat].  Revista Brasileira de Estudos Urbanos e Regionais May 2007 9 (1) : 83–99, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22296/2317-1529.2007v9n1p83

Davis, Mike. (2006).  Planet of Slums. London and New York: Verso.

Ferreira, Marina Boaretto. (2020).  ‘Autoconstrução e autogestão habitacional no Brasil: um estudo comparativo em dois períodos: 1975–1986 e 2004–2018’ [Self-management and self-construction of housing in Brazil: A comparative study of two time periods: 1975–1986 and 2004–2018].  Journal of Urban Technology and Sustainability 1 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.47842/juts.v3i1.18

Frere-Medeiros, Bianca; Vilarouca, Márcio Grijó; Menezes, Paulo. (2016).  ‘A Pobreza Turística no Mercado de Pacificação: Reflexões a partir da Experiência da Favela Santa Marta’ [Slum tourism in the pacification market: Reflections based on the experience of Favela Santa Marta].  Cadernos CRH 29 (78) : 571–585, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0103-49792016000300010

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. (2010).  Censo Demografico 2010 [Demographic Census 2010]. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. (2024).  Favelas e Comunidades Urbanas [Favelas and urban communities]. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.

Lall, Simk; Wang, Hyoung Gun; da Mata, Daniel. (2006).  Do Urban Land Regulations Influence Slum Formation? Evidence from Brazilian Cities. World Bank, Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).

Lefevbre, Henry. (1996).  Writings on Cities. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ministério das Cidades. (2023).  ‘O que é habitação de interesse social?’ [What is affordable housing?].  March 21 2023 https://www.gov.br/cidades/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/perguntas-frequentes/desenvolvimento-regional/reabilitacao-de-areas-urbanas/8-o-que-e-habitacao. Accessed 19 December 2024

Patel, Bimal; Byahut, Sweta; Bhatha, Brijesh. (2018).  ‘Building regulations are a barrier to affordable housing in Indian cities: The case of Ahmedabad’.  Journal of Housing and the Built Environment March 2018 33 : 175–195, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10901-017-9552-7

Pedro, João Branco. (1999).  Programa Habitacional. Vizinhança Próxima. [Housing Program. Neighbourhood]. 3rd edn. Lisbon: LNEC.

Pedro, João Branco. (1999).  QUARQ: Avaliação da Qualidade Arquitectónica Habitacional [QUARQ: Evaluation of architectural housing quality]. Porto: Windows.

Pedro, João Branco. (2001).  ‘Definição e Avaliação da Qualidade Arquitectónica Habitacional’ [Definition and evaluation of architectural housing quality].  PhD thesis. Universidade do Porto.

Prefeitura de São Paulo. . (2015).  Direito à Cidade [Right to the City]. Sao Paulo: Prefeitura de São Paulo.

Queiroz, Mário Márcio. (2024).  Urbanismo Social para Habitação Popular: Política e Gestão para Espaços Urbanos da Habitação de Classes de Baixo Poder Aquisitivo, no Brasil e em Portugal [Urbanism for affordable housing: Management and policy for affordable housing areas in Brazil and Portugal]. Rio de Janeiro: Outras Letras.

Salingaros, . (2006).  ‘Favelas and social housing: The urbanism of self-organization’.  Proceeding of the Brazilian and Ibero-American Congress on Social Housing. Florianópolis: Federal University of Santa Catarina.

Soares, Priscila; de Oliveira, Fábio Bruno; Sampaio, Milena. (2009).  ‘Rocinha, uma Breve História no Tempo: Análise dos Processos de Formação e Transformação do Bairro’ [Rocinha, a brief story in time: Analysis of the process of formation and transformation in the neighbourhood].  XIII Encontro Nacional da Associação Nacional de Pós Graduação e Pesquisa Em Planejamento Urbano e Regional. Florianópolis: ENANPUR.

Ultramari, Clovis; de Oliveira dos Silva, Roberto Carlos Evencio. (2017).  ‘Planos Diretores em linha do tempo: Cidade brasileira 1960–2015’ [Master plans in a timeline: Brazilian cities 1960–2015].  Desenvolvimento, crise e resistência: quais os caminhos do planejamento urbano e regional?. Sao Paulo: ENANPUR, p. 15. https://xviienanpur.anpur.org.br/publicacoes/XVII.ENANPUR_Anais/ST_Sessoes_Tematicas/ST%2010/ST%2010.4/ST%2010.4-05.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2024

United Nations Human Settlements Program. (2015).  A Practical Guide to Designing, Planning and Implementing Citywide Slum Upgrading Programs. Reid, Jane, French, Matthew; Matthew and Acioly, Claudio Claudio (eds.),   New York: UN-HABITAT.

United Nations. (2020).  The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. New York: United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020. Accessed 14 March 2021

Valladares, Licia. (2000).  ‘A gênese da favela carioca. A produção anterior às ciências sociais’ [The genesis of the Rio de Janeiro favela. The pre-social science production].  Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais October 2000 15 (44) : 5–34, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092000000300001