PUBLIC LIFE IN THE IN-BETWEEN CITY

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
School of Architecture and Town Planning. Technion IIT, Haifa, Israel, 6-10 June 2010

FINAL PAPER

PAPER:
IN-BETWEEN CITIES: NOTES ON PUBLIC DOMAIN, SOCIAL TISSUES AND URBAN FORMS
Themes:
Types of in-between cities and inherent public life
Appearance, event and performance of public-life in the in-between city
Embodied experience of public life in the in-between city

AUTHOR:

Manoel Rodrigues Alves

University of So Paulo
School of Engineering of So Carlos
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning
(Address): Avenida Trabalhador So-carlense, 400 CEP 13560-970
Caixa Postal 359 So Carlos / SP - BRASIL
(Phones): (55-16) 33739294
(Fax): (55-16) 33739310
(E-mail):
mra@sc.usp.br

In-Between Cities: notes on public domain, social tissues and urban forms
Manoel Rodrigues Alves
Abstract
Contemporary urban tissues and situations are (still) mainly culturally determined, but the
city, in its new forms of enunciation, demands an investigation of the spatiality of the public
scope. In globalized scenarios of an increasingly privatized urban space, the contemporary
culture is influenced by consumption and its practices related to mediation of capital
circulation. In this context, exploring issues related to urban public realm and to new
urban public spatialities, we argue that some urban in-between cities establish a particular
urban morphology pattern, not necessarily an adequate one. Observing that contemporary
urban territorialities bring new interpretations to the concept of urban morphology, this
work investigates two contrasting enclaves of urban in-between cities in Brazil, both
representing archipelagos of peripheries: formal / informal new urbanities (uncontrolled
urban sprawling processes) and gated communities. Developing a relational matrix,
composed of social and geographical data from IBGE (the Brazilian Institute for
Geography and Statistics), the paper explores urban transformation aspects of So
Carlos, particularly in relation to public space, privatization of urban space and socialspatial segregation processes.

Introduction
As urban spaces can no longer be classified as public or private, as publicized or
privatized, we place the hybridization processes as a matter to be thought, not only by
means of production, but in terms of its assimilation and continuous development,
approaching and debating contemporary transformation of the urban environment, spatial
and public spheres. Our shuffled, disparate and hybrid present reality transforms any act
over the contemporary city into an extensive series of successes and failures that
peacefully coexist along with conceptual and operational intentions to govern complexity.

Contemporary urban territorialities bring new interpretations to the concept of urban

morphology. The city and the urban space1, in its new forms of enunciation, demand an
investigation of the spatiality of the public scope. Conflict and consensus are two
fundamental configurations of the distinct conceptions of public space and public sphere.
They govern the classical elements of urban life grammar shuffled into the present
moment. Today the real and virtual dimensions are jumbled in such way that they produce
a mixed zone that jeopardizes the independent existence of any of these spheres.

Contemporary urban tissues and situations are (still) mainly culturally determined in this
context, the contemporary thought is confronted with the totalizing tendency of the capital
upon the culture. However, in globalized scenarios of an increasingly privatized urban
space, the contemporary culture is influenced by consumption and its practices related to
a mediation of the capital circulation. Again, we point out the continuous hybridization
process that loosens the boundaries between legal and illegal, formal and informal,
modern and contemporary, citizens and foreigners, homeless and no-right population, to a
point where it is almost impossible to determine the dimensions of grey areas, to
distinguish subjects and stakeholders, nature and culture, centers and peripheries, mediadimensions and autochthone cultures. In this context, which questions should be posed?

Besides, in a new socio-technical reality of a hybrid and multi-referential society, to what

extent do the so-called innovative landscapes of the global age appropriately respond to
new forms of enunciation of the spatiality of the contemporary urban space? To what
extent are new urban tissues of dispersed urban surroundings not submitted to a

1 For the distinction between city and urban, see Delgado, M., 2008, p. 10-14, 23-36.

homogeneous cultural and economic context that promotes the logic of social and spatial
segregation of private spaces in a fragmentary urban city? How may the meaning and
performance of publicness differ in different in-between cities patterns?

Whether taking the city as an artifact or within the living city and the engine of urban
experience, we believe that it is crucial to think of the present, its territorialization and
deterritorialization processes, the creation and removal of scenarios and stakeholders,
whether as

extensions or in resistance to the classical concepts of urban space

structuring and configuration. Following this path, the idea is to lighten up emerging forms
of urbanity in their social and cultural dimensions, and their territorial, environmental, social
and public correlations.

Breaking boundaries, dealing with porosities, intermingling dimensions, through the notion
of urban in-between cities2, we aim to discuss redefinitions, permanencies or grouped
conceptual frameworks capable of rendering present urban phenomena problematic. The
discussion demands different reading keys, if not distinct cultural approaches. It is a matter
of questioning contemporary spatialities and territorialities, observing issues related to, for
instance, public space and public sphere, urban space and public spatiality, urban place
and culture image, urbanalization3 and city consumption.
It is within our ambition to uphold the development of innovative theoretical approaches on
the relationship between socio-cultural and urban-spatial dimensions. Thus, we advocate
the adoption of new methodological tools that are based on dynamic socio-spatial
diagnoses seeking identification, and the adoption of development of conceptual
frameworks that can contribute to the critical approach of the contemporary urban
environment. Therefore, aiming at a better understanding of contemporary urban
transformation processes, we employ as empirical object of analysis the city of So
Carlos, a progressive medium-sized (intermediate) Brazilian city, located in-between the
wealthiest Brazilian territory and characterized by strong technological development. The
paper introduces results of a research still in progress, in particular related to an analysis
of social and spatial components of urban in-between cities public landscape and a
specific methodology of analysis.
2 Urban in-between cities, or rmaybe more adequately, in-between urban spaces: intermediate urban areas,
fragmentary urban structures that may produce a fragmented urban tissue, not necessarily in the periphery.

Fig. 1 - So Carlos, Urban Regions and Sectors: region 2, methodology example

Urban Contemporary Space- some remarks

Particular urban in-between cities tissues are increasingly promoting a different sense of
urbanity due to a strategy of control and reproduction of an already established
economical order. Some contemporary in-between cities environments, supposedly based
on local symbolic culture, find in the aesthetic and spectacle phenomenon a powerful
mechanism of symbolic control of production of its spatiality, materializing polarized inbetween cities that lose identity and meaning. An example is the so-called gated
community, new spatialities of global pre-determined imagery that transfer civil activities to
private spaces. On the other hand, we find distinct urban tissues, formal / informal, legal /
illegal urban sprawling processes, where the public realm does not result from the overlap
of social, cultural, economical and historical processes and times.

3 (Muoz, F., 2008). See notes 17 and 18 for further information.

Fig. 2 - Gated Communities examples: So Carlos

The urban space of modern times has changed, it has become another one, where the
modern ideal of a public urban life4 is no longer so present. This city and the new urban
spacialities result from and promote accumulation of another nature, in which the logic of
cultural and spatial production of the city is no longer heir of modern times- at least not in
an absolute way. As a rule, these spaces are sold as a global tendency to improve urban
space in a form of abstraction from the value and form of merchandise.

Therefore, the contemporary city requires a review of actions in its spatiality. This city is
subjected to significant social, cultural and technological changing processes, and
conditioned by a privativistic speech and the leveling message of the media. At the same
time the contemporary way of thinking is confronted with a totalizing trend of the capital
over the culture, and a growing aesthetic process in all spheres of life, it requires
acknowledgment of plural social practices. Contemporary urban territorialities challenge us
in the tensions among domains, legal issues, urban uses and practices, leading to new
interpretations in the relation among urban morphologies, social tissues, behaviors and
conceptual constructions beyond those models and concepts established by Architecture,
Urban Planning and Social Sciences. These questions call for a re-signification of
knowledge and actions in the territorial dimension, responding to new spatial demands.

The city that emerges from the contemporaneity comprises unique textualities and
morphologies, which operate in a differentiated socio-cultural context. Transformations that
took place in the urban territory stem from logic determined by a late capitalist system of
flexible accumulation, which is strongly associated to culture, economics and society.

4 (Caldeira, T., 2000, p. 302). Modern ideal understood here as open streets with free circulation, enabling
impersonal, anonymous and random encounters of different individuals and social groups.

Thus, several areas of life and experience in society are intermediated by the logic of
consumption.

Fig. 3 So Carlos Gated Communities and Universities Campi

Since the city space is a product and a reproducer of dynamics that rule its own time, the
contemporary city starts comprehending new spatialities and sociabilities linked to the
economic-productive system, from where new urban situations emerge, and where
previous socio-cultural and spatial relations have to be re-signified and reinterpreted. As
ramifications of new logic and dynamics in the contemporary city conformity, these
configurations and landscapes are based on elements that represent a urban space (re)
production dynamics. On one hand, this dynamics implements increased control and
vigilance and, on the other hand, it internalizes the collective life of public space.
So Carlos: a brief urban contextualization
The city of Sao Carlos was established in 1831, and started with the creation of a urban
nucleus near large coffee farms. The development of this urban nucleus was the common
interest of great politicians who were also farm owners. Therefore, the city grew in a
context of coffee economics until the first quarter of the 20th century. Similarly to other
cities that developed during the cycle of coffee economics, as of the 30s, in response to
the coffee crisis and the flow of immigrant workers who emigrated from plantations, So
Carlos started its industrial development, which will be consolidated in the mid 60s.

Sao Carlos is characterized as a city brought about by a dominant elite, and develops
based on the interests of this elite. The expansion of the city occurred from a pattern which
is commonly called central- periphery (Caldeira, 2000), with the concentration of the
middle and upper class in a well equipped center and the underprivileged in the peripheral
neighborhoods.5

Initially guided by the north-south axis, this expansion points to different ways in the
expansion of the urban stain of the city. The concentration, which was seen in the central
area until the 50s is altered in the following decades with a very fast and disordered
expansion process of the urban territory, with the implementation of peripheral and distant
lands divided into lots.6

Fig. 4 Urban Sprawl: So Carlos expansion

5 According to Lima (2007), the expansion of the city can be divided into three periods: the first one since its
foundation as a city (1857) to1929, marked by the first highway alignment (So Carlos Avenue, direction
north-south) of the city and the beginning of street construction layout. Still at this time rural production such
as coffee stands out and the railroad appears and attracts expansion and street prolonging. The second
period (1930-1959) has certain consolidation of the industrial economy that eventually accelerated the
expansion of the city, leading to notable population increase and creation of settlements for low income
population. The third period, from 1960 to 1977, is marked by uncontrolled expansion of the city towards the
periphery, in a process guided by Real Estate speculation. As of the 80s, beyond Lima considerations, we
can identify also a fourth period of urban expansion, of expansion of the urban stain beyond the highway and
railway, characterized by settlements scattered in the city.
6 The most remarkable example of this process in the city is the case of the neighborhoods City Aracy and
Antenor Garcia, settlements located in the extreme south of the city. Established without infrastructure and
urban services and completely unarticulated from the urban tissue, they are located in areas with very
unstable terrain, prone to erosion. With small pieces of land and accessible prices for the most needy
people, the neighborhood consolidated as an icon of the underprivileged periphery of the city.

The location of Washington Luis highway has always been a limiting factor in the urban
expansion of So Carlos, which basically occurs in the north and northwest axis and which
results from physical boundaries that do not favor territorial development in other areas.7

However, in this process, and differently from other moments, an important feature can be
noticed as of the 90s: The alteration of the urban tissue of a city mixed with another one,
based on socio-spatial segregation. What can be seen, in a more intense way this last
decade, is the alteration of the process of spatial conformation from the pattern centerperiphery to that pointed out by Prvt Schapira (2000) of opposition to the idea of centerperiphery, in which an increasing polarization between the poor and the rich and a retreat
from the middle class are observed, in the mark of globalizing restructuring which takes
new urban boundaries to the extreme (Mio, 2004).

Fig. 5 So Carlos 2009: urban and rural zones

7 According to the Director Plan, the Washington Luis highway is considered a physical barrier for the
growth and access to Zones 2 Occupation Conditioned and 3B Recovery and Occupation Conditioned,
the latter in an area of protection and recovery of superficial water captation of Monjolinho Stream. slopes,
cliffs, soil with possibility for erosion and silted streams are characteristics of Zone 3A, south; zones 5A and
5B, zones of protection and recovery of water springs, presence of springs in the stream Gregrio and the
Area of environmental Protection of Corumbata This way, the city can only grow to the north and
northwest .

So Carlos: gated communities and FILCS8

Sao Carlos has currently 30 real estate developments that can be considered consolidated
residential gated communities or about to be sold, but all have been approved by the
competent municipal bodies. These developments are concentrated in the north and
northwest axis of the city. On the other hand, FILCs are mostly located in the south and
southeast axis (as can be seen in Picture 6).

Fig.6 Urban Location: Gated Communities and FILCs in So Carlos 2009

It is surely possible to state they are dispersed in the urban stain of the city, even though
they occur in significantly smaller number and dimensions. However, it is relevant to
observe they are constantly located near the citys university campuses9. Just like
Iguatemi Shopping Mall, the university campus in Sao Carlos is located northwest of the
city and therefore, it has elements that attract the attention of developments, which favor
Real estate brokerage.

No other residential gated community is found south of the railway line, near the FILCS,
which are working class neighborhoods of So Carlos VIII and Cidade Aracy, as the figure
shows. The most underprivileged peripheral neighborhoods10 are located in this area, in
the extreme south of the city, as a result of the segregation process previously mentioned.
8 FILCS: formal / informal low cost settlements, official or not. In some cases, regular low income housing
settlements (public fundings) or, due to collective idealized imaginary, low income gated communities
(private developments). In other cases, illegal low income housing settlements in public or private areas.
9 The campuses I and II of University of So Paulo (USP) and Central Paulista University(UNICEP) to the
northwest, the Federal University of So Carlos (UFSCar) to the north and the Law School of So Carlos
(FADISC) to the west.

Therefore, it is not a privileged area for these developments, regardless of

recommendations by the Director Plan or its natural conditions.

Another aspect to be observed is the urban landscape resulting from closing gated
communities with walls that are about 3 meters high. The extension of gated communities
walls reaches about 51 kilometers, without considering the Dahma Park (dotted in figure
5). In other words, it is the equivalent to 510 urban blocks. This means that the territorial
demarcation in the process of socio-spatial segregation has its configuration as a physical
and symbolic barrier. It is represented11 by walls which limit the private gated communitys
area and which separate public domain areas as private. These include streets and leisure
areas, and as a result, define a distancing from the urban public space. These urban
enclaves, in fact, create undifferentiated tissues and urban spaces, which are simulacrums
of a city of claustrophily and control of pre-established activities. They offer little space for
random activities, for free will, for the impersonal anonymous encounter; therefore,
promoting an urban landscape very different from FILCs daily activities.

Fig. 7 Gated Communities: walls

However, this incredible physical barrier of walls and monitoring of visitors serve as a
security argument and is regarded as an aspect of quality of urban life promoted by these
developments.

Actually, what is being sold is a way of living added to a social status.

However, at least in So Carlos, this argument of security is not justified. The official data
on the tables that follow show that the violence rates have gone down, and do not justify
the argument. (Donoso, 2008)

10 More recently this process of peripherization of low income also occurs in the extreme east of the city.
11 Also made clear and reinforced in advertising pieces that describe an exclusive place, especially
designed for few people, surrounded by walls that are 3 meters high.

Fig. 8 Gated Communities: time line and security data, So Carlos

Generally speaking, gated communities in Sao Carlos can be divided into three groups.
First, developments of medium size consolidated in the city, which are located in areas
inside the city, and which were sold as pieces of land and not as houses.12 The second

12 In this group we have Sabar Park (1), Samambaia Residential (2), Faber Park I (3), the Convvio
Residential Dom Bosco (4), Residential Parati (5), Ize Koizumi (6), Faber Park II (7) and the Bosque de
So Carlos (8).

group is marked by large settlements13, larger pieces of land, whose target is the upper
class. It seems that these developments are located in the vectors of urban expansion and
have increasingly sophisticated leisure areas- such as the Eco-Sportive Park Dahma with
a Golf Course, Club House and an Equestrian center.

Fig. 9 Dhama Eco-Park: general plan (including Techno Area, Equestrian Area, Golf
Club and the first two (of eleven) gated communities
In another group, there are gated communities with smaller pieces of land. Most of them
also have houses, leisure equipment and comfort ready for use, with more accessible
prices. Though not uniform, the target public of these developments is basically the middle
class, especially those looking for their first house. 14
Promotional leaflets of these developments include information such as location, prices
and special payment plans (when the target public is the low middle class). As a rule,
these gated communities have a small collective leisure area, with playground for children.
For sales purposes, the item of security is also pointed out. They are located, as a rule, in
the midst of consolidated neighborhoods with urban infrastructure and operate as small
closed villages within the city, implanted in small urban empty spaces in privileged areas.
The definition of these three groups while research was being conducted resulted not only
from spatial characteristics, but also from results in the socioeconomic analysis and data

13 In this group there are the Damhas (9), from the group Encalso, Eldorado (10) Swiss Park Residential
(11) and the most recent Quebec (12), Montreal (13) and Espraiado Park (14).
14 The Director Plan of So Carlos considers areas with more than 500,00m2 urban emptiness areas. In this
group there are the Condominium Park Fehr (15), Grand Ville (16), Nossa Senhora de Nazaret (17), Ips
Park (18), Green Village (19), Residential Condominium Villa de la Riviera (20), Santa Cruz (21), Village
Mont Serrat (22), Village Paineras (23), Orizonti di San Carlo (24), Dona Eugnia (25) and Terra Nova So
Carlos (26).

from IBGE. By crossing this data, it can be observed that spatial characteristics of location
and dimension of these developments and also the moment they were implemented have
direct relation with the social context each object is analyzed.
Gated communities and FILCS socio-urban indicators
Data from IBGE in the last census were used for this analysis. They were obtained through
the sectorial map of the city15 Data regarding gated communities and FILCs were crossed
with data from IBGE by sector in which the object of analysis was inserted to produce
socioeconomic information regarding income, instruction level and infrastructure of houses
and residents, among others.
Therefore, data produced is related to the gated community (or FILC) analyzed and the
urban area where it is inserted. For methodological purposes, these sectors were grouped
in areas in which there was a larger concentration of gated communities. This enabled first
the analysis of each development by sector and then the analysis of the general
characteristics of the area.

15 IBGE develops and updates maps of sectors for the census . These sectors are defined by IBGE
according to the need to collect data of the urban perimeter, as a rule resulting from the process of
expansion and alteration of the urban stain, and include regions of about 300 homes, with elements of
organization to search and use data collected. In some developments of group 2, areas of the city that
expanded after the 2001 Census, the analysis was not possible. In few specific situations of the other two
groups, also due to implantation after the census, even though there was data regarding the sector, this
analysis was partial. In the first case , these objects are considered by IBGE as located in rural areas, for
they did not exist previously as part of the urban space and therefore there is no data available for the
analysis of the region In the second case, analysis of the sector is possible , in an attempt to understand the
region where the development is inserted, and the possible consequences of its implantation.

Fig. 10 - So Carlos, Urban Regions and Sectors: region 1, methodology example

Figure 10 explains the methodology used by area, in this case, area 1, its 5 sectors and
the existing gated communities. As previously mentioned, data from each sector was
analyzed, and then grouped by area, and finally, contextualized in the whole dimension of
the city.

Fig. 11 Financial Income: urban sectors, region 1 and 4, methodology example

Fig. 12 Schooling Indicators: Residential Faber Castell and Condominium Santa Cruz,
methodology example
The analysis of information based on socioeconomic data of the areas where the objects
of analysis are located shows that: There is a huge difference regarding income, level of
instruction and infrastructure between Group 1 developments , located in noble and
consolidated areas, and group 3, with smaller area and scattered throughout the city.
There is significant alteration in the urban landscape of groups 2 and 3; processes of
social segregation are present in the three groups, though they are stronger in groups 1
and 2.Thus, some of the data16 analyzed help understand the differences among the three
typologies of gated communities. Direct correlation between income and schooling is
observed, as well as income and housing standards, income and urban infrastructure.
Even though these results seem obvious, they are obvious just to some extent. The most
16 During research, iconography similar to that presented was designed , regarding three big categories: 1.
Infrastructure (Number of de homes by sector; Average number of bathrooms per domicile; Percentage of
domiciles by number of bathrooms; Percentage of domiciles with poor general water system ; Percentage of
domiciles with poor trash collection by cleaning services; Percentage of homes with poor general network of
sanitary sewage); 2. Schooling (average number of years studied by household ; Percentage of household
by course attended); and 3. Income (Percentage of people responsible for monthly nominal income).

remarkable example is the Residential Faber-Castell, in the west area, with indicators of
always having good conditions. In contrast, even though it is physically very close,
Condominium Santa Cruzs income and schooling indicators are very low. Urban
infrastructure services are also poor.

Fig. 13 Urban Location: Residential Faber Castell and Condominium Santa Cruz
A similar example takes place in Sabar Park, in the east area of the city, which is the
oldest gated community of the city. Even though it is located in the midst of neighborhoods
with distinct incomes, it presents high indicators- similarly to another development in the
area, the Convvio Residential Dom Bosco.

There are also cases of small gated communities in group 3, whose dwellers present high
levels of income and schooling, such as Green Village. In So Carlos, these communities
are frequently located near one of the university campuses of the city. However, in
general, group 3 of smaller gated communities presents lower results in indicators
concerning income, schooling and infrastructure conditions as for example, in the north

area, the gated communities Condominiums Dona Eugnia and Ize Koizume, or in the
southeast area, the Condominiums Nossa Senhora de Nazar, Village Paineiras and
Village Mont Serrat. In reality, these indicators are 20-25% higher when compared to some
particular FILCs.
Conclusions
Observations made in this paper show that residential gated communities are spaces that
seek to provide its residents with safety that is not always justified, controlled leisure and
better housing conditions. Moreover, analysis presented here shows the strength of
dissemination of residential gated communities typology and also how much they became
incorporated in the idealized imaginary of distinct social classes. This ideal represents the
search for a lifestyle. A life that is distant from reality, to be lived in urban enclaves
representing the fallacy of a public life, of global economic processes and privatization of
the urban space.

The contemporary city is continuously reproduced, as a general condition of the

appreciation process ruled by capitalism. These enclaves produce forms, relations and
social representations. New urban spatiality is sold as a global trend of space
improvement, and, in this scenario, there is an association of production structures of the
urban area and its spatiality in the production of pseudo public -spaces; actually, they are
simulacrums of urban life which re-signify the ideal of public space and subject the capital
social to private logic, especially linked to multiple consumption of the contemporary
society. Even though it is a fallacy, selling a differentiated lifestyle is what has more
intensely stimulated changes and expansion in the urban landscape. At the same time, it
disconfigures the city as the maximum example of public life.

These changes weaken the urban identity and put the dialectics urban tissue/social tissue
in second place. Having their own codes of ethics and functional behavior, they condition a
large set of activities, which are part of the urban tissue of the contemporary collective life
in the design of a city with dissociated urban fragments. They are Consumption spaces
resulting from urbanization processes determined by the logic of the tertiary, the so called
urban renovation: private in-between cities, an ever increasingly idealized imaginary of
distinct social classes.

This phenomenon is associated to what is defined by Muoz as a process in which a new

logic in the construction of contemporary spatiality is seen. Market relations and place are
redefined to make up a culture based on thematic consumption of the city. Muoz calls this
process urBANALization17, in which a logic of containerization is present to redefine
contemporary urban spatiality, making urban structures such as residential gated
communities and other typological traditional spaces , such as streets and squares,
objectualized in containers18, thematically reduced to a set of urban functions of a
controlled space: Vectors of the creation of private fortresses ruled by isolation and
claustrophilia, pseudo public spaces filled with visible and invisible signs of privatization,
simulacrums of the city.

The promise made by this kind of housing is made thematic by necessities that confirm the
contemporary trend to privatize the urban space. Therefore, they promote a reduction in
the fruition value of the public space, denoting an aspect of artificiality19.

Fig. 14 Gated Communities and Morro da Macumba

Production, conformation and configuration of the urban space are determined by
questions of dominance- political, social or economic- or appropriation of daily practices,
identity relations and feelings of belonging, questions which are present in the urban
environment. Whatever the processes to define urban spaces, either residential gated
communities or FILCS are urban enclaves of ghettification that work as social and
17 (Muoz, F., 2008), (Muoz, F., in Sola-Morales, I., 2005).
18 Containers: real estate developments subject the social capital (cultural, leisure and commercial) to their
needs of accumulation; physical structures representative of the contemporary mass culture which has
consumption as central objective , whether consumer goods (supermarkets and shopping malls), cultural
leisure (museums and sports centers), transportation (stations and airports) or services (hotels and groups
of offices). Especially collective spaces of exclusion , simulacrums of the authentic city , which produce
segregation through self-segregation. Simulacrum of public spaces where people can have all their basic
and superfluous needs met , without really living together with components essential to urban life, such as
the street or the square (Sol-Morales, I., 2002, p. 97-99)

territorial urban condensers. Especially in gated communities, interchange is produced in

societies that are increasingly ritualized. Real estate developments subject the social
capital to its needs of accumulation, aiming at consumption. They incorporate production
of excluding collective spaces, private and privatized20 - and, in this regard, promoting a
completely different urban landscape from FILCs atmosphere.

The city of these urban enclaves called gated communities has increasingly been a
paradigm of urban quality generally speaking, in large and medium-sized cities, in the
interior of So Paulo and other states in Brazil. It is the paradigm of a city built by walled
ghettos, physically represented or not. Separated by walls, gates, wrought iron gates, they
show a clear tendency for socio spatial segregation, in which the urban space is not for all,
but only for a few. A private city is created within the public city. The counter face of the
emptying of public life, in which the distinction between public and private becomes more
diffuse, makes it difficult to contest the loss we suffer.
The public space, place for human accomplishments, social heterogeneity, the first socio
cultural experiences, subjective exchanges and the free expression is gradually
abandoned and, instead, is replaced with spaces without identity21.

Thus, the so called new urban spatialities are becoming mere simulacrums of places- at
least in the case of residential gated communities, but not only, once its collective
imaginary is also partially reproduced in private official FILCs -, reproducing a reality that
makes no sense and doesnt even come close to the reality it simulates.

19 In fact, residential gated communities that imitate the notion of living with others in the city, which had
previously been visible through the public dimension, making artificial settlements very different from, for
instance, Morro da Macumba, an autonomous FILC in So Paulo (see illustration 14).
20 (Sol-Morales, I. 2002, p. 96).
21 According to Aug (1994), if a place can be defined as identitary, relational and historical, a space that
cannot be defined as identitary, or relational, or historical will define a non-place. (Aug, M. 1994, p. 73). To
Aug, the place is necessarily historical , combining identity and relations, related to the experience and to
human memory; whereas the non- place, as a rule, is projected for the circulation and/or rapid
transportation, does not look like the associative public space, place of identify and relations where
memory is accumulated. Even though the occurrence of a non-place in a place is possible if we consider
the subjective meaning of place (identitary, relational and symbolic) extreme objectivity of the non-places
influences in the characterization of these spaces, reducing to the limit the symbolic relations among people
and dislocating them from the specificity of the place. To Aug, an alteration in the boundaries between
public and private occurs.

Spaces of expected practices, actions subordinated to conduct codes, vigilance and

artificiality. Hence, the simulation of places of urban life reaches several scales, changing
the relation of its inhabitants, who are then considered mere users, receptors of the city
spaces.

As a result, reality, the space experienced and built socially, the meaning of public space
(as mediator of the encounter and also of conflict), intensifying act of the individual sphere,
are all reduced to new spacialities, which independently of being exactly public or private
certainly promote different processes of urban privatization.
Bibliography
ALVES, M. R. Pblico y privado: cultura, consumo y la espacialidad de la ciudad contemporanea. (Public and
Private: Culture, consumption and spatiality in the contemporary city). Polis. Santa F, n. 9, p. 42-53, 2006.
AMADOR, I. M. O Urbano So Carlos - vinte anos de poltica urbana : 1960-1981(Urban So Carlos twenty years of
urban politics) 141 f. Dissertation (Master in Architecture) School of Engineering of So Carlos, University of So
Paulo, So Carlos, 1981.
AUG, Marc. No-Lugares. Uma Introduo a uma Antropologia da Supermodernidade (Non-Places. An
Introduction to Anthropology of Super modernity.) Campusesnas: Papirus Editora, 1994.
CALDEIRA, T. Cidade de Muros: crime, segregao e Cidadania em SP(City of walls: Crime, Segregation and
Citizenship in SP). So Paulo: Edusp, 2001.
DELGADO, M. El Animal Pblico: hacia una antropologia de los espacios urbanos (The Public Animal: towards
an antropology of urban spaces). Barcelona: Editorial Anagrama, 2008.
DOZENA, A. So Carlos e seu desenvolvimento: contradices urbanas de um polo tecnolgico. (So Carlos
and its development: urban contradictions of a technological pole. 160 f. Dissertation (Master Degree in Geography)
School of Philosophy, Sciences, and Letters, University of So Paulo, So Paulo, 2001.
DONOSO, V. Privatizao da Vida Pblica ou Publicizao da Vida Privada: um estudo sobre sociabilidade,
percepo e prticas coletivas no espao urbano (Privatization of Public Life or Publicization of Private Life: a
study on sociability, perception and collective practices in the urban space). Pro-Dean of Graduation University
of So Paulo, Program Teach with Research, 2008.
LIMA, R. P. O Processo e o (des) controle da expanso Urbana de So Carlos (Process and (dis)control in the
urban expansion of So Carlos) (1857-1977). 193 f. Dissertation (Master Degree in Theory and History of Architecture
e do Urban Planning) School of Engineering of So Carlos, University of So Paulo, So Carlos, 2007.
Plano Diretor do Municpio de So Carlos (Director Plan of the Municipality of So Carlos). Municipal Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development. So Carlos, 2005.
MUOZ, F. Urbanalizacin. Paisajes comunes, lugares globales (Urbanalization: ordinary landscapes, global
places). Barcelona: Gustavo Gilli, 2008.
NEVES, A. P... So Carlos: Na esteira do tempo (in the course of time). 1884-1984. lbum comemorativo do
centenrio da ferrovia. So Carlos, 1984. ( Album celebrating the centenary of the railroad. So Carlos, 1984).
MIO, O. A. Os espaos da sociabilidade segmentada: a produo do espao pblico em presidente prudente
(Spaces of sociability segmented: the production of public space in Presidente Prudente.) Paulista State
University, School of Sciences and Technology. 2004.
PRVT SCHAPIRA, M. F... Segregacin, Fragmentacin, secesin. Hacia una nueva geografia social em la
aglomeracin de Buenos Aires (Segregation and Fragmentation: towards a new social geography in Buenos
Aires). Economia. Sociedade y Territorio. Toluca Mxico, v.2, n.7, p.405-431, 2000.
SANTOS, M. A Natureza do Espao. Tcnica e Tempo. Razo e Emoo (Nature of Space. Technique and Time.
Reason and Emotion). So Paulo: Hucitec, 1997.
SOLA-MORALES, I. Territrios (Territories). Barcelona: Gustavo Gilli, 2002.
TRUZZI, O. Caf e Indstria (Coffee and Industry). So Carlos: 1850 1950. So Carlos SP: Editora da UFSCar,
2000.
http://www.saocarlos.gov.br multiple accesses
http://www.fadisc.edu.br; http://www.iguatemisaocarlos.com.br;
http://www2.ufscar.br;
http://www.dhama.com.br
http://www.swiispark. sc.com.br .

Manoel Rodrigues Alves

Short Biographical Statement
Manoel Rodrigues Alves, Architect: Undergraduate from the School of Architecture and
Urban Planning at Mackenzie Presbyterian University in 1980. Master of Sciences in
Architecture Studies from the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1987. Doctoral Degree in Architecture and Urban Planning from
the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of So Paulo in 2001. Posdoctoral studies at Escuela Tcnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad de Sevilla
(ETSA-US) in 2009. Professor of theory of Architecture and Urban Planning and Urban
Design, Course of Architecture and Urban Planning, School of Engineering of So Carlos,
University of So Paulo (EESC-USP). Visiting Professor, ETSA-US, 2009. Research
Group, LEAUC (www.leauc.wordpress.com). Research focused on contemporary city,
especially: public spaces, public places; public domain and public realm; new urban
spatialities; and urban configuration processes; city, culture and urban landscape.
Organizer and Chair SILACC 2007 City and Culture: contemporary dimensions,
International Symposium, So Carlos, October 2007, and SILACC 2010 City and Culture:
New urban spatialities and territorialities, So Carlos, August 2010. President of the
Undergraduate Commission, EESC-USP.
Manoel Rodrigues Alves
University of So Paulo
Engineering School of So Carlos
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning
(Address): Avenida Trabalhador So-carlense, 400 CEP 13560-970
Caixa Postal 359 So Carlos / SP - BRASIL
Phones: (55-16) 33739294
(Fax): (55-16) 33739310
(E-mail):
mra@sc.usp.br