Coming recently from the World Urban Forum 9 in Kuala Lumpur, I would like to share one of the observations I had. At the same time, I hope to resolve some of the doubts which grow around the final Declaration of this Congress. There are voices which say that not talking about slums is a critical omission and even expression of bad will of its authors. I consent this opinion, as this topic is expressed in the document, only using other words.

Please notice that Kuala Lumpur Declarations expressly speaks about: “Managing the complexities of increased migration into cities, at all levels, leveraging positive contributions of all and using more inclusive planning approaches that facilitate social cohesion and create economic opportunities.”

I am convinced that we should not talk any longer about slums, not call them like that anymore. The informal settlements should be discussed instead and treated equally to the formal planning as two different instances of human construction activities. The word slum has got strongly negative connotation, it assesses and devaluates the urban structures and people to which it refers. While we have already learned that unequal treatment of people is wrong, and we try to eliminate our lack of understanding of different cultures at the level of perception of other behaviours, it is still not the case with urban structures. Explaining it as clearly as I only can, as artefacts of cultures, urban fabrics, especially informal ones, contain the vital cultural component. What we often perceive as mess and slums, might be and for sure is the expression of our own culture. We see diversity as something wrong because it does not comply with our own ways of living. These convictions are ingrained, it is difficult to get rid of them when looking at slums.

I used the same words when writing my book on Jewish Polish settlements in central Poland before the World War II. Jewish settlements were perceived as ugly and the ones which need ordering. While some of them were poor and thus often dirty and poorly maintained, part of this perception had cultural reasons and led to the eradication of most of these neighbourhoods. As we all know, they were destroyed together with their citizens and their very specific culture. The process of demolitions followed critics which were raised for years. The reasons behind had strong cultural component.

The expression which declaration uses addresses the actual problems which are behind the malfunctioning areas, without however talking about slums. We should not use such words, they are very strongly offensive, they value and assess neighbourhoods and through this their inhabitants. The research on informal settlements and their values contains many volumes. Part of this approach we find also in complexity studies that equal input of top-down, formal planning, and unplanned self-organised human activities. To conclude, the Kuala Lumpur declaration calls for our support. And for sure we should not speak about slums anymore, this is wrong.