Community spaces, political spaces. Central Nacional Provivienda and the construction of open spaces in its occupation model for Bogotá

Introduction

The category of “informality” no longer accounts for the complexities of the ways in which cities are built, different to those from the State and the architecture and urbanism disciplines. From this premise, this article studies community-space building and its political meanings in the diverse framework of informal neighbourhoods, by looking at the experience of the Central Nacional Provivienda (Cenaprov).

Figure 1.

Open space, common space, cooking space. Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood, circa 1971. Source: Centro No. 1 Historical Archive, Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood.

The Colombian State’s inability to guarantee the right to housing, the increased deficits in habitability and basic public services, and the vertiginous demographic growth suffered in large Colombian cities in the mid-20^th century, led to the appearance of different strategies, social actors, and organisations using non-conventional tools to obtain land and housing. This allowed the less favoured people to have better urban-life quality.

Social organisations seeking to improve or, at least, reduce these tragic deficits were born to colonise¹ territories in the city. They were based on values such as popular solidarity and society’s workforce. By fighting for the right to housing and decent living conditions, these organisations had a political position mainly based on a train of socialist thought, linked with political parties such as the Communist Party or the Unión Patriótica. In this way, they occupied an important place in the projects and ideals of city construction, particularly with the development of community spaces.

Cenaprov was born in Cali in 1957 to organise de facto land seizures (invasions) under communist precepts at a time of effervescence of “informal” occupation in the country. Shortly after, it moved to Bogotá and was established as a national organisation leading the development of popular neighbourhoods.

In Bogotá, the most relevant invasion conducted by Cenaprov was the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood (1961-1966). Based on its consolidation and the establishment of a long-term model of occupation and transformation, in the 1970s, Cenaprov founded twelve new neighbourhoods in Bogotá, with the help of its many associates (table 1). Years later, affiliates of Cenaprov established themselves in different towns in the country and developed various programmes to recover land and access to housing units by means that entailed less state repression.

Table 1.

Founders of the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood and Cenaprov foundations in which they took part. Source: Sánchez Triviño (2018, 242-244).

Cenaprov’s planning models for “informal” neighbourhoods implied the appearance of community spaces, fundamental for the development of their inhabitants’ political, economic, urban, and social life. From this context, we pose the following questions: how does a community space create long-lasting political meaning? How does open space become the core of urban life in a Cenaprov neighbourhood? How are the ideas of Cenaprov translated into its occupation model?

Methodology

The methodology of this article comprises four stages: the contextualisation of the Cenaprov phenomenon within the broad issue of Bogota’s housing deficit, the case study definition, the community spaces analysis, and the conclusions drawn from the investigation results. The structure of this text accounts for the different elements that, in a linear reading, allow us to understand how the community spaces of the progressively growing Cenaprov neighbourhoods acquired a political meaning.

The hypothesis guiding this research states that the experience in the configuration of open spaces during the construction of the Policarpa Salavarrieta determined the model for the subsequent occupation of other neighbourhoods in which the community spaces had a political vocation. This hypothesis can be verified at a later stage of the investigation, with the in-depth analysis of other Cenaprov neighbourhoods. The context surrounding the constitution of these neighbourhoods in the second half of the 20^th century has been assembled with literature on the phenomenon of migrations, the construction of the informal city, and, particularly, derivative land seizures and occupation models.

The analysis in this study is based on research in the archives of Cenaprov and Centro No.1 of the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood. Information found includes the list of neighbourhoods built with the support of Cenaprov, the actors who determined their birth and implementation, and important events that took place during their construction.

The pre-eminence of the analysis of the open space in the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood responds to two main reasons. First, its foundation was taken as an emblem of the occupation model of Cenaprov. In that sense, this experience would work as a reference for later occupations. Second, there are various studies on how the Policarpa Salavarrieta came about, which are currently scarce for other Cenaprov neighbourhoods.

Even though it starts from an analysis of the political and community character of space, the interest of this research is to recognise how open spaces have historically and politically been configured in the case of Cenaprov, around specific meanings and memories. The conclusions show the complexity of the informality phenomenon by particularising it within Cenaprov’s community spaces.

Redefining informality

In urban theory, there is a tendency to imagine informality as a sphere of deregulation and illegality; as an attitude that is outside the scope of the State; as a domain that allows the survival of the poor, who are often marginalised from urban practices due to processes of migration, gentrification, or redevelopment (Roy 2013). For this reason, informality has been considered the dark face of city development.

Some scholars say that informality is not only an effect but also a cause of poverty, to the extent that the population living in informal areas is captured by many “vicious circles” that reiterate their condition (Smolka 2003 cited in Monayar 2011, 9). This idea has had repercussions on the ways of seeing informality in Latin America. It has also given rise to perceptions such as that of Walter López Borbón, who points out that “it refers to all those processes of occupation of the territory, whether in rural areas or urban areas, which generally do not comply with the established legal conditions and which carry out processes of construction, use, and transformation of the land on their own” (2016, 30). While for some, informality means a social, economic, and urban illness, for others, it is the opportunity for a better future. This thought is more rooted in cultural, social, and economic popular contexts.

In urbanism, there have been some contradictions regarding the category of informality. These lack an accurate definition in the context of the Latin American city since “informal is defined not by what it is, but by what it is not” (Riofrío 2001 cited in Clichevsky 2003 34). Thus, its existence is denied as a cultural fact, without considering the urban realities from which it originates.

According to Riofrío (2001), informality is everything not integrated into the conventional system that, many times, is what has produced it. It is also understood as “the spontaneous, which arises not being in the plans due to a vital need of sectors of society that require a place to settle” (cited in Clichevsky 2009, 64). Therefore, the general connotation of informality is negative. In Colombia, informality is understood as the activities outside the legal parameters, as stated in Law 1429 of 2010, which is an insufficient definition provided by the State. Ideas like this have gained strength in the 20^th and 21^st centuries, which has led to the suppression of socioeconomic and political relationships and interactions, seen as cultural traits of some communities (García-Vargas and Mena-De la Cruz 2020). Consequently, what impact have informal practices had in Colombian cities?

In terms of planning and urban-demographic growth, the conflicts in cities like Bogotá respond to a dispute over access to land and housing. From the 1930s to the 1960s, the urban infrastructure to inhabit the city was insufficient to accommodate the rapid population growth. This situation increased problems related to housing deficits. From being a country with a mainly rural population in 1930, forty years later, Colombia became a country of cities, “by 1973 the urban population went from 38% to 64%” (Suárez, Santana and Aldana 1982, 28).

Although political violence is one of the predominant causes of migration and excessive growth, it is not the only one. Economic development and incipient industrialisation attracted a large part of the rural population to the cities in search of better opportunities.² The migratory processes and the precarious living conditions led to the land occupation using unconventional means to build houses and other urban spaces. These other ways of building cities that characterised this period were violently repressed by the State.

A clear example of this situation is the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood in Bogotá, located south of the San Juan de Dios Hospital, between Carrera 10 and Carrera 12A and between Calle 1 Sur and Calle 4 Sur. Under the guidance of Cenaprov, this was the first neighbourhood built outside the structure proposed by the institutions. It presented a clear model of occupation and transformation, demonstrating that informality, in many cases, is not chaos.

What do we mean, then, by informal? Informality can express a condition of various phenomena of reality. According to Nora Clichevsky (2009), informality is a form of recognition of a territory that shows that large portions of the city exist and are governed by their community’s political, urban, and economic rules, different from those of formality. Then, the informal arises from purely cultural facts, which shape and define the urban identities of these places (e.g., region of origin, political or religious affiliations). According to Saldarriaga (2001), in informal settlements.

In short, informality represents an alternative to create a city outside the established schemes and presents various options for management, construction, marketing, and appropriation of territories and homes. The informal has deeply penetrated the thinking of citizens and institutions. It has also been amalgamated with the notions of formality and made the discourses and visions that sought to eradicate them no longer valid. It is evident that the dichotomy between formal and informal is no longer relevant (Triana Urrego 2020).

Open spaces, community spaces and political spaces

The history of the city is the history of its open spaces. As citizen spaces, open spaces have become the heart of the urban fabric and public life. In the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood, open spaces have been configured from the beginning with community meaning — given its informal character — and political meaning — given its historical circumstances. Something like this does not happen in other cases of recent urbanisation, both formal and informal.

In the city, open spaces are regulators of human activity. They allow citizen participation (Sennett 2018, 208). However, the communal character is acquired when inhabitants build the space collectively. On the other hand, the political character appears when there is a desire for utopia in its forming project, “a political meaning within the framework of a crucial collective imaginary” (Harvey 2013, 15).

Figure 2.

Neighbourhoods affiliated with Cenaprov meeting at the central space of the founders’ block, circa 1973. Source: Centro No. 1 Historical Archive, Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood.

An analysis from the various formalities allows us to understand the poetics of community construction from a political condition, considering the ideals and preeminent values ​​of Cenaprov: solidarity and resistance. Although the origin of the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood has been communal and political, its integration with the rest of the city has allowed some of its spaces to acquire a public and citizen nature. The politics of the community spaces, in any case, have survived over time, as they become places of memory for the Policarpa Salavarrieta community.

The street: Extension of the community space of the house

The street is the first manifestation of the city. It is an open space that allows people to go from one place to another, interweaving various functions such as socialising, living, studying, working, or recreating. The street is an extension of squares, universities, community halls, and houses; places that fulfil the function of meeting and hosting the discussion of ideas. But can the streets of an informal origin become an extension of community life?

Figure 3.

Urban life on Calle 3 Sur between Carrera 10 and Carrera 10 bis, circa 2005. Source: Cenaprov’s Historical Archive.

From the first urban tissue (1961-1965) — which took the nascent Sevilla neighbourhood as a reference, planned by the Mayor’s Office on Caracas Avenue — in the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood, the street became the space for the configuration of future occupations and the location of the stalls in the lots. As the stalls were small spaces for the development of social activities, the street assumed that community role. It became the setting for family, social and political gatherings, and took spaces such as the living room or dining room out of the house.

Figure 4.

The street as a space to eat, share, and celebrate, circa 1983. Source: Centro No. 1 Historical Archive, Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood.

Over the years, both houses and streets have been transformed. However, the street never lost its essence as a community space. When “material”³ houses were built, with spaces conducive to social activity, the neighbours kept on gathering in the streets. Currently, this vocation is more linked to the influence of commerce in the neighbourhood. However, the sale of fabrics and clothing supplies has not superseded eating, marching, and socialising outside the buildings.

The founders’ block: The core of political life

One of the most important spaces in the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood is the founders’ block. In the quest for a community space, the founders’ block was configured as a centre for social and political activity. Some leaders of Cenaprov and the neighbourhood lived there. They made the most important decisions regarding new occupations, the layout of roads, improvement of streets and housing, or obtaining public services. This space was configured as a unique urban space. It is the only block that housed a small square with courts in its centre.

The first cultural hall and the school were established around the centre of the block. This space had a particular identity as a recreation, meeting, and celebration area. Over time, the centre of this block became the nucleus of political and community life in the neighbourhood. Cenaprov even moved its headquarters to the Policarpa Salavarrieta founders’ block.

Figure 5.

Political meeting in the founders’ block, circa 1965. Source: Centro no. 1 Historical Archive, Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood.

During the day, this space housed both children leaving school and dozens of militants from Cenaprov’s ranks who came to receive training to occupy other neighbourhoods or served as a stage for neighbourhood meetings. Dozens of “walking stalls”⁴ were built there, being the starting point for parades and marches. On other occasions, it was used as a sports venue for football and basketball tournaments.

Figure 6.

Soccer match between teams from different neighbourhoods, circa 1973. Source: Centro no. 1 Historical Archive No. 1, Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood.

Integrating the neighbourhood to the city brought many changes, such as introducing commerce, or housing and street improvements. These changes transformed the founders’ block, as the need for a large-scale school altered its open character. The Jaime Pardo Leal School was built, closing its different entrances. However, the school did not displace the political ideas that surrounded this formerly open space. As a meeting place for the neighbourhood’s youth, they have made sure that the school promotes the thought that has kept them standing for over sixty years and that has also turned it into a place of historical and political memory.

Figure 7.

Scheme of transformation of the founders’ block. Source: The authors.

Figure 8.

Configuration of the founders’ block around 1990. Some of the most representative founders of Policarpa are shown. Source: The authors.

The culture hall is a fundamental element in the configuration of the Policarpa Salavarrieta model. This wide space is built from the perspective of a theatre, comprising a stage and several dressing rooms. The culture hall allows for the development of endless political and cultural activities. For this reason, it promotes the neighbourhood’s identity: a space for dialogue in which the different actors who constantly work for its improvement and development can express their points of view. The reluctance to call it a communal hall stems from differences over the use of space between the community action boards, which are officially sanctioned by the municipality, and the Policarpa Salavarrieta’s cultural and political organisation.

Figure 9.

First culture hall at the Policarpa Salavarrieta. Source: Centro no. 1 Historical Archive, Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood.

In other Cenaprov neighbourhoods, a display of the political meaning of community spaces can be recognised. In these neighbourhoods, some spaces have similar relevance to that of the founders’ block: with an open space where the cultural hall is and where, generally, we can find a school. This relationship arises from the model proposed by Cenaprov in the consolidation of the Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood, implemented with the help of its founders.

Figure 10.

Culture hall of the Nuevo Chile neighbourhood, next to the school and in front of the Salvador Allende Park. Source: The authors, 2021.

Figure 11.

Culture hall of El Porvenir neighbourhood in Soacha, at the park with the same name. Source: The authors, 2021.

The Policarpa Salavarrieta Park

In the beginning, the Policarpa Salavarrieta park was meant to be used for houses, the same way as in other blocks, but its fate changed on April the 8^th, 1966 (a day known as the Viernes Santo Sangriento). In this only empty lot, one of the bloodiest struggles for housing in Bogotá took place, which marked a new course for this space, setting up a place of memory.

For some years, the void signified respect for those who gave their lives in that fight. But, given the need for a church, a new culture hall and an open space for recreation, people decided to occupy the land. The idea of ​​the church was soon discarded, so a new building for Cenaprov and the new culture hall were built next to the park.

Although the most important buildings in the neighbourhood were erected next to it, this space was not fully occupied. Before the Policarpa Salavarrieta was legalised, the government designed a bike lane, playgrounds, green areas, a library, and a gym in that park. Slowly, some works were carried out to improve the conditions of the adjoining land to Carrera Décima; first, with the inhabitants’ workforce and, later, with the help of the government. However, the result is far from the initial design.

Currently, the Luis A. Morales Culture Hall, Centre No.1, and the headquarters of Cenaprov are located next to the park. On Carrera 10 bis, there is a community dining room of the Secretaría Distrital de Integración Social. The remaining space is surrounded by various businesses open to the street. In the park, there are two sports courts, playgrounds, and exercise machines. Although this space is communal, it has recently been the object of interventions and government improvement, providing it with institutional urban furniture (e.g., benches, litter bins, and fences for the courts).

When celebrations take place, the neighbourhood community meets at the park for festivals and other events, such as neighbourhood birthdays, theatre festivals, and demonstrations. However, despite the celebrations, changes, and the passing of time, the emptiness still shaping this place recalls the struggle lived there.

Figure 12.

Policarpa Salavarrieta Park. Source: The authors, 2021.

Conclusions

This analysis is the first approach to Cenaprov’s creating-city methods. Identifying the peculiarities of this unconventional form that, historically, has been included within the great umbrella of informality, allowed us to recognise the complexities of space and urban life in the construction of community spaces and the need to give an alternative meaning to this concept.

Community’s ways of living and political meanings were part of the Cenaprov city project, which materialised in open spaces. This project is unique and uncommon within informal city construction. A later stage of this research may find other regular urban elements in this model. Together with the different processes of progressive development, these spaces have been endowed with endless meanings. When they were built over time and with the efforts of the neighbourhood’s residents and their diverse political, religious, social, and economic visions, these spaces developed a recognisable political identity.

However, from the occupation model proposed for the Policarpa Salavarrieta, the meaning of open spaces goes beyond an eminently functional character, existing in other city models. On the opposite, they supply purely community needs. The political nature that these spaces have acquired is evident not only in an existential or historical sense but also concretely in their architecture. The names of independence heroes such as Bolívar or Policarpa, characters such as Camilo Torres, and housing fighters such as Luis A. Morales or Mario Upegui, were used for relevant buildings, such as the school Jaime Pardo Leal. The Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood and its model of occupation and transformation have left their mark on other neighbourhoods founded by Cenaprov, where the conjunction of community activities in open spaces and surrounding buildings is evident. These spaces and buildings display the city ideas of this organisation, which will be corroborated at another moment.

Discourses about urbanism in Bogotá are contradictory. In the construction of the contemporary city, which increasingly recognises unconventional ways of creating cities, the collective meaning of these spaces has not been sufficiently valued. The experience of Cenaprov teaches how the political sense can be applied in the construction of other open, collective, and public spaces. These spaces have been filled with senses and meanings, thanks to the participation of their inhabitants in their construction and their experience of living over time.