Challenging the Concept of ''informal'' in Sub-Saharan African Cities: the case of Maxaquene A, Maputo, Mozambique

Current definitions of urbanity lead to claims that a large proportion (75% according to UN Habitat) of Sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) urban population is housed in ‘informal’ settlements with almost all new housing stock provided ‘informally’ in contradiction to the “formal” that is defined as planned and regulated by the state. In most cases in SSA cities urban development has no professional assistance in the form of architects or engineers, and what is characterised as ‘disorder’, as is the case with informal urbanisation, is considered as undesirable, inappropriate, dangerous, unhealthy and un-modern (Folkers 2009, Hardoy 1990, Jenkins 2011, Nielsen 2008, Nguluma 2003, Mitlin, D. 2004, Koolhaas 2006).

In 2003 the UN adopted a new terminology for what over decades used to be labelled as ‘informal’-, ‘squatter’-, ‘illegal’-, ‘unplanned’-, ‘spontaneous’ settlements, “shanty towns” with the term “slum” (UN habitat 2003). However, defining what slum implies is complex and this author consider the term as prejudiced and not covering the diversity most informal settlements represents Further the term stigmatises a remarkable share of any city population in SSA (Huchzermeyer 2011, Davis 2007, Harber 2011, Garau 2005).