3 ms·

Well, they've been on a growth trajectory since the late 1800s (at least in Rio), and their official numbers within and around the city are not even known. The

Well, they've been on a growth trajectory since the late 1800s (at least in Rio), and their official numbers within and around the city are not even known. The 2010 census says there's 763, but the unofficial number is likely to be over twice that. I don't even see gentrification holding in the 5 (or so) favelas that are home to the largest groups of foreigners. And if we're talking pacification, recent local news of shootouts shows peace is not a sure thing (just in the first few months of 2014, 7 of the 40+ pacified favelas broke out in shootouts/violence). Most favela residents in the several favelas I've lived in are also divided as to whether it's actually positive or not. For instance, there used to be something loosely known as "favela law" which meant that inside the favela one does not steal, cheat, harm or kill others who also live there. Because, if you did, there'd be severe consequences, enforced by the favela bosses. Now that the drug lords are hiding or gone (usually operating from other locations but maintaining the same flow of trade and distribution), bad actors can do what they please without reprimand from their own community. Anyways, I don't see much happening with favelas, aside from more growth, in the next 5-10 years.

EGreg 12y ago
Do you think it's desirable to get rid of the favelas, or people who live there (some of which moved specifically there) prefer to have this "free society"? That's what I want to know about. Is it something to be preserved, or is it something no one really wants but is forced to live in?
- personlurking 12y ago
  That's definitely a good question, and a hard one. No one there due to having a low socio-economic status wants to live there but they can't afford other places that would give them the same access to work (and even leisure). Location-wise, it's extremely practical to live in a favela (and it's interesting that in California, for example, the rich people generally live on the hills, whereas that's not the case in Rio). There are several prime cases of favela removal in Rio (Pinto, Catacumba, Esqueleto) in and around the 1960s and 70s. The residents were removed to City of God, and some run-down areas near the international airport (Complexo do Maré, etc). Also, in the first few years of the 20th century, there was a large mandate to destroy and remove favelas in downtown Rio (called the "bota-abaixo") which did beautify these areas, allowed for sanitary services to be installed, etc. Most of these residents just moved to other places like Rocinha and Vidigal on the other side of the city. So, even if they're "removed", they end up equally poor in a less desirable (to them) location in the same city. At this point, as it has been for a long time, favelas are just part of Brazilian life and they've grown to have their own culture, social norms, vocabulary, etc. So, if favelas are to be done away with, it will have to be done with sufficient resources, extreme care and to the liking (can't think of a better word) of the residents themselves. While they live in favelas, they want dignity, respect, and access to basic services (ex, Rocinha has an open sewer at the bottom of the hill). So these things will have to exist where they end up living, and during the transfer process.

EGreg 12y ago

Do you think it's desirable to get rid of the favelas, or people who live there (some of which moved specifically there) prefer to have this "free society"? That's what I want to know about. Is it something to be preserved, or is it something no one really wants but is forced to live in?

personlurking 12y ago
That's definitely a good question, and a hard one. No one there due to having a low socio-economic status wants to live there but they can't afford other places that would give them the same access to work (and even leisure). Location-wise, it's extremely practical to live in a favela (and it's interesting that in California, for example, the rich people generally live on the hills, whereas that's not the case in Rio). There are several prime cases of favela removal in Rio (Pinto, Catacumba, Esqueleto) in and around the 1960s and 70s. The residents were removed to City of God, and some run-down areas near the international airport (Complexo do Maré, etc). Also, in the first few years of the 20th century, there was a large mandate to destroy and remove favelas in downtown Rio (called the "bota-abaixo") which did beautify these areas, allowed for sanitary services to be installed, etc. Most of these residents just moved to other places like Rocinha and Vidigal on the other side of the city. So, even if they're "removed", they end up equally poor in a less desirable (to them) location in the same city. At this point, as it has been for a long time, favelas are just part of Brazilian life and they've grown to have their own culture, social norms, vocabulary, etc. So, if favelas are to be done away with, it will have to be done with sufficient resources, extreme care and to the liking (can't think of a better word) of the residents themselves. While they live in favelas, they want dignity, respect, and access to basic services (ex, Rocinha has an open sewer at the bottom of the hill). So these things will have to exist where they end up living, and during the transfer process.