INTEGRAL PLAN FOR SLUM UPGRADING NICARAGUA English … · Ricardo Toledo Silva Delft University of...
139
INTEGRAL PLAN MANAGUA FOR SLUM UPGRADING NICARAGUA English summary- November 1987 Coordination arch. Marisa Carmona arch. Migue I Cano arch. Ricardo Toledo Silva Delft University of Technology Holland Alcaldía de Managua Nicaragua Instituto de Pesquizas Tecnológicas Sao Paulo Brazi1 PSIB team arch. Eisa Bisscheroux ir.Frits Dinkla ir.Tania T.Aquino ir. P.P.v Loon ass. Lidewij Turnmers arch. Sandra Fabian arch. Jose Guido arch. Zaiíje Terrazas ir. Ricardo Moretti ir. Jose Pedrosa ir. Mai cos Montenegro Delft University of Technology Alcaldía de Managua Insti tuto de Pesquizas Tecnológicas Sao Paulo
Transcript of INTEGRAL PLAN FOR SLUM UPGRADING NICARAGUA English … · Ricardo Toledo Silva Delft University of...
I N T E G R A L P L A N
M A N A G U A
F O R S L U M U P G R A D I N G
N I C A R A G U A
English summary- November 1987
Coordination
arch. Marisa Carmona
arch. Migue I Cano
arch. Ricardo Toledo Silva
Delft University of TechnologyHolland
Alcaldía de ManaguaNicaragua
Instituto de Pesquizas TecnológicasSao Paulo Brazi1
PSIB team
arch. Eisa Bisscherouxir.Frits Dinklair.Tania T.Aquinoir. P.P.v Loonass. Lidewij Turnmers
arch. Sandra Fabianarch. Jose Guidoarch. Zaiíje Terrazas
ir. Ricardo Morettiir. Jose Pedrosair. Mai cos Montenegro
Delft University of Technology
Alcaldía de Managua
Insti tuto de Pesquizas TecnológicasSao Paulo
Table of content.
Foreword -
Introduction 3
Development of the Plan 7
Chapter I. Characterization of the
Urban Reality and Diagnoses 11
Chapterll. Technical Alternatives and
Alternatives for urban consolidation 43
Chapter III. System for Evaluation and
Prioritization of interventions and
Action Plans 7 5
Chapter IV. Pilot Plans
Chapter V. Existing conditions of the
Pilot Barrios .Photos.
MAPS 117
Chapter VI Alternatives of interventionsl42
Typical Solutions 154
FOREWORD
The city of Managua.as in other Latin American cities, ischaracterized by its uiv control led urbanization.The present urbanstructure reflects the general processes of changes occurringover the last 50 years.These changes were originallyconditionated by Nicaragua's vulnerable role in the worldmarket.the forms of agriculture exploitation,the incipientindustrialization and the unequal distribution of wealth duringthe dictatorial period.More recent conditions are the rise inexpectations brought about by the revolutionary process and theeconomic and physica 1 changes brought about by the destructiveeffects of the war.78.5% of Managua's live in popular settlements at differentleve 1 s of development that occupy 55 .0% of the total city area.The technical and service infrastructure in these areas is verydefici ent.The increase of illness generated by the precarioussanitary conditions in these barrios is alarming.The scarcity of resources is aggravated by the forms of 1 anduse,the low densities and the uneontrol led i 1 legal occupationsof land.This causes difficulties in the supply.at reasonablecost.of conventional technical infrastructure where it is mostneeded.The Integral Plan for Slum Upgrading (PSIB) looks for alternativesolutions for the improvement of these settlements.Solutions are based on the condition of each settlement as we 11as the différents stage of the mode 1 of development. Thereforethe Plan considers.amongst other issues, the role and investmentgoals of the building sector at the different- stages. the amountand character i st i es of unetiip loyrneiit and sub-emp loyrnent . theavaibality of local mat er]a 1 s.the level of community developmenttogether with the sanitation conditions.The PSIB looks into the future to give a general framework forthe interventions to be carried out in the different settlementsin r 1 at ion to drinking-water supply.road system.collect ion anddisposal of waste water.rainfal1 drainage and colection anddisposal of garbage .Moreover it gives general guide 11 nes for theformulation of Annual Action Plans.The formulât ion of these Action Plans implies in itself .a highleve 1 of Popular Participation and coordination between thedif f erent Inst i tut ions involved.In short the PSIB became an instrument for planning the use ofland and improving the quality of life in the popular barrios.The PSIB contemplates the following phases:1.Inventory and Diagnosis f including data processing) .2.Up-grading alternatives for the different types of settlementsof Managua.
3.Specific Projects.different sanitary systems. Directory Plansfor the different type of settlements.4.Implementation of Pilot PlansThe pIan is excecuted by the Municipality of Managua under theproffesional advice of De Ift University of Technology .Faculty ofArchitecture and the Instituto de Pesquizas Tecnológicas ,SaoPaulo (I.P.T.). The Plan also takes account of the cone lus ions ofshort consultancies of Latin American experts.
List of consultants:
Oscar Catalan (ISMOG. U.Amsterdam) macroeconomic issues.Jorge Ruiz de Somocurcio (Dir. Metropolitano.Lima)UrbanManagement.Mario Lungo (CSUCA, Costa Rica) Socio-economic aspects.Alex Fernandez (U.Amsterdam)Macro-sociologic aspects.Raul Pellegrin (Comité Chi leño de la Productividad de laConstrucción) Métodos de Evaluación.Roberto Chavezíformer Nicaragua,Urban Planning director and WorldBank consultant)coordination with the City Development Plan.Carmen Domeñe (City Development Plan.Managua)Urban PlanningMiguel Lawner (Director Inst. Leipschutz and Colegio deArquitectos)Chi le.Directory Plans and final structure.Ana Falu (U.Nacional Cordoba).Argentine . Popular Action.Fernando Chavez (ALAHUA,Conicet)Argentine Popular action andPilot Plans.Octavio Tapia (Ecotextura)Nicaragua Pi lot Plans.Br ian Higgings f state University New YorkjPattsburoh.USAJ'Socio-economic andmicro-diagnoses surveys.Contributions in the initial stages from:Emilio Pradilla (Universidad Nacional)Mexico. General FrameworkRod Burgess (State Universitys «Bal timoré.USA). Peñera! framework.Giulietta Fadda (Universidad Central).Venezuela .Generalframework.Ana Sugranyes (CEBEMO)Preliminar evaluation.And other participants of the Mesa Redonda conference 1985.prof.ir.A.J.Hogeslag, prof.dr.P.Drewe, prof.dipl-ing.J.Rosemann; academic consul-tants TU Delft.
This study has been financed by the Dutch Ministry ofDevelopment Cooperation.
INTEGRAL SLUMS UP GRADING PLAN PS IB MANAGUA
An International Technical Cooperation Experience
Introduction.
The technical cooperation process that has taken place in theframework of the PSIB-Managua has its origins in theidentification of a common theoretical substratum to urbandevelopment in Latin American countries,that has been worked outby a number of Latin American and European professionals sincethe 70's.Such substrate is based on the approach that urban development isa process subordinated to the broader transformations ofproductive forces and social relations.The city is seen as acomplex productive system that contains the dual characteristicsof basic conditions for the production of goods and of labourforce reproduction.Any proposal to intervene in the urban structure mustnecessarily start from an understanding of the movements andtendencies concerning the social and economic organizations ofits agents.Territorial land occupation is seen as the physical expression ofthose movements,which combined with natural environmentalconditions determine the apparent limits of each type of action.
The works that are carried out do not lend themselves to theelaboration of profund structural analysis because of the veryformation and practice of the professionals involved in thatprocess.However the importance of such analysis is clear,such asthe application of their results as guidelines for interventionin the urban structure.On the other hand,the necessity toundertake inmediate actions imposes itself.Inmediate actions thatwill result in effective improvements in the quality of life ofthe populations living today in Latin American cities,many ofwhich are below the minimum health and safety standards.
It is under this view that the PSIB-Managua is beingdeveloped.The International Cooperation is coordinated by theDelft Technical University (The Netherlands) and the work hasbeen financed by the Dutch Ministry of Development Cooperation.The PSIB represents actually a very important contribution in thediscussion of habitat and urban development in Latin Americancountries.The IPT,Technical Research Institute of the State of Sao Paulo(Brazil)participates in the process as a technical consultingbody.These consultancies takes place in the framework of cooperationsagreements with the Delft University of Technology and theNicaraguan Ministry of External Cooperation which has sought theassistance of the Brazilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
This repport deals with some methodological and final proposalsfor intervention in the city of Managua. References to thebroader scope of economic,social territorial and technologicalaspects are based on periodical documents both from TUDelft andIPT Brazil,listed at the end of this repport.
1.Basic applied concepta.Technical Cooperation,in the framework of the PSIB-Managua,takesplace based on the mutual understanding of basic concepts thatare applied in the project as a whole. The discussions related tothese concepts involve all the institutions - namely the ALCALDÍAde MANAGUA (ALMA) Managua's Mun i c i p a1 i ty and the MINVAH(Nicaraguan Ministry of Housing) - which are responsible for therealization of the project.
1.1. Urban Development as an Integrated process.The habitat problem - or in more generic terms - that of thebuilt environment for consumption,requires an integral approachthat is able to involve the number of goods and services whichare necessary to fulfill the basic requirements of habitability.The fragmentary treatment of elements of these goods and services(i.e. housing units, infrastructure networks,road system,etc )makes it difficult to visualize the fundamental habitatrequirements of the population.Such treatment makes it also difficult to visualize theattributes associated with the goods and services which havealready been installed. It also frquently involves wastage whichoriginates in the duplication and/or deficiencies in thefulfillment of requirements.It is possible to affirm that where resources are mostlimited,the more complex and complicated become the functionalrelations that are established between the different (and scarce)elements of the urban structure.For the sake of argument we can consider the upper-class dwellingplaced at the end of minimum of complexity. This dwelling isbuilt in a relatively well-served area,thus the functionalrelations are well defined: the house shelters all activitiesbelonging to the family,the public networks and circulationsystem provide operational conditions which are reasonablyacceptable from the points of view of safety,hygiene and confort.At the other end of maximun complexity we can consider a squatterarea of any Latin American city.Here the public and privatespaces are mixed,the performance of functions belonging to thehabitat generates conflicts between the community members andprocesses of the physical environment (erosion,f loods) areexascerbated because of disordered occupation of urban land. Insuch situations the dwelling are at risk and the inhabitants arealso at risk when the supplied drinking water and the wastewaters mix, with obvious sanitary problems.In such areas,technical interventions take on a very complexcharacter which is aggravated by the scarcity of resources.This makes it impossible to apply conventional systems ofinfrastructure and urban services.In a context where most of the generated resources is beingdiverted to the war,the technological alternatives to be usedmust necessarily be those with the least possible cost which areable to meet the largest number of basic requirements.The approach of urban development as an integrated process isimperative in order to be able to achieve the maximum of urbanservices required to be instai led.The main services are : watersupply,sewerage and drainage systems and the circulation network.The considerations of these services in an integrated way,reflects strongly the existing organization of .dwelling units andthe settlement lay-out,generating specific urban design
alternatives for each type of service to be installed.Each element is anal ized under a macro perspective system(quarter or neighbourhood level).In a general way,in the macro-structure . the limits to be supply of each one of the goods andservices are defined according to present availability and toinvestment perspectives in the medium term.In the micro-structurethe main problem and tendencies are defined in relation to thedemand of the same goods and services.
1.2. Applicability of unconventional technologies.
The unconventional technologies for urban infrastructure arederived from the range of descentralized solutions applicable toeach type of settlement (barrio).They have different degrees ofdependency in relation to the general networks and systems. Thesearch for descentralized solutions is justified because of theacce1erated growth rates of new settlements,associated withrestrictions in the supply of conventional urban infrastructuresystems.In a general way,the investment capacity of public sector ininfrastructure works,does not meet real demand.This tends to beworsened by the war. In this way the interventions to be realizedin the PSIB must fulfill the basic requirements of each areathrough the following :
a. The maximum utilization of the existing conventionalinfrastructure.
b. The installation of unconventional infrastructure alternativesthat can fulfill - for a reasonable time - minimum safety andhealth standards and that are coherent within the sectorialdevelopment plans of each system (water supply,sewerage,drainage and road systems).
In the first line of intervention are included the settlementslocalized within the already consolidated urban fabric. In manyof these settlements.it is feasible to increase housingdensities,because of the availability of large numbers of emptylots. In many cases,the decision to increase the density of anarea will require (besides the beter uti lization of the existinginfrastructure)the instai lat ion of systems that will complementthose already available.This is the case,for instance,in thebarrios which have primary sewerage collectors (along the mainroads) to which the great majority of dwellings are notconnected.In order to obtain an effective improvement in sanitaryconditions, alternatives to the installation of the secondarynetworks must be studied.This is because frecuently the alreadyexisting dwel1 ings would not have the possibility of conectionswithin the conventional patterns.Increasing densities,in these terms,requires an integratedknowledge of the different infrastructure components and of theevolution of the urban fabric.To attempt to solve each problem inan isolated way would increase the risks of getting negativeresults in the improvement of local sanitation.The second line of intervention would include mainly the mostrecently occupied areas that have appeared in the urban expansionzones and which the infrastructure of Managua does not reach.In such cases,one starts from the conception of low-costintegrated infrastructure systems.which have a high degree of
autonomy in relation to the central ized systems.The maximum utilization of local resources and conditions issought,preserving as far as possible the characteristics of thenatural physical environment (bearing in mind the dangers oferosion,isatability and contamination).The employment of non-conventional technologies is thus definedto complement and to be aín instrument of the operation ofsectorial urban infrastructure development policies, and not asan exclusive alternative with respect to these policies.The relation between the general guidelines on an urban orregional scale - which have been defined by the different bodiesof the revolutionary power - and the local guidelines of the PSIBcan be complementary either by combining conventional and non-conventional systems in the same location or it can also beachieved by the application of non-conventional systems in awhole area,postponing in this way an increase in the necessityof conventional system servicing on a larger scale.The installation of local infrastructure systems must becoordinated with the production of materials and components inmini-factories,bearing in mind the maximum uti1 ization ofresources and productivity of labour.
I. Development of the Plan,
The Plan Comprises 4 stages:
I . Inventory and DiagnosisII. Alternative solutions.Ill Specific ProjectsIV. Formulation of Action Plans and Pilot Plans.
I. 1.0. .The first stage,the characterization of the urban realityis directed to local needs and was done in coordinationwith the City Development Plan ,at that time inexcecution.The characterization of the urban reality, done inhistorical terms,include the following studies:geo-demographic,geo-morphologic.urban system.buildingsector.housing production,building materials.The characterization concludes:
1.1.The identification of homogenous areas and theclassification of all settlements into 5 categoriesaccording to certain physical and socio-economic premisesconcerning the dwelling,the technical infrastructure, thecommunity services and the nature of each barrio.
1.2.The identification of critical areas in respect of theavailability of city services,technical infrastructureand employment attraction nodes.
1.3. The drafting of an initial proposal of possible actionswhich takes into considerations the nature of each barrioand the sort of problems which may arise. (Pilot Plans1985).
2.0.The Diagnosis identifies restrictions and potentialitiesat macro level ( city level and basic-unit leve 1) and atmicro-level (settlement and neighborhood level).
2.1.At macro level a physical and socio-economic evaluationwas performed in 7 settlements selected as typical of the5 categories of settlements of the city.With this diagnosis the following steps were taken:
2.1.1.The identification of the structure of popularparticipation in the different location.The aspirationsand experience of popular organizations.
2.1.2.The identification of the critical problems of thethe different typologies of barrios.
2.1.3.The identification of the posible development actionsto carried out.
2.1.4.The identification of the physical problems concerningthe urban layout,tenancy,f amily composition.
2.1.5.The potential cost of technical infrastructure relatedto adjustments of urban layout and infilling programmes.
2.1.6.Conelusions at macro-level.Identification andclassification of barrios into :» a. Barrios in process of deterioration
b. Barrios in process of developmentc. Barrios to be consolidated.
2.2.At micro level,a physical and socio-economic evaluationwas carried out in 5 selected areas (neighbourhood level)of typical settlements.The following aspects were studiedin respect to the up-grading actions:
2.2.1.Family composition,overcrowding patterns.2.2.2.Tenancy and socio-economic conditions of the users.2.2.3.Forms of occupation of land.Public and private.2.2.4.Prevailing illnesses caused by sanitation shortages
and incidence of diseases by main transmission sources.2.2.5.Observations concerning topography and soil issues2.2.6.Observations concerning leve Is and seasonal variations
of the water table.2.2.7.Form of occupation of the plot , the prevailing
characteristic of the dwelling ,water cycle,habits of theusers in respect to multiple use of water and handlingand separation of garbage.
2.2.8.Existing sewage disposal systems ,rainwater collectionand disposal and road system.
2.2.9.Conditions of the sanitary installations, watercol lection.Backflowing of surface water in thesettlements.
2.2.10.Locational and qualitative aspects of sanitaryspaces.
2.2.11.The existing building materials.2.2.12.Cone lusions.General technical premises with respect
to the technical interventions to be carried out in thebarrios.
II. Alternative solutions.I I.I. Technical Solutions.In order to carry out the analysis
of the different technical aspects included in this study,the typical sanitation problems occurring in the citywere projected onto the already selected settlement type.In this way, 5 barrios were chosen which together containedboth the sanitation problem and the different sorts ofpopular settlements existing in the whole city.Each of the 5 barrios was study in depth, and according tothe characteristic of each type of settlement,technicalsolutions were drafted for the different technical aspectsthat comprise this study in accordance with the technicalpremises formerly concluded.
2. Progressive development actions were drafted for:2.a. Water supply,distribution and /or storage2.b. Waste water,col lection and disposal2-c. Drainage2.d. Garbage,col lection and disposal2.e. Vehicular and pedestrian roads treatment.2.f. Sanitation campaign
3. General guidelines were drafted for the:3.a. Short term3.b. Medium term3.c. Long term.
4. Costs. The technical studies include the determinationof unit costs by each technical aspect included in eachproject.
11.2. Land Use. According to the different types of settlementcapacity studies were carried out that include:
2.1. Potential adjustments to land use allocations,(residential,public,road system).
2.2. Adjustments to tenancy and urban layout2.3. Adjustments of roading system2.4. Projection of the given capacity to the urban scope.
3. Alternatives of adjustment to land use at city level.These consist in the summation of variables for eachbarrio and are then projected to the city levelaccording certain given premises.
The variables are:dwelling type,infrastructure type,type of barrio,potential of technical infrastructure,physical restrictions.The premises are: present restraints on investment inthe city, the need to intervene in different wayaccording to the type of settlement.
3.1. Alternative 1.3.2. Alternative 2.3.3. Conclusions :
a.Areas to be consolidated and developed.b.Location of empty land potential urbanized for
inmediate use.c.Location of places to be infilled in medium range term
III. 1. Directors plans for the five selected barrios thatrepresent the totality of barrios of the city.
1. Director Plans for Camilo Ortega and Adolfo Reyes.2. Director Plan for Ciudad Sandino.Jonathan Gonzalez and
B15.3. Pi lot•projects in the 5 barrios.
a.Feasibi1ity and pre-investment plansb.Definitive projects.Phasing and programmingc.Implementation.
IV. 1.0. Evaluation and Prioritization of interventionprogrammes.
1.1. Selection of urban indicators.1.2. Characterization and weighting of the urban indicators1.4. Testing of the system in two barrios.2.0. Annual Action Plans.2.1. Agreement on criteria for setting priorities and
selection of action plans: ALMA,MINVAH,INAA.MINSA(Municipality.Ministry of Housing, Water and SewerageInstitute,Ministry of Health.)
2.2. Pre-investment plans for the 54 high priority barriosof the city.
RESEARCH LEVELS. INTEGRATED UPGRADING PLAN MANAGUA.
ANALYTICALUNIT
PROGRAMME PORANALYSIS
DIAGNOSIS OFURBAN DEVELOPMENT-ANALYSIS OF PRODUC-TTIVE PROCESSES-ANAL. DWELLING INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
-ANAL. COMMUNICATION«•ANAL. URBAN CONTROLI ACTION
-DIAGNOSIS GROWÏH IPLANS
DIAGNOSIS OFfOOGENEOUS AREAS
t IWRASTOTTURE-LAfflMJSE TYPOLOGY-SOCIAL TYPOLOGY-NORMATIVE RELATIONS-RELATION EMPLOYMENT-
DWELLING-TRANSFORMATION TEN-
DENCIES
OOMKITY DIAGNOSIS
-LAND-USE TYPOLOGY-SOCIAL TYPOLOGY-NORMATIVE RELATIONS-REL. EMPLOYM.-DWEL.-TRANSFORMATION TEND.
DWELLING DIAGNOSIS
«LAND-USE TYPOLOGY• SOCIAL TYPOLOGY^NORMATIVE RELATIONS-REL. EMPLOYM.-DWEL.
URBAN DEVELOPMENTSCHEME
-REGIONAL STUDY-DEMD/EMPLOYM. STUDY-LAND-USE BALANCE-COMERCIAL ACTIVITY-CITY CENTRES-SOCIAL SERVICES-INFRASTRUCTURE-TRANSPORT ft CCWDNIC-RECREATION
COMPARATIVE ANALYSISOF THE BARRIOS
-NETWawS/SERV .CAPAC.TTOTAL AREA BARRIOS-PRIVATE/PUBLIC AREATCCMWINAL AREA- N o . DTKtyHOUSEHOLDS- M I / H B / D W INFRASTRUCT-RESTRUCT. POSSIBIL.-HOUSEHOLD INCOME-PARTICIPATION GRADE
COMPARATIVE ANALYSISOF OOMJMTIES-OVERCROWDING LEVELS-BLOCK & LOT AREAS-STATE OF DEVELOPM.:
.PHYSICAL
.CGHJNAL-SELF HELP UNITS
CCMPARATIVE ANALYSISOF DWELLINGS
-DWELLING TYPOLOGY-PHYSICAL STATE
.DWELLING
.INFRASTRUCIURE-DEMD/EMPLOYM 1 DW.^TRANSFORWTION HYPO-THESES
K
11
12
CRITERIA FOR THEFORMATION OFALTERNATIVES
ECONOMIC PROGRAM*OF THE MWICIPALITY
(f.e.)-INVESTMFJTTS;.WORKS IN SUPPORT OFPROOUCTIVE ACTIVITY
.FISlHNGfcAGRO/RURALDEVELOPMENT WORKS
.COMMITMENTS TO ORGA-NIZATIONS
.PROGRAMES IN COURSE
DIFFERENTIATED PROGR.;(•DETERIORATING BARRIO-DEVELOPING BARRIO-CONSOLIDATING BARRIO
INTEGRATFJ) PROGR; FORBARRIO DEVELOPMENT:"STRENGTHENING OF SO-CIAL ORG./SERVICES-IMPROVE PRODUCTION 1.. INCOME GENERATING ACT
DIFFERENTIATED PROGR.-DETERIORATING BARRIO-DEVELOPING BARRIO-CONSOLIDATING BARRIO
INTEGRATED PROGR. FORBARRIO DEVELOPMENT:-STRENGTHENING OF SO-CIAL ORG./SERVICES-IMPROVE PRODUCTION I
GENRATING ACT.
DIFFERENTIATED PROGR»
-DETERIORATING BARRIO-DEVELOPING BARRIO-CONSOLIHATING RARRIO
1*
16
ASPECTS OFINTERVENTION
SHORT TERMPROGRAMMES
LONG TERMPROÍTJUMES
RAINWATER DRAINAGE 17-PRIMARY SYSTEM-SECONDARY SYSTEM
.SURFACE: c h a n n e l sr e a d s
.UNDERGR:wells, man-h o l e s , p i p e l i n e s e t c
ROAD NETWORK:constr/m2intTRAFFIC SYSTEM TREEPL.-PRIMARY SYSTEM-SECONDARY SYSTEM
CIVIL WORKS
RAINWATER DRAINAGEROAD NETWORKGARBAGE ELIMINATIONCIVIL WORKSINTEGRATED RROGR. TOREDUCE OVERCROWDING-LAND-USE RESTRUCT./POSSIBILITIES FORINTERINSTITUT1ONALCOORDINATION
ROAD NETWORKGARBAGE ELIMINATIONPHYSICAL RESTRUCTURIN!ACCORDING TO INTE-GRATED PROGRAMMES
1NTERINSTITUTIONALCOORDINATIONUPGRADING
EXTENSION
SANITARY WORKS
JG 22
23
24
I N T E G R A L P L A N F O R S L U M U P G R A D I N G
1 . 1 . C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t he urban r e a l i t y
1.2. Diagnoses for slum upgrad ing .
11
ManaguaBefore the earthquake
ManaguaAfter the earthquake
12
I.1.Characterization of the urban reality.
1.1.1. The growth of Managua and the housing question.
At present Managua has an urban population of around 750.000 .84% of the inhabitants of the region in which the city is located.The city occupies 9.418 ha.at a density of 80 inhabitants perhectare.The preliminary Diagnoses of the Managua UrbanDevelopment Scheme is based on an hypothesis that contemplatesthe reduction of the present annual rate of population growthfrom 7.2% to 6.05%, which would give the city a population of 2.1million in the year 2000. In that year Managua would have 40% ofthe total population and 56.8% of the urban population of thecountry (hypothesis 3).The size of the Economically ActivePopulation in the year 2000 has been estimated at 639.588.An EAPof this size would require the creation of 412,000 new jobs bythat year (hypothesis 1 of the "Estudio demo-laboral.Esquema deDesarrollo Urbano"),a rate of increase of 24,236 jobs a year.
Managua's current population is made up of 142,000 households.yetthe total housing stock is 115,000 dwellings.About 20% of thisstock cannot be repaired because of its precarious condition.(e.q.dwel1 ings in seismic zones,f lood areas,'cuarterías'etc.).The increase in the number of households is around 6.000 perannum.and the rate of obsolescence (end of the life-span of theunit)is more than 1%, about 3.400 dwellings per year. Thecombined deficit therefore amounts to about 57,000 units.Given the size of this deficit it is not surprising that the rateof overcrowding is very high: one out of every five households inManagua is living with relatives in the same units. Data from the1984 MINVAH programme indicates the enormous gap between housingdeficits and existing supply:
Type of solution No.
Finished housingBuilding materialProgressive Urbanization
of solutions
885750
3000
cost per solution(córdobas)
148,79035,1142,194
The size of the housing deficit has an effect on land require-ements.Since 1982 Managua has ex-perienced massive occupation ofvacant urban land.In addition to the structural causes of theexisting housing deficit,inherited from the previousadministration.Managua has also experienced intensified migrationfrom those regions affected by the war.Urban demands and thefloods of 1982-1983 have also generated land illegal occupations.The housing deficit can also be seen in terms of the requirementsfor new urbanized land.improvements in infrastructure andservices an in building requirements in general (repairs,renewalextensions and new construction ).Central Managua has large areasof land available for housing purpose since the old city centrewas totally destroyed by the 1972 earthquake.
13
1.1.2. The socio economic context.
The effects of Managua's growth must be placed in a nationalcontext and in terms of the socio-economic aspects ofdevelopment.The main analysis of these aspects is dealt with inthe economic section of the Characterization of the UrbanReality,1985.However a number of preliminary remarks have to bemade.At the moment it appears that the mixed economy model isexperiencing serious constraints in the existing transitionphase.These constraints limit the possibilities for improving theincomes of the population in the short term,and this short termsubsistence level of living wil continue to be found amongst thevery low income groups.
The analysis of the economic situation in Nicaragua has to bebased on the fact the point of departure is a popular Revolutionthat has as its goal the transformation of the political andsocial structure of the country.For this reason the use of traditional economic parameters is byitself an insuficient basis for an effective socio-economicdiagnosis or analysis of the possible ways of occupying theterritory.Nicaragua is a society that is currently subjected to structuralchanges and the pressures of war,a situation in which botheconomic and spatial structures have not yet reached a definitiveprofile. A large number of issues must be studied in order tomore completely understand the relations between the economic andspatial structures.These include : the impact of war,the neweconomic measures,the struggles against market speculation andtheir effect on migration flux;the impact of urban reform and ofthe changes in land rent etc. The reconstruction of the economyhas demanded a large investment effort which has broughtpressures to bear on the external sector and consumption levelsand patterns.In recent years the war has affected the country'scapacity for replacement of machinery and equipment and hasresulted in higher material cost.In 1983 damages amounted to onethird of the value of exports,and even higher levels wererecorded in 1984.
Defence expenditure which has risen in response to U.S. militaryescalation,has greatly affected the investment capacity andconsumption levels of the population.The as yet unconsolidatedstructural transformations of the economy have also resulted in atransitory loss of economic efficiency.Moreover,the changes inthe ownership structures and the productive system have generateda new dynamic and new problems.One such problem is theintensification of immigration to Managua,and the extraordinarygrowth of the so called 'informal sector' of the economy.
At the moment the indications are that conditions in the externalsector will continue to deteriorate in the near future.The availability of loans has been constrained because ofexternal political pressures,and no increases in Ni caraguanexport returns are anticipated.In the near future it is probablethat more rigurous measures will be required in order to controlthe economy.
14
These measures will aim at diminishing the fiscal deficit (whichtoday stands at 25%of GDP) and at reducing the current imbalancein import/export payments by further restricting imports.BuiIdingactivities will therefore be affected by these constraints.Inview of the growing budgetary demands of the defence sector(currently standing at 40% of the national budget),any attempt toreduce the fiscal deficit would mean a diminution in currentexpenses and investments which are not related to the defence ofthe nation.A reduction in imports would demand greater efforts to increaseproduction for the internal market without imported inputs andwithout reducing consumption.The indications are therefore that there should be a modificationin the system of prices and the structure and level of salariesin order to create more incentives for national production.
These considerations of the general situation in Nicaragua haveled to a proposed programme of public interventions in humansettlements that is based on the existing reality of a countrythat is moving towards a mixed economy under conditions ofmilitary agression.This programme will be based on a number ofpremises concerning the form of occupation of land, family andspatial typology and community organization.
I.1.3.Urban Planning.
Modern Urban Planning in Managua can be considered as startingafter the destruction of the city with the 1972 earthquake.Nevertheless several factors have influenced its structure andproduced delays in the delivery of concrete results.Amongst other,the factors are:* The different nature of political regimes of the Somoza and
Sandinista periods.* The economic crisis affecting Central America, and the typicalconstraints of starting a process of transition to socialism.
* The dramatic economic and human effects of the war disturbingplanned growth strategies,intensification of rate of rural -urban and intra- urban migration,the accelerated squatting rateof the capital and secondary cities and the accentuation ofnon-productive activities.
During the Somoza period and particularly after the earthquake of1972,urban planning was based at the Vice Ministry of urbanPlanning.The principal driving force in this planning process vfasthe conflicting interest of the three dominant economic groupingsat that time,the BAVINÎ C,the Bank of America and the Somozaf amily.The groups monopolized in general all agricultural andindustrial stock,the urban land,property development,constructionmaterial sectors and the media in particular.Al1 three also had avery close relationship with bilateral lending agencies such asUS-AID and BIDF and with the large multinational corporationscontrolling the Central American Common Market.These interests all resulted in the heavy concentration of publicand private investments in some privileged areas of the city ofManagua.By the time of the Sandinista triumph in 1979.Managua containedabout 25% of the country's population,32,7% of the economically
15
active population and about 60% of all infrastructureinvestments.lt also contributed 34,1% of the country's GrossNational Product.The dependent capitalist development of thecountry's economy resulted in a highly uneven distribution ofcapital and labour power expressed at national level within theseverely underpopulated Atlantic Coast region and within Managuaitself. Managua's growth rate (in mid 70's) was the highest inthe country,about 6,5% per annum,and only 3.3% of this wasattributable to natural increase.In 1975 almost two thirds of itspopulation (61%) lived in self-built mud dwellings,over a third(36%) had no drinking water,almost a half (46%) had no connectionto a sewerage system and almost a quarter (23%) 1ived in roomsoccupied by more than five persons.
In 1982,the City Council of Managua and the Ministry of Housingand Human Settlements (MINVAH),initiated a study on long rangeUrban Development of Managua.Since 1983 the City Counci1,assistedby Delft University of Technology and the Institute ofTechnological Research of Sao Paulo,is involved in thedevelopment of a study that would determine the feasibility ofslum improvement based on short term direct action plans andlinked to the general premises of the Urban Development Plan ofManagua city. This study is called the " Plan for the IntegratedUpgrading of slum areas" (in Spanish is summarized as PSIB).The scarcity of resources and other difficulties constraining theSandinista revolution together with the wishes of advancementtowards a more even society serve to emphasize the need forplanning.General economic planning,as well as that of each of the economicsectors,leads to the search for forms which will to improve thebalance of payments,expand employment,reduce costs and make thebenefits of development open to a large sector of the population.The wi1ligness to plan is hampered by numerous limitationsrestricting the reliability of these plans in the medium and longterm.These restrictions apply to both the formulation and theimplementation of plans.
At the present time there are about 800.000 inhabitants inManagua unevenly distributed over about 9.500 urbanized,semi-urbanized and unused hectares. The devastation wreaked on thecity by the 1972 earthquake and the subsequent diversion ofinternational aid into land speculation practices by theformerly named economic groups,has created great inequalities inthe urban structure, and a unique situation where large emptyspaces coexist in central areas adjacent to well developed areas.This is responsible for the low density ratio of Managua as awhole (84,2 inhabitants per ha.).Over half of the city's residents live in 200 il legal sub-divisions with very low densities (around 20-25% dwellings perha). A further quarter of the population lives in a zone of oldsquatter housing constructed along the lake shore (where 17 opensewage drains constitute a serious health hazard). The high andmiddle income sectors, which constitute 2% of the city'spopulation,occupy around a quarter of the land within the citylimits.More than 20 "city centres" are spread all over the cityarea in a non structurated basis.
16
The present extremely high growth rate of the city (about 7%) andthe transformations that occur daily also restrict the gatheringof base line data.Part of the Plan Regulador.that was realised inMarch 1982.became obsolete because of the worsening of thehousing problem following the floods in May of that same year.Theillegal land occupation and progressive urbanization programmesbegan rapidly to consume unused expropiated areas.undermining thepossibilities to plan the future growth of the city.
I.1.4.The present stage.
The Urban Development Plan (in Spanish known as EDUM) is theanswer to the need to plan in a way enabling adjustment to theconditions of the country.The EDUM for Managua was carried out in a joint venture by theMINVAH and the City Council. receiving advice from the CubanInstitute for Physical Planning (JUCEPLAN).The Scheme forDevelopment of Cities in Cuba is linked with a global regionaleconomic development plan. However,given the low level ofknowledge of the urban and territorial reality ,the planningmethod used in Managua did not need to depart from overallregional data. The method used in Nicaragua is adequate for theirown reality,and the first phase is limited to the aspects ofphysical planning,reducing the total urban scale to smaller andmore realistic dimensions of understanding, namely theneighborhood scale.The city for this purpose has been divided into 116 Basic Units,territorial units with a radius of about 600 m.The EDUM of Managua distinguishes two stages:a. The Urban development Scheme for the city.which formulates its
structure on the long range.specifying the intermediate phasesof development.
b. A Director PI an.that starts from these first steps ofdevelopment of the city. guides the process of investments,
establishes zoning regulations and proposes out 1 i nes for urbanand architectural projects.
The PSIB in its turn combines two distinct levels and can bedivided in four stages. The first level is the urban regionaldimension of the up-grading problem,based upon studies of thesocio-economic reality and the strategies of development, andcoincides with the stage of diagnosis of the EDUM with respect tosimulation of population and locat ion.eco logical potential ofareas and the potential of services and infrastructure.The secondleve 1 is the settlement dimension.This level is def ined on thebasis of an analysis of the physical and socio-economic realityin the neighborhoods and coincides with the EDUM through theanalysis of the specif ic premises and basic urban indicators.
The gathering of base 1ine information on Basic Units determinesthe urban structure in zones that can be consolidated.developedor cleared up. These, and other regional urban guidelines of theEDUM will establish the general aspects involved in improving theinfrastructure and organization of the barrios. PSIB wille labórate the crossing and the evaluation of the urban social andtechnical components and will establish short and medium termalternatives as we 11 as the type of works to be carried out andthe priorities of investments involved.
1.1.5. The strategy concerning the Building Sector.
An analysis of the building sector is obviously critical forasses ing the feasibi1ity of projects to improve the bui Itenvironment of Managua.The sector is indeed very important withinthe national economy providing over 4,6% of total employment(national) and contributing 44.2% of the gross domestic productin 1984 (1),providing 37.000 working places,which corresponds to20.6% of the national secondary sector,to which Managuacontributes 50%.Studies in the building sector done byFINAPRI,characterize the existing strategy within national aims.
I.1.5.1.Rate of growth of Gross National Product (GNP).
In countries like Nicaragua where the physical capacity for theproduction of investment goods is so limited,the availability offoreign exchange restricted,and where there have been rapidchanges in the economic situation.it is obviously very difficultto predict the long term trend in the growth of GNP.Investmentcapacity is strongly related to the possibility of achieving agrowth in GNP between 1982-1988 which was commensurate with therate of national population increase (3,3% per year). At the endof this period it was considered that the maturation of newagricultural investments could increase this rate to around 5.0%per year.The value of GNP in 1981 was C 23 thousand millioncórdobas.
1.1.5.2. Growth strategy in the building sector.
The FINAPRI study traced the difficulties associated with openingUP the Nicaraguan economy to international commerce that werederived from balance of payments problems. These difficultieswere outlined as follows:
1. the aims of achieving a redistribution of income leads to aconsideration of measures of self-reliance in relation to a rangeof products.2. The low availability of foreign loans restricts the capacityto import advanced technology in an indiscriminative fashion.Thesubstitution of labour intensive by capital intensive technologyis a very delicate matter given high rates of unemployment andthe population growth.The need to secure the efficient use of national resources inorder to increase competiveness in internationalcommerce.demands the further expansion of agriculturalfrontiers.This in its turn creates a demand for the expansion ofphysical infrastructure.These factors structure the demands madeon the building sector.Public investments wi11 be chanelledtowards productive (particularly agro-industry) and the physicalinfrastructure.lt is expected that these investments will expandemployment.thus facilitating the increase and redistribution ofincomes.Under this approach there will be a medium-term delay insocial investments until the time when these investments havemade an impact on the dynamism of the chosen productivesectors.The investment plan for the building sector contemplatesthree periods:
1st Period 1982-1987.A period of public investments in the productive and energy-sectors distributed according to the following pattern:Infrastructure 69,4%.Bui Iding 16,5% (includes agro-industrialbuildings 10.0%).Housing 11.1%,Urbanization 3.0%.
2nd Period 1987-1992.A small reduction in the proportion of investments going toenergy,an increase in transport and a slow increase in socialinvestments especially housing.Infrastructure 42.0% buildings8.0%.housing 38.0% urbanization 12.0%
3rd Period after 1992.A gradual increase in all sectors is anticipated including thesocial sectors,according to the same distribution.
I.I 5.3. Investments programmes.
In 1982 public investments both in housing and urbanizationamounted to C 208.2 mill.,in 1983 c 377.4 mills.,and in March1984 it was estimated that at the end of the year figure wouldamount to C 663.0 mi 1 Is. .Projects range from renewal and sitesand services to social housing of about 45m2,including a numberof wooden houses).All regions of the country benefitted followingdecentralizations aims and priority was given to border regionswith Honduras and Costa Rica (2).In the city of Managua the building programme was supported by asoft loan from IDB,the Inter American Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment.The loan was for US$ 13 mi 11 ion .which correspondsto 70% of the projected investment programme.This programme wasdirected at the rectification of war damage,improvement ofsettlements and flood control.The programme resulted ininvestment of C 57.6 thousand millions 1981,C 74.6 thousandmillions in 1982 and C 55.8 thousand millions in 1983 (3).In theperiod 1980-1982 these levels of investments were sufficient onlyto pave 80 kms of the city's streets (around. 450 km or a half ofthe city's streets remain unpaved) and about 8 km of rain waterdrainage channeIs.In addition about 36 settlements were providedwith emergency services (amongst other water.electricity andsafety walls against erosion).At the end of 1983 the whole building programme was subordinatedto the new National Economic Programme which was oriented towardsthe need for maximun defense strategy and priority investment instrategic sectors.This limited more investments in buíIdingprogrammes and priority was given only to the satisfaction of themost basic needs.The political military situation imposed theneed for high standards of rational ity and eff iciency in the useof resources for planning.In Managua this meant that 22settlements improvement proj ects received C 206.3 million,(córdobas of 1983);2.130 m2 of rainwater drainage channels wererepaired and a small scale enterprise sector was initiated forproductive and servicing activities.In 1984 the militarysituation demanded even further constraints.At the end of theyear new measures were taken against the unproductive andspéculât ive sector that affected about a third of Managua'sE.A.P..These measures were directed at reducing demand andstimulât ing more productive activities.They included a wagefreeze.withdrawal of subsidies on basic products and the
19
establishment of control over the black market.The City Councilhas stressed the need to develop the small scale enterprisesector in coordination with the Ministry of Industry.Theprincipal aim is to alleviate the balance of payments problemthrough the substitution of imports in basic consumer goods bylocal materials (e.q.cooperatives for making shoes,clothesetc.).These small scale enterprises are also directed towards theprovision of basic services to the deprived population such aslocal trade,popular restaurants.recreational centers.In 1984 building activities were restricted to a budget of onlyC 142.84 mills. and only one settlement was assisted with afinancial investment of C 5.2 mills.In the city as a whole only 1.300 lineal meters of streets werepaved.Nevertheless special priority was given to the rural areasby the Department of Managua and some projects in Managua itselfwith a special strategic importance were also carried out.The 1985 Programme similarly reflects the crisis imposed on thecountry by the military situation. The priorities establishedare :
1. Support for those works directly related to productiveactivities.
2. Support for rural road construction in order to improveagricultural activity and rural living-conditions.
3. Support for those programmes which have been discussed inpublic.with the organized coTnmunity and which have politicalimportance.
20
I.1.6.Characterization of the human settlements.
I.1 .6.1.Classification of the ^barrios'of Managua.
The first classification identified Barrios according to theirphysical housing conditions (both dwelling and technicalinfrastructure). This study has been performed by MINVAH in 1983,and has provided us with a preliminary image of 192 residentialareas, representing a population of 754.195 people housed in108.822 dwelling units. These figures have been updated in 1985;resulting in 866.533 and 117.557 respectively.(Appendix 1).
The analyses of the physical state of the cities' residential'areas was based upon f ie Id-observations of the fol lowing issues :
1. Housing typology determined by the constructive elements;2. Physical state and life-span of the dwelling according to its
constructive elements;3. Internal technical infrastructure and services per dwelling
unit ;4. Technical infrastructure network of the settlement.
Classification according to housing typology made use of thefollowing categories; ruins; precarious-deteriorating (squatter);precarious-improving (or'urbanizaciones progresivas'.includingall new site and services programmes); popular individual of woodor a mixture of wood and masonry; popular individual of masonry;social housing projects in wood; social housing projects inmasonry; traditional (from before the earthquake of 1972 andbui It of - Taquezal'); social residential housing projects;individual residential; luxurious residential.
According to the physical state and life-span of the dwellings.the types are classified in; very bad; bad; moderate; good.
According to the internal infrastructure four categories wereestablished:A. drinking water provided outside the dwelling, either
individually or collectively; plus latrine;B. drinking water inside plus latrine;C. drinking water provided inside or outside the dwelling plus
internal or external sanitary provision;D. internal provision of drinking water plus internal(individual) sanitary.
With respect to the technical .infrastructure networks, the levelof development is measured in terms of the number of services asfol lows :1. drinking-water and electricity (illegal);2. drinking-water and electricity (legal);3. drinkirig-water, electricity and sanitary sewerage;4. drinking-water, electricity, sanitary sewerage and rainwater
drainage;5. drinking-water, electricity, sanitary sewerage, rainwater
drainage and telephone.
21
In general there exists a relation between the type of housingand the quality of the infrastructure networks.The combination of housing types, life span of the dwelling unitsand the level of domestic (interior) infrastrure services resultsin the types of residential areas as follows;
type of residential zone
1. ruins/infrastr. C2. precarious-deterior.3. prec.-impr./infrastr.4. traditional/infrastr.5. POP.wood/very bad/inf.6. pop.wood/very bad/inf7. pop.wood/bad/infrastr,8. pop.wood/bad/infrastr9. pop.wood/mod./infra.10 . pop . wood/mofl. /infra .11. pop.wood/good/infra.12. pop.wood/good/infra.13. pop.wood/good/infra.14. pop.mason./good/infra15. pop.mason./good/infra16. pop.mason./good/infra17. residential/infrastr.
ALL TYPES:
(no te : da ta 1983).
CHART 1.
ACACCBCBDCBCBDD
inhabitants%
0.76.95.89.60.60.52.70.3
16.93.27.27.67.71.60.315.113.3
100.0(754 195)
dwe11ingunits, %
0.86.87.87.50.70.43.30.5
.1.7.63.07.37.46.81 .20.413.914.6
100.0(108 822)
inh/dw
6.27.05.28.85.98.25.54.96.67.36.97.27.87.54.87.56.2
6.9
1.1.6.2. Typology of Barrios.
For the purpose of this characterization, that is to say aninvestigation into the feasibility of upgrading actions, a newclassification was carried out,in which factors concerning thehabitat conditions (dwellings and infrastructure) as well as theconditions that influenced the origins and development of thesettlement. are introduced.These conditions are amongst others: the location, the characterof land occupation; either spontaneous (individual or collective)or planned (by private or public sector), the forms ofconsolidation, building modality (mutual or self-help), etc..The combination of all these factors determines theclassification of all barrios in a number of categories,and foreffect of this study a representative barrio was selected on eachof them.
22
LOCATION OF STUDIED BARRIOS
1.6.3.1. Spontaneous settlements.Those settlements that arise on invaded land in a massive orgradual way. They present in general a high degree of over-population and a total lack of planning. These settlements areroughly divided into two groups :a. Traditional spontaneous (before 1979): in this case the people
have settled individually and gradually throughon the years.They aie generally found on the outskirts of the city,
h. New spontaneous settlements (after 1979): they are produced ina massive way and are located within the urban structure.
The dwellings existing in a. correspond to the type "precariousin deterioration1and in b. to the type "precarious in process ofimprovement'. These types have been established by the HousingStudy, made by the M1NVAH in 1982.Examples of spontaneous settlements are: Barrio Carlos Reyna.along the shore of Lake Managua.and the settlement known as B15along side the lake an near Jose Benito Escobar.
1.6.3.2. Progressive development.(Urbanizaciones progresivas)They have originated after 1979 due to relocations of populationthat lived in areas which are not suitable for urban development.They are in general located along the main circulât ion axes. Thetype of dwellings correspond in this case to the precarious inprocess of improvement. These settlements have minimuminfrastructural services (tap water .street lighting.lattine.some unpaved road patterns).Examples of these settlements are : Barrio Grenada and JonathanGonzalez.
1 .6.3.3. Barrios.These are either old ormiddle-low income sectors of
new settlements where the low andthe population live. Here some
23
infrastructure services are available. such as water supply,electricity and garbage collection and in some cases drainage andsewerage disposal. They are divided into three groups:
a. Old barrios: before the earthquake of 1972. These are locatedmainly around the central area of Managua.e.g Barrio MonseñorLezcano.
b. Popular planned barrios, They correspond to the type ofplanned housing schemes designed with minimum dimensionsaccording to the concept of progressive growth. In this casethe main infrastructure networks and services such as garbagecollection are present, e.g. Villa Venezuela and Ciudad
Sandino.c. Private initiative popular barrios. These barrios emerged
within the subdivisions made by landowners. They were illegalbecause they were sold without any state control and withoutthe minimum infrastructure services. After the 1979 revolutionthey came under state control, waiting for legalization (re-partos intervenidos).e.g. Adolfo Reyes, Camilo Ortega.
I.6.3.4. Residential.These are the new urbanizations produced before and after the1972 earthquake for the middle and upper classes. ín this caseall the infrastructure networks and services are present.They are scattered over the periphery of the city and have beendivided into three groups:a. Social residential. Consist in general of row houses with an
average of 8 m2 per person.e.g.Barrio Rafaela Herrera.b. Residential. Include row and detached houses with an average
of 14 m2 per person.e.g. Altamirac. Luxureous residential. All free-standing houses with anaverage of 20 m2 per person, eg Las Colinas, Altos de SantoDomingo.
CHART 2.
BARRIO CLASSIFICATION -
Description
Old spontaneous settl.New spontaneous settl.
PSIB 1986
Inhab.
66.869n.d.
Progressive urbanizations 28.081Old barriosPopular planned barriosPopular barriosSocial residentialResidentialLuxurious residentialCuarterías & restriction
Total
77.750159.699259.58758.64689.7363.98010.194
754.542
%of tot
8,9
3,710,321,234,47,711,90,51,4
100,0
m2
2.518,475413,357
1.769,5375.997,2413.971,75820.060,2712.331,98711.551,9734.724,192
%of tot.
4,70,83,311,37,4
37,64,3721,68,9
100,00
This chart shows the uneven distribution of land in re lat ionwith the various residential areas given in the • city.
24
I.1.7.Socio Economic Aspects of the Population.
1n order to make a Diagnoses of the city's slum areasa aclassification of- typical residential areas was done and onesettlement was choosen from each of the given popular areas. Inorder to have a reference to the rest of the city.a middle classsettlement was also choosen-Altamira.In the five barrios a surveywas carried out specifically designed for the elaboration of aDiagnoses for slum improvement. Several institutions in Managuahave been recently involved in studies concerning urbanmarginality and survival conditions,therefore this survey wasgenerally directed at the physical conditions of the settlementsand the dwel1 ings.the aspiration of the people and thefeasibility of carrying out economic and physical interventions.However this first survey did suffer from certain limitations :1. It had to be carried out in a very short time.during theelection campaign of November 84.Elections in Nicaragua were anew experience and a survey could be considered by the people asgovernment interferance.2. The uneven scope of the survey,while in Adolfo Reyes andCamilo Ortega (both Popular Barrios of Private Initiative) 50% ofthe dwe1 lings were surveyed.in Carlos Reyna (old illegalsettlement) was only 20%,in Grenada (Sites and Services)10% andAltamira (Residential) less than 1%.This produced severe distortions in the representation of thereality .specially in the old settlements.the Sites&Services andthe Residential one.In the fol lowing phase.the micro-diagnoses (at the interior ofthe "bloc"),a new socio-economic survey was carried out withcomplete success.In this report it is worthwhile to refer briefly to some of thisinformation :a. Population and Gender.Managua contains a very young population,with extended nuclearfamilies composed of parents,children and grandparents.There isan average of 3.8 children per f amily.
The female population is 51% of the total and it appears thatthis number has increased,with the increase in femalehouseholds.The causes for this are to found in the habits andsocial behaveour of the men,males entering on military serviceand labour movility .
b.Origins of the Population.50% of the population comes directly from Managua,30,7% of whichfrom Managua's urban are and 19,3% from the rural area aroundManagua.others come from the "dormitorycities",Masaya.Carazo,Granada and Leon,which historically housedcommuters coming to Managua to work.The rest of the poipulationcomes from the cattle zone Boaco and Chontales.and warzone.Matagalpa,Jinotega and Esteli.With respect to the length of time people have 1 ived in thedifferent .settlements,the survey proved a starting hypothesiswhich have characterized the given typologies.Carlos Reyna,as an old illegal settlement built prior to the 1972earthquake.These contain a high level of human mobility due tothe dilapidated housing and contaminated locations.Camilo Ortegaand Adolfo Reyes as settlements resulting from i 1 legaldevelopments and having initiated their own organization since
25
the early '70sc.Employment If we consider an economically active person asbeing between 16 an 65 years old,the chart shows that thiscorresponds to an average of 47.2% of the total population.However only 29% of this average are "working".In other words18.2% of the E.A.P. do not have a proper job. Of the 29% in work61% are male and 39% are female.The 1149 persons categorised as working correspond to 29% of thetotal of the surveyed population .This is distributed asfol lows,21.75% working in the tertiary sector,6.25% in thesecondary sector (3.28% building)and 1% in the primary sector.The tertiary sector represents 3.6% in the commerce,4,5% of womanworking as domestic help and remaining 13.65% in services.being3,78% professionals.6.76% low technicians and 3.21% services(dr ivers.cleaning etc)In respect to the incomes. 53% of the surveyed households earn 9Qdollars (1984).27% earn between 90 and 180 dollars,11% between180 and 300 dollars and 9% more than 300.This datas includesAlt amira.
d.Popular Participation.Since the revolution a number of popularorganization have arisen,the important one being the CDS(Sandinistas people Committed which has as goal the support of therevo lutlonary process,AMLAE.women"s organization,ANS childrenorganizations.CST organization of workers. MPS popular mi 1 ici as.Juventud Sandinista 19 de Julio.Young Sandinistas etc.The survey shows that 68% of all the surveyed population areorganized within one or other group.In the two first PilotBarrios this proportion is even greater.
e. Aspirations.Socio-economical aspects,1iteracy and type of workanalysed according to the form of occupation of the lot.the stateof the dwe11 i ng and the aspi rations concerning improvement inliving condit ions.The result is summarized as fol lows :
CHART 3.1 ' • " • •
ASPIRATIONS:
ALTAMIRA1.additional2.others:3.permanent
GRENADA1.permanent
Order of
job:27%» 23%
work:14%
work:42%2.barrio improv.:35%3.additional job:23%
priorities
ADOLFO REYES1.permanent work:62%2.improv. barrio:19%3.additional job:ll%
CARLOS REYNA1.permanent work:68%2.addition. work:12%3.barrio improv.: 12%
CAMILO123
perm.additimpro
ORTEGAwork:.work:.barr:
54%18%17%
Is not surprizing that in middle-income barrios.such asAltamira.the improvement of the settlement is not the highestpriority nor is permanent work because a good level of employmentexists.for the popular settlements the aspirations for permanentwork always score highly in priorities.For a ProgressiveUrbanization.in an initial stage.with scarce collective watertaps and without sewerage.it is logic that the improvement ofthe barrio is also important.
26
CHART 4.
Age /Sex
036
1318
6 0
- 2- 5-12-17-59
-more
Tota l
ALTAMIRAM F
279
635
4
6 3
42
12
443
4
62
GRENADAM F121422
438
3
94
91621
439
3
1 1 8
C.ORTEGAM F
137138269
164536
68
1312
94133277
182579
56
1323
A.REYESM F313475
52153
46
391
242173
65200
4 0
4 2 3
C.M
121419
734
8
94
REYNAF111620
1150
1 0
1 1 8
TOTALM F
194207394
233796
129
L95349%
142188403
266911
1 1 3
202351%
%
3 8 ,
1 2 ,4 2 ,
6 ,
4
69
1
100%
CHART 5
YEARS LIVING IN
BARRIO 1-3
ALTAMIRA
GRENADA
CAMILO ORTEGA
ADOLFO REYES
CARLOS REYNA
TOTAL
X
4
24
37
4
7
76
13X
THE BARRIOYEARS
4-6 7-9
7
1
45
6
6
65
11X
6
_
41
1
2
50
8X
10-12
4
_
75
32
2
113
20X
13 a t -
_
186
66
8
262
46X
no ansH
• i
i
i
4
-
e2X
CHART 6.
NUMBER OF
BARRIO
AltamiraGrenadaC. OretegaA. ReyesC. Reyna
TOTAL%
PERSONS WORKING
MASCULINE
3038
4 7 81 3 5
2 7
7 0 86 1 %
FEMENINE
3218
2937919
4 4 139%
TOTAL
6256
7 7 12 1 4
46
1 .149100%
CHART 7.
ORGANIZED PERSONS«r t i i i rp ALTAHIRA CRENADA C.ORTECA A.REYES C.REYNA TOTAL
I N C O M E s i NO SI NO SI NO SI NO SI NO SI NO
.1 - 4.500
4.501 - 9,000
9.001 - 15.000
15.001 8 mAs
no work
T 0 T A 1
4 2
4 3
7 2
15 7
% ORGANIZED .PERSONS
14 5
2 2
1
2 -
19 7
7 3 Î
197 25
63 11
21 -
7 2
40 -
348 3S
90X
43 -
36 15
6 -
3 -
10 -
100 15
B7X
16 4
3 1
1
20 5
80Z
270 34
128 31
35 3,
19 4
50
502 72
871
27
CHART 8.DEPARTMENT ALTAMIRA
RU. UR.GRENADA C.ORTEGA A.REYES C.REYNA TOTALRU. UR. RU. UR. RU. UR RU. UR. RU . US . X
MANAGUA
HASAYA-CARAZOGRANADA-RIVAS
LEON-CHINANDEGA
BOACO-CHONTALES
JINOTEGA-HATAGALPAN.SECOVIA-ESTEUHADRIZ
ZEU.KA
Other Countyno answer
-
-
-i
i
-
-
-
5
7
4
1
3
-
-
-
3
4
6
1
2
-
-
-
7
2
1
-
-
--
-
91
42
5
10
-
102
16
-
5
1
1
72
17
15
4
2
5
-
-
47
12
3
1
2
-
-
7
- 17
3
2 1
-
1 -
-
-
-
I l l
64
35
9
19
4
-
178
39
23
2
10
i2
79
50.
IB.
9.
1.
5.
0,
0.
13.
3
0
9
9
0
6
3
B
CHART 9 .
NUMBER
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
T
EDADANOS
- 0 -
- 6 -
- 11 -
- 16 -
- 21 -
- 26 -
- 31 -
- 36 -
- 41 -
- 46 -
- 51 -
- 56 -
- 61 -
- 66 -
. - 71 -
. - 76 e
0 T A L
OF
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
+•-
PERSONS
ALTAMIRA
Si
-
-
-
3
7
20
8
7
5
5
3
-
1
2
-
2
63
NO
15
16
14
3
e5
1
1
-
-
-
. 1
2
1
1
-
6a
WORKING
GRENADASI
-
-
2
6
7
15
12
7
-
1
2
3
-
1
-
-
56
NO'
53
36
12
7
7
1
1
2
-
3
2
2
2
ï--
129
C.SI
-
2
IB
121
143
113
73
92
60
44
39
35
10
9
7
10
776
ORTEGANO
531
380
354
220
B5
60
4B
31
ie19
24
29
15
10
13
23
1.858
A.SI
-
1
7
36
40
25
10
31
19
15
7
7
4
5
-
-
207
REYESNO
240
IB
66
71
39
U
18
9
4
10
6
5
6
4
2
10
605
C.SI
-
-
3
2
8
15
3
3
3
2
3
3
-
1
-
-
46
REYNANO
48
57
13
13
11
9
4
-
'• -
1
2
-
2
1
-•
135
TOTALSI
. - '
3
31
16B
205
1B8
106
140
87
67
54
46
15
IB
7
12
1.14Í
29Ï
NO ,
687
573
479
314
150
89
72
43
22
33
34
37
27
17
16
36
2.63171X
X
49.51
17.71
2,61i
1001
CHART 1 0 . _
INCOME
1.- 1 - 1.500
2 . - 1.500- 3.000
3 . - 3.001- 4.500
4 . - 4.501- 6.000
5 . - 6.001- 7.500
6 . - 7.501- 9.000
7 . - 9.001- 10.500
8.-1Q.501- 12.0009.-12.001- 13.500
10.-13.501- 15.00011.-15.001 « aas
12.- No trabajan
T O T A L
ALTAMlRA
-
-
21
3
1
2
2
"2
" 9
-
22
GRENADA
6
10
3
22
-
1
-
-
2
-
26
C.ORTEGA '
31
118
7 3 -
42
27'
25
6
10
3
2
9
40
386
h.BEYES
9
23
14
25
13
9
4
4
-
-
4
10
26
C.REYNA
8
6
6
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
115
TOTAL
55
157
96
74
44
37
13
16
5
A
, 24
50
574
X
5 3 1 .
1> 271
11
11% '
1001
28
f. Overcrowding.Overcrowding.being a structural problem.it becames necessary toanalyse further the reality of sanitation related to the type ofbarrio. On a micro-level the chart 5 shows the relation betweennuclear families and the number of relatives per dwelling.It was possible to identify here a certain tendency that showsthe large amount of "al legados11 (f ami ly relatives or friendsliving in the same house due to the lack of housing).that withoutany exception are present in all the popular barrios of Mangua.Fifteen different variables of kindred relations and frienshipwere identif ied such as•father.mother.children.grandparents.nephew.brother in law.son inlaw brother, etc. The concept of of extended nuclear family wasused and means that within the nuclear family itself.thegrandparents or parents in law and grandchildren.are included.Thecase of married children living in the same house.are hereconsidered as two potential families,The rest of kindred relationwere classified as relatives (al legados) .Later on.when analysingthis in the micro-diagnoses.these variables combined withages.incomes and characteristic of the dwelling.This survey shows that the average size of an "extended nuclearfamily"is 5.92 persons (very near to the 6.0 found by the MINVAHfor planning minimum dwelling).It varies from 6.64 in thesettlements which are in a process of deterioration such asCarlos Reyna and 4.7 in the residential Altamira used asreference.
However in the distribution of "allegados".some peculiarsituations appear that should be explained by the interrelationof several factors.such as size of the house.socio-economicalconditions.inter-uran and inter-rural family relationships. Onlyin this way one could explain the high degree of relatives (2.92)living in Altamira.most are students and where there is a middleeconomical level and the houses are large.In Adolfo Reyes.it could be explain because the houses arealready consolidated.In the Barrio Grenada,on the contrary, thevery high level of overcrowding existing in the dwellingsexpresses conditions of extreme poverty.In order to study the feasibility of land use modifications(including sub-division of large plotas) and following the searchfor new technological alternatives to obtain the most economicalinfrastructure provision.it is further more necessary to go evendeeper into the analysis of the clusters.the lots.the units andthe family space.This was called the micro-diagnoses.
CHART 11.
AVERAGE NUMB. OF PERSONS PER "AMPLIFIED NUCLEAR FAMILY"AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF RELATIVES
Name of Barrio
Camilo OrtegaAdolfo ReyeeGrenadaAltemiraCarlos Reyna
Average N° •pers./nucl.
f am.
&, 36,165,54,76,84
Average N°relatives/fam. with rel.
1,763,253,542,922,45
Average N°of relatives
0,450,451,51,9l,ofl
29
CHART 12.
Typology
ResidentialProgress. urbanizat.Spontaneous old set t lPop. unplanned barrio
Total of sample
Barrio
AltamiraGrenada
.CarlosAdolfoCamilo
ReynaReyesOrtega
%of totaldwellingsof barrio
1%10%20%50%50%
N°ofveys
222625
1 1 53 8 6
5 7 4
sur- N° ofpers.interview.
2 .
3 .
1 3 21 8 52 1 28 1 46 3 5
Ô78
CHART 13 .
Name ofBarrio
Camilo
Adolfo .
Grenada
Altamire
Carlos
AVERAGE
ling
Total
no. of dwe!
of th
e barrio'
867
418
415
2220
151
814.2
e00c
well
no. of surveyed d
381
115
26
20
25
113.4
oe m
atio
ling
X su
rvey
ed in rel
tota
l no
. of dwe
J
43.9
27.5
6.26
0 .9
16.55
19.02
ves
relati
lies)
X B4J «S
NÚ households
withi
(extended
nucl
ear
284
79
15
7
14
79.8
Lves
relati
outh
X ho
useh
olds
wit
h
74.54
68.69
57.69
35.0
56.0
58,3
i ves
rela
twi
thno. of hou
seho
lds
97
36
11
13
11
33.6
nded
exte
no. of persons in
nucl
ear
fami
ly
2402
709
146*
94
171
704.8
no. of re
lati
ves
171
117
39
38
27
78.4
m
X of nu
clea
r fani
(perons)
93.1
85.8
78.9
71.2
86.4
83.08
X related
persons
6.6
14.2
21.2
28.8
L3.6
16.8
TOTAL
2575
826
185
132
198
783.2
nucl
Aver
age ex
tend
edfamily
6.3
6.16
5.6
4 . 7
6.84
5.92
0900
,Average in dwelli
with
relatives
1.76
3.25
3.54
2.92
2.45
2.78
Bfl
COft)
4-tCO CD
W Uft) B
•H*M f-fO V
U CO
> 0
0.45
1.02
1.5
1.9
l.Ofi
1.19
• 3 0
I.2.Diagnoses of the technical Infrastructure.
Specific observations concerning the technical infrastructurewill be made both at macro and at micro level. At macro levelthe technical infrastructure is analyzed in quantitative andqualitative terms as well its costs in relation to the overallurban fabric.
The micro level will deal with parameters that influence theredesign of alternative systems according to the characteristicsof every settlement.
I.2.1.Diagnoses of the different aspects of intervention.Macro-level.
I.2.1.1.Drinking water.
The present data concerning consumption levels and the percentageof the population that is reached by this service presents somediscrepancies according to the observations of the IPT'sconsultants.Therefore it was recommended that the data beverified by INAA (Water and Sewerage National Institute).Figures for 1985 are as follows:-estimated population 836.934 inh-estimated production 53 mgd-non-registered percentage of the totalvolume 36%-actual deficit 23 mgd-consumption per person (according to the norm)70 gdp-served population 91%.These figures indicate that the demand is higher than the presentcapacity of the sources.The situation is aggravated each day,dueto a high population growth rate,a high proportion of waterleakages.high levels of water consumption by foreign patentsanitation devices and also the habits of the people.INAA expects to complete the first phase of the "Master Plan forimprovement and extension of the water supply system of the cityof Managua" in 1988,with an increase in the production ofdrinking water by 35 (mgd).This should cover the deficit that hasbeen growing since 1980.
I.2.1.2.Waste water collection and disposal.
The sewerage system has a total length of 857 km and consists ofconcrete pipes with diameters between 8" and 30". The entiresystem functions by gravity-forces and discharges the wastewater.without any treatment,into Lake Managua. The main networkcovers approximately 87% of the urbanized area and could have thepotential to serve 100% of the actual population.At present,65%of the people are making use of the system through the existing64.929 connections in the city of Managua.Map 1 identifies the critical areas.giving the capacity andpoptentials of the existing network in the different zones. Itcan be seen that in the expansion zones (location at somedistance from the centre),there are no extensions of the seweragenetwork.Solutions for this situation require high investment.In
31
such cases a local destination for the waste-water wi11 berequired taking advantage,where ever possible,of favourableconditions for evapo-transpiration system.
1.2.1.3.Drainage.
Superfluous rainwater in the basin of Managua is carried bygravity-force,through natural ditches in the rural (sub-urban)zones and through natural streams or covered ditches in the urbanzones. At present in Managua there are approximately 237 km ofinstalled drainage pipelines but 30% of the surface drainageintakes do not function effectively.Moreover the actual conditionof about 60% of the pipelines in the central area is unknown.This data shows that the drainage system is not effective,towhich can be added problems involving the type of coverage(adoquín) of the ditches,the absence of drainage networks inspontaneous settlements, progressive urbanizations or other typeof popular settlements and finally the increase of water in sub-urbanized zones,because erosion of upper land caused by aninadequate use of land for agriculture. However,the macro-drainage problems of Managua seem to be satisfactorily evaluatedby engineers of the Municipality but the resulting solutionrequire high investments in order to be effective.The proposal toconstruct mini-dams near urban locations suggest the possibilityof multiple use for the reservoirs tanks,such as using the storedwaterr for industrial and irrigation purpose.In this way,theshortage of water could also be reduced.With respect to micro-drainage.the PS IB wi11 search foralternatives to simplify the system of water collection and toreduce its costs.
I.2.1.4.Road network development.
The present road system of Managua is of radial and ringshapedtype,and totals 970 km.The main road system has a length of 184.6km.The distribution of type of road-material is as follows:
Adoquín (street blocks) 171 kmAsphalt 366 km 37%Unpaved 433 km 45%
Total 970 km 100%Between 1979 and 1982 some 80 km of the network were paved.thatis 20% of the existing streets.(Financed by IBRF)Of the 537 km of paved road, 450 kms are in good condition. In1984 only a further 1.3 km of road were paved and from 1985onwards no more road-paving has been carried out insideManagua.This because priority was given to rural zones.The road network of Managua provides for acceptable vehicularcirculation and about 15% of the population uses buses as a meansof transportation. The urban public transport network covers176.4 km which includes 95% of Managua's main roads.
1.2.2. Cost of infrastructure networks related to the urbanfabric.
The analysis of the present urban fabric as related to infra-structure cost is of great importance when looking for adequatetechnological alternatives for low-income settlements.Most ofthese alternatives might be seen in conventional technical
32
infrastructure systems which are used generally and whichrepresent an ultimate aspiration of people and administrations.Other systems regarding progressive development of networks arealso studied,including which costs are related to the existingurban fabric (i.e.the capacity and the rentability of the net).
From a macro point of view.various studies have pointed out thatthe topography and the ground resistance (within certain limits).as well as the form of the city and that of its basin or sub-basin, have very little influence on the variation ofinfrastructure network costs.
According to MASCARO (1979).there are only two importantvariables that remain which are determinants of the network costfor every serviced unit.These variables are:
a. The type of existing or adopted road network.b. The housing density.
The grid pattern inherited from the colonial period. when therewere no infrastructure networks, is presently (there now a beinga completely different service system and transport structure)the most anachronistic and uneconomic one.
Managua represents a dramatic example of this pattern, having inthe central areas underutilized infrastructure networks whichwere badly damaged by the 1972 earthquake, while on the peripherythere is no sewerage network at all.As has been proven in several studies this "roman-spanish" gridpattern results in an increase of the costs of the networks of 20to 30 %.depending on the given case.compared to those roadpatterns where the frontage of the plots are always in the samedirection.For example the so-called "fish-bone" road pattern,where there is a primary road to which the secondary roads(usually with cul-de-sac design) come in more or lessperpendicularly way.Here the fronts of the plots are generallyparallel. In this case the connection to the service networksare confined to the secondary roads and need only 40 to 50% ofthe networks which brings with it savings of 30 to 40% of thecosts.This road pattern has an additional advantage in that the maintraffic roads seldom have to be excavated because they containonly master pipes.The secondary roads.mainly the dwelling distributionroads.contain most of the pipelines.In"these roads most of theexcavations for connections and damage repairs occur.The cost of infrastructure networks per hectare vary re 1 ativelylittle with the population density. The costs of the greatmajority of networks are more related to their extension (amountof meters per hectare.for example) than to their capacity (amountof liters or cubic meters per hectare). In this way, theurbanization of one hectare for 500 inhabitants will cost littlemore than, the urbanization of the same area for only 50inhabitants. Most of the pipelines have,for technicalreasons.standards minimum diameters ,thereby having sufficientcapacity for high average densities. For this reason reducingthese densities does not result in any decrease on the costs perhectare.
33
One case worth mentioning is the sewerage cost per hectare. Thecosts per hectare are practically the same except that in casesof networks for low densities it is necessary to include specialworks to avoid sedimentation and overcome obstructions.Therefore these sewerage networks can be more expensive perhectare than those serving higher densities.
The relatively constant costs per hectare make the costs perdwelling strongly variable with the density-almost inverselyproportional to the costs as we can see in Table I and figure 1and 2.
The costs of the road system which includes the pavement anddrainage network carries between 55 and 60% of the totalnetwork costs.Therefore and in order to save costs,it became moreimportant to study alternative pavements and road patterns suchas those that permit that part of the road only will be paved forlight and occasional traffic. One method of achieving this iswith cul-de sac patterns.It is worthwhile mentioning that because of the average lowdensities of many Latin American cities.the cost of the roadnetwork in the total infrastructure costs is higher.In some casesit is necessary to invest 2/3 for these networks and 1/3 for theothers.Table II,Table III and Table IV.The Map 2 shows the relation of the different urban layouts inthe city of Managua.
1.2.3. The different observations for planning the technicalinfrastructure.
I.2.3.1.Observations concerning Topography and Soil Analysis.
Managua is built on the lower part of a basin which is enclosedby the Managua mountains.Topographical and soil issues areimportant in the study of the provision of water and wastedisposal systems. Deforestation of the middle and lower parts ofthe basin as a result of agricultural development has producedsevere problems of soil erosion and the silting-up of natural andartificial drainages ditches. The diagnoses includes twoclassifications of settlements one based on geomorphological andsocio-economic criteria and a second that take into account thevariations in slope and the level of the water table in specificsituations.The form and the lay-out will have a direct impact onthe determination of the feasibility of adequate technologies fordomestic and settlement sewerage and for the necessary adjustmentto the natural drainage network.
1.2.3.2. Observations about the level of the water table.
The existence of a watertable at relatively high levels makes theutilization of some non—conventional solutions difficult in manyparts of the city, especially in those areas lying on flat land.Moreover.other solutions,based on local infiltrations of wastewater,including some conventional pipelines-effluent and septic-tanks solutions,are similar inappropriate. In other cases, on theperiphery ,where the water table is low.it is crucial to bear inmind soil components when considering solutions based on localinfiltration and systems based on the principle of progressive
34
Figure 1.
Costs of the urlwn services per dweUinp. fi" l'SÎ,January 1977) in relation with the population density
1!SS costs/dwelling
iOiiti
lOfin
5011
1
1
i
\
p
sr
1V
"o
u
\\\\S\
TO/*v
s
• • .
"•. ,
'"••-. °fé
' - • .
— — — — _ . .
ISO 300 4SI) 1)00inhabitants/hectare
CHART 14,
Table I.
Medium costs of
Network
Pavement
Drainage
Water supply
Sewage disposal
Gas supply
Electricity
Total
UTban networks according to
Costs per unit
density ^density15/75- 30/150
1.099,60 571,30
388,40 207,20
87,10 47,80
488,70 247,00
217,80 121,40
168,90 125,70
2.460,50 1.320,30
density60/300
305,20
106,20
29,20
126,10
66,60
97,10
730,40
1) Densities: units per hectare/inhabitants
Note: the costs
density
density120/600
159,30
54,40
19,80
63,80
39,20
63,80
400,30
in dollars
Costs per
, 1977)
hectare
density density15/75 30/150
16.494
5.976
1.307
7.331
3.267
2.534
36.908
per hectare
include only the urban networks but exclude the
17.131
6.215
1.436
7.410
3.641
3.769
39.603
density60/300
18.327
6.375
1.753
7.570
3.995
5.823
43.842
unitary works.
density120/600
19.124
6.534
2.367
7.649
4.701
7.665
48.040
i
CHART 15.
35
Figure 2.
Costs of the urban services per hectare fin US$,January 1977) in relation with the population density
US5 costs/hectare
40.0(10
30.00(1
2Q.O0O
in.ooo
pavemer^
sewage
3ra inags^^rr^
^ "
disposal
gas supply
water supply _
:».
0 75 150 3O0 450 0(10inhabitants/hectare
CHART 16,
Table IT.
Costs per user at urban level for medium size cities (in dollars, 1977)
CHART 17
Network
Pavement
Itrainage
Water supply
Sewage disposal
Gas supply
Electricity
I*ublic lighting
Total
Costs fornetworks
the
min. max.
305 1
106
29
126
67
97
7
737 2
100
388
87
489
218
169
29
.480
Costi for theconnectionsta the houses
min.
-
29
6
27
37
-
99
max.
-
-
176
46
156
170
-
548
Medium costsfor thecomplementaryequipment
min. max.
-
-
191
380
450
400
20 80
1.441 1.501
T o t a
min.
305
106
249
512
544
534
27
2.277
1
max.
1.100
38R
454
915
824
739
109
4,529
1) Density: 60 units per hectare
2) [tensity: 15 units per hectareTables III & Ilia in page 42
36
development for either individual or collective use.
I.2.3.3.Observations on Forms of Occupation and Land Use.
Densities and land use patterns are important variables to beconsidered in determining the feasibility of alternativetechnologies.In particular they influence the determination ofoptimal distance between service units.both in the case of sub-superficial infiltration solutions which are based upon theutilization of large surface areas for their effectivefunctionning.lt is necessary to differentiate the apparent andreal occupation of land given the low housing densities in mostof the settlements types. This real occupation of land can bedetermined by subtracting the as yet unoccupied land from thetotal area.Failure to do this will conceal the real potentialityfor increasing densities and for infillings in specificsettlement types. Other land use issues that are relevant forthe consideration of questions such as the maintenance of septictanks,include the pattern of traffic networks, accessibility andpedestrian circulât ion.Of important is the crossing of variablesincluding types of dwelling and expected life span,in many casesexisting housing units are built of throw-away-material of lowcommercial cost which is far from being a restraint to removingit in favour it of a more productive sanitation system.
1.2.3.4. Prevailing characteristics of the dwellings.
A detailed and systematic study of the condition of the housingstock, including an analysis of the building materials that arein predominant use and of the level of development of buildingtechnology is important for the determination of atechnologically appropriate hydraulic sanitation solution athousehold level. Other variables that have to be taken intoaccount include the availability and organization of space andthe possibilities for improvements and repair of buildingscomponents (eq.reinforcement of walls,of floors etc.)MINVAH hascarried out a study of the existing condition of the housingstock and has a classification combining housing types and levelof infrastructure.An issue to which we will return further on.
1.2.3.5. Availability of drinking water.
The aforementioned studies also permit the identification ofother important variables that are significant in considering theavailability of drinking water.These include: the nature of thesource of delivery (eq.regional,local,springs and wel Is etc) ,theexisting quality of the water delivered; the way in which wateris provided to the consumer (public tanks or taps.domesticinstallations etc) and the percapita patterns of waterconsumption associated with these different types of water supplysystems.
I.2.3.6.Relation rainwater and sewerage disposal system.
Variables that have been considered here are the morphology ofthe land and the physical obstacles that affect the rainwater andsewege disposal.The relationship between the disposal of sewageand rainwater is an important consideration particularly in thosesettlements built on difficult sloping topography.In settlements
37
built on flat land with high water table levels it is necessaryto analyze the specific topographical conditions in order toidentify obstacles that may interrupt the eff eet ivi ness ofseptic-tanks.Given the scarcity of financial resources it isimportant to seriously consider alternatives to the existingseparation of rainwater and sewage,which is extremely costly,given moreover the progressive provision of the differentservices.lt has been noticed that as services are provided bydifferent institutions (water and sewage INAA, drainage andpavement ALMA and sometimes MINVAH) there is a lack ofcoordination between them resulting in double works (i.e. topo-graphical works,socio-economical surveys etc.) One possibility ofcombining sewerage and drainage is the use of tipping buckets assurge generators that cleanse the drainage network yet useminimun quantities of water.Other alternatives should also beseriously investigated.
I.2.3.7.Socio-economic conditions of the users.
The study of the socio-economic conditions of the users has to beintegrated into wider perspective that includes medium termexpectations of achievements of the current economy strategy,thedynamism of popular demands as well as the termination of the warof aggressions. The urban nature of these settlements precludesany consideration of individual or closed systems that may befeasible in the rural context as definitive solutions in the longterm. This suggests keeping account of progressive improvementsin researches and the requirement of continued integrateddevelopment.The presence of a conventional main system ofhydraulic sanitation that covers a great part of the city area,but which leaves large areas without secondary systems despitethe potentiality of connections, increases popular expectationsfor similar types of solutions. The great variation in thephysical and economic conditions within the city suggests theneed for exploring a wider range of technical alternatives all ofwhich should not exclude the ability to progressively improve thefacilities to levels acceptable to the urban population.In thiscontext the experience of the Pilot Plans is important as itamongst other things will establish the capacity of local leadersto organize community into commercial type organizations gearedtowards providing this service through the combination of labourpower and commodity purchases and exchange which take account ofconsiderations of increases in productivity.Uni ike conditionsinvolved in the provision of electricity and running water,thevery nature of sewerage provision makes its resolution throughthe collective self-help initiative of the population moredifficult.
I.2.3.8.Conditions of the sanitary installations.
It is necessary to construct a detailed inventory of the variousforms of hydraulic sanitation that already exist within thesettlements.The complete water cycle and each stage in the cycle(delivery,use and elimination) must be studied. In particular itis important to consider the effects of changes in the watercycle on the role of women in Nicaraguan society and viceversa,and the potentialities that emerge for securing theincreased participation of women in the paid labour f orce.Giventhe great variations between and within settlements in the
38
provision of this service.it is of little value to draw up agenerale profile but rather it is better to give alternativesolutions that are geared towards specific settlement conditions.
I.2.3.9.The multiple use of water by consumers.
Patterns of multiple use of water by consumers will be studied indetai1.Existing shortages in the supply of water have alreadyestablished a habit for the multiple use of water. In many casesthe water used for washing-up,laundry and personal hygiene isobtained from different sources (and is used successively forthese purposes)from that obtained for direct consumption. Thisrecycling tendency introduces the need to study the hierarchy ofuse and the correct location of the different sanitary components(sink,shower,we tank ,etc.).
I.2.3.10.Locational and qualitative aspects of sanitary spaces.
Existing studies suggest the possibility of formulating a rangeof alternative locations for the different sanitaryinstai lat ions.Different possibilities can be formulated inrelation to given socio-cultural preferences and changescurrently occur ing in Nicaraguan society.The qualitative aspectsof which are especially concerned with social and individualconcepts of privacy.
I.2.3.11.The use of building materials and marketed components.
From the Diagnoses it was concluded that there exists a widerange of materials and low cost market components.This rangeincludes the appreciable presence of conventional materials e.g.watertaps,pipelines and sanitary equipment as well as the use ofimprovised throwaway materials.The study of materials has to be carried out within the sectorialpolicies established by the Nicaraguan Government. The alreadynamed 1982 FINAPRI study,Alternatives for the Expansion of theBuilding Materials Industry in Nicaragua,outlines the possibilityof improving the mechanical and environmental quality of housing,emphasizes those alternatives that will alleviate balance ofpayments difficulties and which secure the expansion ofemployment and diminution of cost. However, the persistence ofthe war and the worsening of the already precarious livingconditions in the human settlements make it necessary to lookfirst for minimum survival actions which influences thechoosing of alternative technologies at very short term and thatare totally to be found in the present availability of localmaterials.The study of FINAPRI gives a quantitative and qualitativeinventory of the totality of productive apparatus in the buildingmaterial sector;it proposes an alternative pIan for the comingyears and criteria for the replacement of inadequate buildingmaterials.The study examines the question of building materials in relationto the following aspects ; employment,shadow prices,productivity,the different energy cost of building materials and themechanical and sanitary quality of materials.Given the serious unemployment problem it would seem correct inthe short term and perhaps also in the medium term for thebuilding industry to adopt labour intensive technologies.However
39
if it is considered that the central elements of the Nicaraguandevelopment strategy should be the expansion of agriculture andagro-industrial activities,then the present labour-surplus wouldbe largely required to meet the needs of this sector.It shouldalso be remembered that a large proportion of the unemployed andunderemployed have recently migrated from the rural areas andhave not yet acquired the necessary building ski 1 Is.MINVAH haspointed out the shortages in medium skilled labour yet therelative abundance of unskilled labour.The pre-revolutionary period in Nicaragua was characterized bythe substitution of traditional materials for industrializedmaterials e.q.cement blocks instead of bricks for wal Is andfloors and asbest cement instead of clay tiles for the roofs Thisprocess occured as a result of market forces in combination withthe interlocking interest of public administration and theprivate sector and the cultural penetration of foreignconsumption patterns encouraged by the power of mass advertising.The question of which building material to use is furthercomplicated when basic local materials are already being producedusing a rural and underpaid labour force for their extraction,assembly and primary transformation.A final but vital aspect tobe considered is the magnitude of the needs which will have to besatisfied by the building sector in order to overcome existingshortages and satisfy future aspirations.As was said already, in Nicaragua the shortage of houses willincrease by 40.000 per year (20.000 natural growth and 15.000from obsolescence).At the same time there is a shortage of 50.000dwellings,146.000 are in a bad estate and 181.000 are dwellingsof only one room. These data reveal a total national populationof 3.227.000 inhabitants,559,000 families and 510.000 houses.(Characterization page 84,chart 6 ).This magnitude indicates the need to utilize manufacturedbuilding materials in the first phase (perhaps for the next 15years) and the use of assembly-based building systems in the nextphase.This seems to be the only known way of significantlyreducing costs through productivity gains and efficient use ofresources. This analysis presents a series of technologicalbuilding systems that ranges from conventional rationalizedmasonry.wooden pre-fab systems and concrete pre-fab systems anddiscount the feasibility of expanding the artisan 1 bui ld ingmaterials sector to meet these anticipated demands.In summary the goals of the building materials strategy adoptedin Nicaragua are as follows:
1. to attempt to eliminate imported building materials2. to diminuish the use of the locally produced buildingmaterials which are heavily based on imported inputs.3. to expand employment through housing and building investments
within an acceptable range of productivity4. to lower the real cost of building performance5. to improve the mechanical and sanitation qualities of theconstructions.
40
1.2.4. Comparative analysis of homogenous areas.A comparison of use land and eficiency ofinfrastructure is carried out in the settlementstypological representative.The following chart summarise the results.CHART 18.
COMPARISON Or TBX DTICIBHCT OF LAND-USE ANO OP TECHNICAL XNntASTOUCTURfcXM THB BARKXOS OF HOMOOZNSOOS TTPOLQQT IN H U PISSA
technicalchoosen as
ASPBOT »
Uaarul AraaHabit, unitNo, pava ama
Ho* dvallln**«/haAraraca lot*«ia*
% raaidantial araaJt ooanmal.araa
Ft alreulation araaOreaa danaity
Tatal oireul n«t
Circulation nat1
padaatrian natvorkpadaatrian natvorkVahioular natwerk
•ahloulax natvorkPadaatrian araaTahloular araa
rot.drinkinc v. araanat/ha
nat/hab^t unit
rot.aavarac* natvorknat/ha
nat/habit, unit
ha
Unidadperson*
Unidad
n
,xXX
hab./ha• 1 , •
B 2
al./haa2 / ha
• l . / h am /ha
X
I
n i .
ni./ha
ml.
• 1 .
ni./ha
ni. /vivi,
ILLAENEZUELA ,
73.2
2.532
19.701
35
176
61.47 .
. , 11.53
26.97
269.13
•Î9.460
' .97.684 .'
230.561 I 9 B 3 . 4
71.35
713.5• 19.84-
7.1319.025259.90
• 7 . 5 1
16.650
227.45
6.57
ADOLFOREYES
10.8418
3.816• i
38. 16367:06
'6.94
• 26
353,353.548
28.080
217.591.479
110.921109.2
25
3.776
349.62
9.03
3.584
228.5
. S.48
CAMILOORTEGA
>
667
6.934
31
212.9•6 ¡
1
26
201. 56
7.48589.440139,19
, 1.60081.391.000
16
10
7*485
267.32
8.63
-
•
-
GKEHADA
; *1 4 . * -
415
1 .990
• 2 9
187
54.2
Í7.528.3.
140
. . 4;21540.186
1 99.67797.36
177.62.132
21.32
7.97
•
-
; -
• ' -
>LIAM£RA
55 .2.220
11.283-. . 41
195
80
4 .5
15.3
205
10.68085,250
!-
- ,
, 194.181.550
0
15.5
11.465208.81
. 5.17
10.930
198.72
4.92
CARLOS
REYNA
5.32
151
1.027
.. 28.3246
70
1
29
193
1.58015.800
- ,
-
296.99
2969,9
( 0
29:
! i 1.393261 .,64.
9.22
250
46.99
1.66
MONSEÑORUÍZCAHO '
1 . 2
3.115
30.509Î7.8
230
64%
211
15X
272.430.840
169.620660
3.63o
30.23166.265
21
13X
30.840
275.3
9.9
29.950
267.4
9.6
From this chart is conluded that:1. None of the studied barrios represent optimal efficiency in
land use in relation to MINVAH's norms.2. Contrary to what could be deduced from the city density,not
all the popular barrios contain large lots.3. All adjustments to land use of the city must be based on an
in-depth study of the unused empty areas between settlementsand in the re-study of the spaces actually defined as greenareas and communal spaces that seems to be badly hierarchized.Specially is the definition of land use in seisrnical (red)
risk zones.4. It was also concluded that MINVAH's minimum standards norms
are adequate to the sort of dwelling and the growth tendenciesfound in the different cases.
5. That fundamental differences exist in urban layout betweensettlements previously planned institutional and those lessformal planning (i 1 legal) .These differences score negativelyin the cost of the secondary networks.
6. Mainly recently planned settlements.such as the progressiveurbanizations (eq.Grenada )must drastically adjust theirlayout. As goal to make the supply of technical
41
infrastructure and land use more economic.7. Many barrios lack secondary networks and it is necessary to
study the feasibility of supply with alternative system.8. In many popular settlements the existing generous plot sizes
allow for an increase in the density and for consolidationwithout requiring major financial investments.This can beachieved by subdivisions of lots,infi 11 ing of empty lots andrehabilitation of dilapidated areas.Experience has shown that together with improvement inhousehold incomes.a process of housing enlargment begins,thatin many cases ends in the building of a second house for rentor for close relatives (eq.Villa Venezuela)However in other sett lenient s . special ly those whose origin isthe i 1 legal occupation of land,land adjustments would beneeded before starting a settlement consol idat ion.
9. A grave problem that could affect the up-grading in thepopular barrio is the excessively spacious street and the lackof a hierarchy of networks in the planned barrios.
10.The popular barrios contains net densities of 193 to 353inh/ha.with lots size of 163 to 246 m2 and a % of residentialarea that varies from 54.2% to 70%, resulting between 20 and25 dw/ha.
from page 36
Table III.
Share of the network costs in the total costs of each supply system (as percentage)
Network
Pavement
Drainage
Water supply
Sewage disposal
Gas supply
Electricity
Public Lighting
Table lila.
Share of each network in thetotal network costs
low densityareas
high densityareas
41 ,38%
14,381
3,93$
17,10*
9,09*
13,161
0,96*
44,351
15.65%
3,50*
19,73%
8,79*
6,811
1,171
Share of the network costs inthe costs of the completesupply system
low density high densityareas areas
iornloot\i\
25$
12*
18*
26*
100%
100%
19%
53$
26*
23*
271
Average share of the different elements in the total costs of urban systems(as percentage)
Network
Pavement
3rainage
Water supply
Sewage disposal
Gas supply
Electricity
Public lighting
Networks
100,0*
100,0%
15,5*
39,0*
19,0$
20,5*
26,5*
Connections tothe houses
-,-
-»-25,51
3,0%
12,0%
15,0%
-,-
Complementaryequipment
~ • "
™ i ~
59,0%
58.0%
69,0$
64.5$
73.5S
T o t a l
100,0%
100,0%
100,0*
100,0%
100,0%
1(10,0%
100,01
I N T E G R A L P L A N F O R S L U M U P G R A D I N G
I I . I . Technical A l t e r n a t i v e s
I I . 2 . A l t e r n a t i v e s for urban c o n s o l i d a t i o n
43
I I.I. Technical alternatives.
In order to carry out the analysis of the different technicalaspects included in this study,the typical sanitation problemsoccurring in the city were identified. This identification wascarried out both by the ALMA and the Ministry of Housing.The sanitation problems were projected to the already selectedsettlement types.In this way, 5 barrios were finally chosen whichare representative of both the sanitation problems and thedifferent types of popular settlements existing in the who lecity.This identification results also in the selection of the 5barrios where Pilot Plans are to be carried out.
The development of technical alternatives includes the followingaspects :
1. Water supply2. Sewage and waste water disposal3. Rainwater drainage4. Garbage collection and disposal5. Road system.
The chosen barrios are the following:Spontaneous urbanization: B-15 instead of Carlos Reyna.Sites & Services (progressive urbanization) : Jonathan Gonzalesinstead of Grenada.Planned popular Barrio: Ciudad Sandino instead of VillaVenezuela.Popular Barrios of private initiative: The initially chosentwo barrios remain :Camilo Ortega and Adolfo Reyes.
In the last chapter. concerning the Pilot Plans, the projectionof this typologies are seen in re lation to the number of neededinterventions in the city as a whole.
11.1.1. Criteria for the search for technical alternatives arethe following:II.1.1.a. General criteria:- To look for adequate technologies which can solve the problemsof the secondary network system in the popular zones.- To control the use of water in the system of disposal of wastewater.- To search for methods of increasing densities in the cases ofpopular urbanization in process of development and to makeordening in the layout of barrios with consolidated dwellingunits more efficient.Il.l.l.b. Specific criteria.-Road system. Hierarchization of roads.Leaving at least onevehicular street in each barrio.In the case of very spaciousstreets patterns.to use those spaces for adj ustments in communalspaces. (recreational,treeplanting).The pedestrian street canaccomodate simple solution such as combining drainages deviceswith harder soil foot-paths.Systems for the mantaintion ofunpaved streets shall also requires study.
- Water.Waste Water and Drainage.
Integrated system of water will be studied.Preferably using
system with a very low leve 1 of water consumption - C1 imatic
44
conditions which seem to favour infiltration andevapotranspiration system are also considered. Preference will begiven to studies of local system in situation without a primarysystem i n order to avoid continuing the pol lut ion of the LakeManagua.Bearing in mind that in the long term when the problemsof the primary sanitation system have been solved these zonescan ultimately be connected.New methods of channeling must be sought in order to be adaptedto each local reality without continuing to use standards norms.that answer to foreign conditions.other densities and otherurban layouts and which not considered organised communitarylabour in the excecution of building works.Laying channe Is through the pedestrian streets and/or backyardsof plots is sometimes more siutable because it does not requiredesign for the bearing capacity required for vehicularcirculation and therefore can use less critical material (smallerdiameter) and be shallower.
-Garbage Col lection.Given the scarcity of overseas funds ,the magnitude of extensionsto the city and the low density it is necessary to search forsystems with the lowest energy costs. It is necessary to look forsolutions that avoid total reliance on petroleum.In the short term it is necessary to find integrated solutionsfor local disposal of garbage in the form of bio-digestors orsimilar.
II .1.2.TIPICAL SOLUTIONS
Through careful examination of the f ive settlements whichrepresent the worst environmental conditions, it is possible todraw a common profile of the typical urban infrastructureproblems in the barrios of Managua:-In general , the lack of public water supplies threatens thepopulation with contamination risks. Such risks are worsenedbecause of the rudimentary nature of private water installations(which usually consist of a number of flexible hoses connected toone source). and because of the absence of the hygienic sewagedisposal (in most of the examined cases),conbined with localfloods. Further, rainwater accumulates in the lower parts of thesettlements, raises the water table and then where there is aninterruption to the water supply. water contaminated by contactwith pit-latrines is drawn back into the system through the flow-off points of the connections (figure 1).-The problems related to rainwater drainage,are generallyworsened by the dumping of garbage. which in many cases. causestotal or partial obstruction of the drainage ditches. All thef ive settlements present local rainwater drainage problems.sometimes accompanied by erosion of the collector due to theirinsufficient capacity.-Concerning sewage disposal. it was ver if ied that in thesettlements without public sewerage (four of the fiveanalized).rudimentary pit-latrines are being used. Generallythese have a short life and are unhygienic. Many inhabitantsrefered to. the necessity of constructing new pit-latrines becausethe existing ones are full. Also, their location and type ofconstruction increase the risks of pollution of any nearby publicnetwork or the private instailations.
45
-(Non-sanitary) waste water is generally collected at the out-flow of the multi-purpose washing units (frecuently near thepublic road).and later either disposed of or used for cleaningfloors. In those cases where overflows occur, or when thes watersare thrown directly onto the streets, accumulation of fatty andorganic matter takes place.-The generalized habit of raising pigs wiyhout the minimumhygienic care and allowing them to run loose through the lots,makes the sanitary conditions even worse.The following proposed solutions aim to solve these problems.Thiscan be achieved through integrated technological alternatives forimproving : water supply. sewage and waste water disposal,rainwater drainage, road systems and garbage disposal.
I 1.1.2.1. Improvement of water supply conditions:
I1 .1. 2 .1.1. Rudimentary storage
•Application field: All domestic instai lat ions.-Specif ic aims : Control of cross contamination caused bysyphoning at hose ends. Improvement of storage conditions.-Proposed actions :.To encourage the population to stop the habit of submerging theends of hoses in water tins, pools or any other place where water(c lean or used) is being stored. The preferred method is to fixhooks above the overflow leve Is of tanks, etc. where the hosesend..To lower the overflow leve Is of rudimentary receptac les bymaking ho les approx. 15 cm. below the rim..To cover the tanks, or metal receptacles preferably with woodenpanels..To draw the water through the flexible hose by a siphon systemthus avoiding the need to immerse receptacles in the storagetanks..To alert the populat ion to the necessity of periodical cleaning
illustration S-01).
11 .1 . 2.1.2.Storage of water with a direct exit
-Application field: All domestic hydraulic installations, mainlythose having a multiple washing unit ( dishes and laundary ). asis found in most of the observed dwel1 ings.
-Specif ic aims : Control of cross contamination. Improvement ofstorage conditions and certainty of a stored supply for waterconsumption in times of public SUPP1Y cuts.
-Proposed actions :.The development and installation of reinforced concrete tankswhich are provided of a device to carry water to the storagetanks of the multi-washing units..To level the tanks by adjusting their supports..To eliminate rudimentary metal storage receptacles..To recomend that water used for consumption be taken directlyfrom the tank without intermediate storage.
- Complementary development: the instai lat ion of f 1oat ing bal 1taps (automatic closing system) to control water entering thetanks (se schematic drawing S-02).
46
II .1.2.1.3. Progress towards complete domestic plumbinginstailations
-Sanitary equipment: w.c. with holding tank for discharges-kitchen sink -ha'ndbasin -laundary sink.-Application fieId:Dwel1 ings which are connected to the publicnetwork or with water-based on site sewage systems (septic pitwith final disposal).
-Concrete actions :. The strict observation of the sanitary sewage conditions.. The prevertion of blackflow through the equipment by carefulobservance hydric connections in the discharge tanks and ofleve Is of overflows.
11.1.2.2. Improvement of sewage disposal conditions.
II. 1.2. 2.1. (Non- sanitary)waste water disposal.
For the disposal of waste water, the system in drawing S-03 isrecommended,it is based on separating out any fatty matter in asimplif ied box and then storage,with an overflow device leadingto the rainwater system. The fatty matter box must be constructedwith cement-sand-concrete using the same method of manufacture asfor the other components (ie.tanks.etc).Their exteriorsdimensions are simi lar to those of the sewage instection casesnormally used by the INAA, except that they are deeper. The boxesmust be covered to avoid smelIs from the organic matters. Itwould be necessary to instruct the population on how to mantainthem: this requires the periodical removal of fatty mattersfloating on the top and of sediment at the bottom since thiscan cause obstruction in the passage between the chambers
11 .1.2.2.2.Disposal of sewage in ventilated double latrines.Ventilated double latrines are proposed as satisfactory solutionsfor the disposal of human faeses. The chambers must be usedalternately for periods for approximately ten month to a year.The full chamber is covered hermetically and the sanitary seat isrelocated over the empty chamber .After a year the closed chamberis emptied and used again.while the other is hermeti callyclosed.Deal ing with this material (mud) after a year isrelative 1y inoffensive.because almost all the pathogènes havebeen neutral ized in this period (with the exception of some"ASCARIS LUMBRICOIDES" eggs that may have survived).The removed mud can then disposed be of together with residualsolids in compost units,or in sanitary landf ills. It is evenpossible to use its as low-quality manure for crops which are notto be eaten raw.Drawing S-04 shows chambers designed to be used by ten personsduring 1 year ( accumulation rate of 0.06m3 per person + 30% freespace).for each chamber.The internal and external slabs an the sanitary seats areproposed to be constructed in reinforced concrete, while thepartial coating of the holes and the structural base must beconstructed of concrete blocks. ceramic tiles or "cartera"stone.The wooden structure is designed with posts and planks ofdimentions normally f ind in Ni caraguan market.using aconstruction technology similar to the one used in the "mini-skirt" (mini-faida) production which is in common used throughout
47
the country (see photos 37 and 38).In the following table the minimum distances to be mantainedbetween pit latrines and other installation elements are shown.Table 1. Minimum distances between ventilated pit latrines andother elements.Description water lot water other
connection boundery table pit-latrine
Dry zones 8 1.80 Ï5 3.60Flooding Zones 15 1.80 30 3.60
11.1.2.2.3.Double ventilated pit-latrine for combined compostwith solid residual.A preliminary composting alternative for human faeces combinedwith solid residual is proposed in S-05.The chambers are designed to receive the solid residual and bodywastes of maximum 5 persons based on feaces accumulation of 0.06m3/year and solid residual accumulation of 0.216 m3/year/personThe figure for solid residual /person was obtained by taking thedaily weight (o.6kg),dividing it by two because of the possiblepresence of inorganic matters packeging material and othercomponent to be separated and calculating a density of 0.5 t/m3for organic garbage .These indications are obviously tentativebecause they lack field work confirmation.This alternative can be recommended -with reservations- only inthe case of Ciudad Sandino.since the compost could be used asmanure in the neighbouring agricultural areas.Even so theexcavation works and the materials necessary for the constructionof chambers, plus the maintanance difficulties make this solutionappear not to be economically competitive with the eventualcommunal compost units.
11.1.2.2.4.Evolution towards (water based on-site) humid seweragesystem.The progressive dvelopment towards the use of these systems(ie.septic pit-latrine with final disposal) ,could take place inlocations were the basic conditions from the sanitary and theoperational point of view are found and can be met.From the sanitary point of view, the verification of water tableregime and rate of percolation is required .It is important thatthe eventual infiltration of efluents does not endanger theunderground water sources (the main risk of this being in CiudadSandino and B.15) .From the operational point view it is necessary that the minimummaintenance resources are available,such as pit-cleaning trucksand systematically monitoring of collective infiltration/evapo-transpiration units is carried out.Of the four Barrios not having conventional collector networks.which were studied (Ciudad Sandino,Camilo Ortega, JonathanGonzalez and B.15).not one present inmmediat conditions for theinstallation of a septic pit-latrine system. The domestic waterinstallations here are so rudimentary that such a system would belargely sub-utilised and therefore would not justify the costs ofinstai lat ion.Even though the septic pit-latrine systems withevapo-transpiration of final effluents appears to be highlysuitable for the environmental and climatic condition of Managua(see f igures S-06) ,such a solution does not look suitable forrealization in the short term.It would only be possible adecision is taken to subtantially altere the existing equipment
48
and domestic water installation patterns.
II.1.2.3. General Sanitary Improvement Measures.
Local action concerning the col lection and disposal of waterservices will only be effective when accompanied of generalsanitary improvement measures .
II .1.2.3.1. Conf inement of the pigs.One of the most evident hygiene problems are the pigs whichwander the streets and lots. Their droppings are generally seenon the streets and it mixes with the muds in the flood zones andwith the garbages which is scattered by the same animals.The public health problems caused by this situation arenotorious.lt is thus recommended that the responsables bodies(MINSA and MINVAH) educates the population and provide the meansto conf i ne the pigs.
II.1.2.3.2. Solid garbage disposal.The sanitat ion of barr ios depends on proviti on for garbagedisposal. Garbage disposal in the ditches (mainly in BarrioCamilo Ortega) and garbage channels .makes it difficult for therainwaters to drain and causes proliferation of insects(vectors).Systematically urban garbage collection and disposalwould preferably be tackled by the Municipality for the city as awhole. This is because it is a general ised problem not suitablefor solutions at settlement level. However a solution likely tobe reccornended is the use of loca 1 compost units or of sma 11sanitary land fills. Nevertheless.such solution requires a localcollection organization , which would usually be based on manualtransportation of by animal traction. This is because one of thebottle necks in the conventional garbage col lection system is thelack of approppiate véhicules and their is no prospect of newacquisitions in the short of medium term. The formulation of moredetailed technological alternatives for the above ment ionedsystems depends on an in depth study of urban garbage in Managuaand of the availability of the Municipality's resources. Theindividual compost alternative like the ones suggested incombination with the double ventilated pit-latrines have limitedapplicability and serious opperational problems.Ones the composthas been removed, it must be transported and again there is thebasic problem of its col lection.These alternatives are thus notproposed as possible solutions on a macro-scale.
49
II 2.ALTERNATIVES OF URBAN CONSOLIDATION.
II.2. Crossing of variables.
The last phase of the Plan isment ioned variables.Assumptionsfol lowing aspects :
to presenthave been
a synthes i s of abovemade concerning the
1.Concerning the classification of the dwelling types andtechnical infrastructure.2.Concerning minimun residential densities (dw/ha) that would beacceptable for each sort of dwelling and residential area.
3.About housing land-use of the different zones of the city.
1. An inventory of all settlements of the city has been inventoryaccording to the following criteria :
Type of dwe11 inginfrastructure
and symbol dwe11 ing state
CuarteríaSpontaneousDilapidatedRuins
Settlementdeteriorating
Dilapidated improvingProgressive UrbanizationPopular wood individualPopular wood in serie
(S&S)
Popular cement bloc individualPopular bloc in serieTraditionalResidential in serieResident ial IndividualResidential Luxurious
CAVAVC
VBUVDVF
VEVGVJVKVLVM
BAD
REGULAR
GOOD
2. All settlements are classified in the following categories:
a. Barrios to be CONSOLIDATEb. Barrios to be further DEVELOPEc. Barrios to be RE-STUDIED and / or to be demolished.
The barrios to be consolidated are those that do not need greaterland-use amendments.The barrios to be developed are those that need first land-useamendments, increase the density,overcome the shortage of publicservice area and some corrections on the urban layout.The barrios to be re-studied are those that present seriousrestrictions in respect to land-use,therefore cannot be developedunder rational costs requirements.
This classification approach only to physical conditions,therefore does not regard any prioritization of interventions andbuilding works.The evaluation for the formulation of Action Planslately would include these physical parameters together with theone related to the urban system,the socio-economic conditions andthe technical feasibility.
50
The first group includes both residential areas of high andmiddle incomes as popular areas that present relatively goodurban layout.This can include settlements with an illegal originand years of progressive development that present good infra-structure pattern as well as newly built progressive urbani-zations (planned S&S).However a high or middle income settlementcan not necessarily be regarded as a barrio to be consolidated.There exist a large number of high income residential areas witha very low level of land occupation .presenting a completeinfrastructure network which needs to be further developed.Also exist high income areas with a very low ratio of dwellingsper hectare an incomplete infrastructure network.Most of the residential areas bui It by buiIding entrepreneurs formiddle income sectors meet the criteria of barrios to be consoli-dated.Concerning the infrastructure network, most barrios are suppliedwith primary networks of water and sewerage.Old planned barriosalso present the compite secondary system. In the case of theperipheral high income settlements the urbanizations has takenplace generally with on site disposal of waste water.
It is necessary to note that for the purpose of this classif ica-tion the existence and quality of the infrastructure service isnot a condition for the classif icat ion,nor is the sort ofpopular organization of the given settlement.or the level ofovercrowding exist ing in the housing-unit.
Most of the popular settlements which have had certain degree ofcontrol of the land use are classified here as barrios to bedeveloped. Generally these are barrios that need some correctionson plot bounderies adjustments,limits,re-design of streetspatterns-that are in the majority very spacious-and present, avery small amount of communal and recreational space and veryfew dwelling per hectare.On the other hand a large amount of highincome settlement, generally located in peripheral locations,are barrios where the densities must be increased,some roadspatterns re-studied and some location for further residentialdevelopment reserved.Most of these type of settlements are wellserved with primary networks and are potentially able to beconnected to sewerage and water supply.
All the barrios classified to be re-studied present theirdwelling units in a state of deterioration and/or are dwellingsin a regular state located on non residential areas.Most ofthese are very old illegal developments. that present a highdegree of overcrowding, and a high rate of dwelling per hectare-regarding its dilapidated dwelling typology.They have shortagesof recreational and public service areas.Most of theseresidential areas, because of being located in central areas,are we 11 served by primary and secondary networks.
II.2.Partial conclusions.
Concerning the above mentioned variables the settlementsconsidered as typological representatives of all residentialareas of the city has been classified as following.
51
Altamira. Social residential type with more than 25 dwellings perhectare is classified as a Barrio to be consolidated. HoweverAltamira del Este is considered as a barrio to be developedbecause presently its contains scarcely netto 19 dw/ha, in spiteof having luxurious dwelling units.Villa Venezuela, a planned popular barrio, is a barrio to beconsolidated.lt presents houses in a continuously improvingprocess and a good urban layout.Jose Benito Escobar is also a popular planned barrio,which isalready consolidated and has 35.08 dw/ha.Nevertheless the B.15 located alongside the former is an illegaloccupation on a floody and seismical location and therefore abarrio in re-study.One third of Adolfo Reyes and a half of Ciudad Sandino can beimmediately consol idated.The first, a popular settlementoriginated by an illegal development, with water and seweragethe second a planned site and services of about 15 years old.but a limited water supply.The rest are still zones which requirefurther improvments of land-use.Half of the area of CiudadSandino contains 18 dw/ha, large street patterns,lack ofcommunity services, lack of technical infrastructure, in spite ofhaving dwelling units in a very advanced level of consolidation.Cami lo Ortega is also an area in development, is a wellstructured popular settlement originating from an illegal siteand service development of about 20 years old.It contains 23.72dw/ha, with small and deep lots.no sewerage and without potentialfor connection to,the main network.Monseñor Lescano a residential area of the traditional type,isconsidered here as an area to be deve loped.This is because ofbeing part of the old urban center (Spanish-grid)bui It in aninitial stage of the partition of the original bloc.It containsold houses in regular and bad states and areas needingcorrections to their land use patterns and urban layout. On theother hand is a sector with good supply of technicalinfrastructure but inefficiently used.Grenada is a progressive urbanization with a very initial levelof development of their housing units and a incipient process ofdeve 1opment is ongoi ng.Has water supply of the communitari antype. The rest of the technical infrastructure is inexistant butpresents good potential to be connected to the primary network.Nevertheless it has 23,72 dw/ha in a very bad urban layout.Grenada is classified as a barrio to be developed. Next to theprogressive urbanization sector is an illegal occupation,alsonamed also Grenada, this part is to be re-studied and present 50dw/ha.Jonathan Gonzalez, an old illegal occupation, re-designedrecently by Minvah and transformed to a progressive urbanizationis considered to be a settlement to be developed.This is becausethe initial stage of development of the housing units,and theexistence of sectors yet to be re-designed.It is also a barriowith various restrictions concerning ground level with respect tothe main surrounding roads.Present communal taps can be connectedto the main sewerage system at reasonable cost.Carlos Reyna an old illegal occupation at the border of the lake.It presents all the features of a barrio to be re-studied.In spite of not having a high number of dw/ha ,it presents highhousehold overcrowding.an unplanned urban layout, housing unitsin a process of deterioration and a great turnover of occupants.Potentially is an area easily connected to the nearby sewerage
52
network,but present:and flood potential
restrictions due to superficial water table
11.3. Land use alternatives in residential areas.
Having in mind MINVAH's minimum norms for social housing (chart3) and for Progressive Urbanization (chart 4),two alternative hasbeen studied in order to start evaluating the possibility ofadjustment and the future capacity of actual residential areas.In general terms these two alternative are described as follows:
11.3.1. RLTERNATIVE 1.
The first alternative that has been studied is the one that hasclassi f ied as barrios to be consolidated all those locationsthat present dwellings, both in good and as regular states, with25 and more dwellings per hectare.Barrios to be deve loped and the densities increased. are allthose with good and regular housing units with less than 25dwellings per hectare.Barrios to be re-studied are all Barrios that present very badhousing conditions .a process of deterioration and are located innon-permissible locations, i.e. along the polluted lake-coast, inseismical zones (red risks), in the central area reserved forfuture development .etc.
11.3.2. ALTERNATIVE 2.
The second alternative presents a more radical option concerningcorrections of land-use and is closer to existing housing normsfor the new social-housing development (Minvah 1983).This second alternative considers 30 dw/ha a minimum inresidential zones.
A 47.43% of Managua's barrios can be classified as barrios to beconsolidated,f rom these 17.83% are Residential type and 29.6% arepopular.A 38,882$ are barrios that can be c lass if ied as barrios in anongoing deve loping process. Which are class if ied as 14,24%residential and 24.64% popular. Remaining 13,69%be re-studied and which can generally besettlements with people to be re located.
are barrios toconsidered as
The fol lowing charts present the present land-usestructure of the city and the resultingaforementioned alternative are chosen.
of the urbancapacity if
DWELLINGS AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO DENSITIES CHART 19.
Density
¿0 y más
30 y ¿0
:0 y 30
0 v 20
c u a r t e r .
TOTALES
N°dwellings
38.371
26.381
33.118
17.726
3.961
1 17.557
population
273 .010
190.752
245.457
138.221
20.251
867 .691
% of t o t a lDwellings
32 .63
20 .73
28.17
15. 10
3.37
100.00
n° settlements
66
69
79
129
51
3 9 3
53
DENSITIES
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
RANGES
N°se t t l
51
18
19
29
29
40
46
32
30
99
393 1
. Zdwell
3 .37
11.61
8 .29
1 2 . 7 3
8 .64
12 .09
18.92
9 .25
7.55
7.55
00 .00
N°dwellinBS
3961
13652
9746
14973
10164
14217
22241
10877
8846
8880
117557
population
20251
91494
61433
120083
82888
107864
156360
89097
72968
65253
867691
ha
180 .8
190 .9
342 .7
2 7 3 . 1
4 4 1 . 9
8 2 0 . 4 5
480 .2
4 8 7 . 3
1608.75
4826.1
densities
cua r terias
+60viv/h
50T60viv/h
40-50viv/h
35-40viv/h
30-35viv/h
25-30viv/h
20-25viv/h
15-20viv/h
0-15viv/h
CHART 20.
DISTRIBUTION OF DWELLING TYPES ACCORDING TO DENSITIES
density Dwelling good Dwelling regular Dwelling Total Dwellings
range state.masonry state.wood. bad state
¿0 v más2-3-4 .
30-40viv 'h5-6
20-30viv/h7-8
0-20viv.h9-10 .
]
TOTAL
2 1 0 73 4 7 06075
1165269232376929941844045822944834028851 1
37691
882156817046
2154862926972
1326416276
588222158
366431416805
63775
2724595
185251711002816
18181781
9502731
69917112410
+ 396116091
136529746
1497338371101641016424381222411087733118
88468880
17726
117557
AREA DISTRIBUTION IN RELATION TO THE TYPE OF DWELLING AND DW/HA.
code
1234
5b7
89
10TOTAL
n ° s e t t Total ha.
51181929
29¿046
323099
393
01 8 0 . 8190 .93 4 2 . 7
2 7 3 . 1441 . 98 2 0 . 4 5
4 8 0 . 24 8 7 . 3
1 6 0 8 . 7 54 8 2 6 . 1
Dwel.goodstate
N°settl
255
61210
91453
121
ha
3 2 . 26 4 . 26 4 . 2
6 2 . 62 1 4 . 6153 .35
177 .32 5 3 . :
1140 .42 2 3 6 . 1 5
dwel . regularstate
N°settl
81010
171824
149
22138
. ha
114.4115.6115.6
189.5196.2604 .2
260 .3197.1303 .0
2144.0
dwel.badstate
"n°sett! ha
844
61012
97
2483
3 4 . 21 1 . 11 1 . 1
2 1 . 03 1 . 16 2 . 9
4 2 . 63 7 . 0
1 6 5 . 3 54 4 5 . 9 5
CHART 21
CHART 22
54
II.4.1.Applicability of ALTERNATIVE 1.
In this alternative it is assumed that is feasible to increasethe density of those areas which are actually occupied bydwellings of "residential" type and present very low density,(average 16.5 dw/ha). We are concerned here with 1.570.9 ha. Weassume here that densities can be increased in these areas in theshort and long term,by means of "infi 1lings"programmes,such asfamily houses or small flats buildings between 2 to 3 floors.The capacity of these areas could increase from 34.571(increasing to 30 dw/ha) to 157.090 dwell ings(increasing to 100dw/ha). The areas occupied with the regular state type ofdwelling, namely of wood and in the process of. improvement,couldbe siutable to increase their density using programmes of social-housing and/or sites and services (progressive urbanization).Both types of "infi 1 lings"are especially important in thoseareas close to future extension zones.The areas with low density are 12.681 ha and present an averagedensity of 16.67 dw/ha. Because they are low income areas.it isnot feasible to increase the density to over 40 dw/ha.
The zones that are actually occupied with bad state dwelling in aprocess of deterioration are concentrated mainly in the core ofthe city, the central area destroyed by 1973 earthquake.i.e.inthe areas best served with technical infrastructure.In this areait is proposed to increase the capacity to 100 dw/ha,which couldgive as maximun capacity of 28.504 new dwelling (excluding theactual 16.091 bad dwellings,a number that includes the existingcuarterias).
11.4.2. Applicability of ALTERNATIVE 2.
In this alternative it is assumed that is feasible to increasethe density of areas actually occupied with "residential"dwelling types and low density (average 9.7 dw/ha). We arerefering to 1.720 ha.It is here assumed that the density of theseareas could be increased on medium and long range terms with"infilling" programmes.Family houses as well small flat department between 2 or 3 floorshigh could be bui It here.The capacity of these areas couldincrease between 34.987 (increasing to 30 dw/ha) to 157.090(increasing to 100 dw/ha).The density of the areas actually occupied by wooden houses in aregular state and in a progressive improvement process,could beincreased in the short range with social housing programmesand/or Sites and Services programmes (progressive urbanization).Both of the type of "infillings" are siutable those zones closeto the future extensions of the city .The low density areascomprise a total of 1.364.6 ha and present an average of 21.2dw/ha. Since these are areas of low income sectors it is assumedthat densities could not be increased above 40 dw/ha.For the zones with housing stock in a process ofdeterioration,the same land-use capacity as that of the formeralternative applies.
ALTERNATIVE 1. ( 2 5 dw-ha) CHART 23,
. Sett. l ornent
Consolidatedzones+ 25 dw-ha(average dw/ha)
Zones indeveloping
-25 dw/ha(average dw/ha)
Good state
2 5. If ,
12.556
n°settlem
45
76
ha
()<>5.2 5
37. 78
1570.9
16.5
Regular state
5 1 . Ü Ö H
1 2 . 6 8 1
N° s e t t l .
y 3
45
ha
1 3H'i.f»
'36. y 2
760.4
1 d . 6 7
bad s t a t e
H77O
3360
N° s e t t l .
4 t
40
ha
"¿01.0
4 1. f 13
2 4 4 . 9
1 3 . 7 1
ALTERNATIVE ACCORDING CAPACITY OF INCREASING DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING ZONES OF BELOW 2 5 D * / h a .
capacity30 dw-ha
capacity40 dw/ha
capacity i60 dw/ha
capacity100 dw/ha
+3¿,571
+50.280
+81.698
+157.090
+ 1 0 . 1 3 1
+ 1 7 . 7 Ti
*-2306
*+1747
*+10.66b
*+28.504
tTIV
EIL
TER
N/
DISTRIBUTION OF
Type of Se t t l e -nents
CONSOLIDATED
*• 25 dw/ha
DEVELOPMENT
- 2 5 dw-ha
RE-STUDY
THE POPULATION
D W Egood state
25.135
(21.38%)
12.556
(10.68%)
ACCORDING TO THE
L L I Nregular state
51.088
(43.45%)
12.681
(10.79%)
TYPE OF BARRIO
G Sdeterioration
16.091(13.69%)
'•K
ALTERNATIVE 2 (30 dw-ha) CHART 24.
TTV
z:
<
CONSOLIDATED
f30 dw/ha
DEVELOPMENT
- 3 0 dw/ha
RE-STUDY
20.951
(17.83Z)
16.740
(14.24%)
34.812
(29.60%)
28.963
(24.64%)
16
(13
.091
.69%)
TYPES OF SKTTI.FMUN'IS
zones inconsol idat ion+ 30 dw/ha(average dw/ha)
Zones indevelopment-30 dw/ha(average dw/ha)
Good state
20.05 ]
If». 7 4 0
N°settlem.
:r>
86
ha
5 1 1 . <>
4 0 . 9 2
1 7 2 4 . 2 r)
9 .7
Regular s ta te
' Ï4HI2
28061
N°sett1
6 9
60
hn
779 .4
4 4 . 6
136 4 . 6
2 1 . 2
Bad stnte
6.989
5.141
n ° s e t t l .
31
52
hn
138. 1
50.6
J07.R5
16. 7
ALTERNATIVES ACCORDING CAPACITY OF INCREASING DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING ZONES BELOW 30 dw/ha
capacity30 dw/ha
capacity40 dw/ha
capacity60 dw/ha
capacity100 dw/ha
14 . OR7
•>0. 280
RI .í>08
137.000
1 1 .OR 7
17 .735
- 2 . 3 0 6
1 . 747
10.666
28.504
ALTERNATIVE 1. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN GOOD STATE AND MORE THAN 25 dwel./ha(groups 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7) CHART ^
2 +60vi/ha
•ARRIOVlll. LIbartadniguai Outlvrrvx
arupo TIPO. NeVIV POBLACIOK HA Viv. /Ha. Hab/Ha pin/vlvVQ 1733 12766 26 66.63 491.00 7.37VO 374 2913 6.2 6O. 32 469.64 7.79
• 2107 19679 32.i
3D-60viv/ha
BARRIOPrlaaro da fliyoBatahola SurTondarlSan Jaelntof)ub*n Darlo
grupo22222
VOVGVOVOVD
40-50viv/haBARRIO
HonMnor LtsotnoUnidad da PropositoHorazanBoaquaa da AltawiraM B K I M O JvrazEl PilarUnidad d» PropoaltoVilla FraternidadColombiaColonia, Hanagua
grupo
TIPO. NoVIV POBLACIÓN119O 9634lOOO 6333441 3500312 3336327 3192
347O 28217
TIPO.2222222222
VJvavaVK
vaVEvavavava
HA Viv./Ha.22. 6 52. 6317.4 57.47a. a so.ii9.4 34.47
6 54.30
Hab/Ha para/vlv426. 2(1 a. 1049O.40 B. 53397.73 7.94337. 23 6. 56332. 00 9. 76
NoVIV175579O
ie*1U5O6ia51121033399
12b6075
POBLACIÓN19713636163466174b9&7347O27261997916906
56606
HA39.
ia.12.26.12.10.
2.
2992543
a23
Viv./Ha.44.7741. 8O43.274O. OB49. 4449. 13
4241.63
. 43. OO41.67
Hab/Ha302.aa336.36491.94233.63479. 76323.96545.2
249.63416.363O2.00
para/vlv11.238. 03
10. B7s. aa9. 7O
10.7012. 986.OO9. 257. 25
35-40 viv/ha
BARRIOViila PrograaoRubtnlaHtMtro GabrialBlanca SagoviaNicarao 1SXPlan Piloto
grupo T 1 P 0* HoVIV POBLACIÓN HA Viv./Ha. Hab/Ha para/vlv2 VG fa73 4932 18. 1 37.29 272.49 7.312 VK 6 3 9 3 7 5 7 1 6 39.94 234.81 3.882 VK 3 3 0 3 2 5 6 B | B 37.30 37O. 00 9.872 VE 4fa7 2 4 2 a 1 3 33.92 186.77 5.202 V D 2O4 1810 5.1 40. OO 334.9O 8. 872 v c 61 434 1.6 38.13 271.25 7.11
2376 16617 C2-6
30-35viv/ha
BARRIOCtntrointrlcaBailo Horizont» 7SXBatahola Hort*Oa Junio 10niguai GutiarrazLa* Barcada»Harova y fi. dal BocayCrlatlan PtrtiLaa Itareada*Don Boaco 66XLoa CaldoaDon Boaco 33X
GRUPO T1PU.222222222222
VKVKVGVGVGVKVKVKVKVGVGVG
NoVIV125115711U007485573914691B4ifaS
3269b
1636923
POBLACIÓN1O3741O347853359OO4274316731501536135711363225. 3
5O1O1.3
HA37.55O. 229. 7
2416.512. 914.63.3S. 3
10. 22.95.3
Tlii
Viv./Ha.33.3631.2933.6731. 1733.763O. 3132. 1234.723O. 3331.9632. 7630.75
Hab/Ha276.642O6.12287.31243.83239.03243.30213.73289.81246.73111.37111.03
1. OO
p*ra/vlva. 296.59
i a. 537.897.67
t a. îo6.726. 35
3. 4B3.39O.O3
25-30viv/ha
BARRIOD* Sapti»»br* 14Santa Ana 5OXAltamlra 1 y 'JHutvt da JunioLona Vard»-SeminarloJardinas d* VeracruzLoa ArcoaCantroamarlca y*Hafaal Harrera 75Xbar» Antonio
ÜHUPO TIPO. NoVIV¿22ü
2222
VGVJVLVUVLVKVKVKVUVÜ
9614S3730444
4oy3Ub252110227227164
POBLACIÓN i96 3U55243301291027142668134784482,27*i3
3O483
HA37. 218. 126. 316. 413. 713. 1
93.87. 6
8. 15i S3. "v;
Viv./Ha.2b. üJ2b. by
. 27. 7627.3829. 852b. 6528. 0028. SS2y. 8727.83
Hab/Ha258.U73O5. 19125. 51177.44198. 1
2O3. 66149.67222.111OÖ. 1688. 71
para/viv10. Ü¿11. 444. 526. 486. 647. 94S. 357.ta/3. bÜ3. ïy
58Note: viv. = dweelino
tipo = type
ALTERNATIVE 1. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN REGULAR STATE AND MORE THAN 25 dwel./ha(groups 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7)
2 +60 dwel./ha.
BARRIO grupoSan Judas Hort» 60%Sohlok No3RavoluolonSohlok 2Salowon HorsnoQsrsan Poaara*Qersan PoairtaDuouall .
3 50-60 dwel./ha.
BARRIO Qrupo
TIPO.1 VD1 VD1 VD1 VD1 VD1 U1 U1 VD
HoVIV361412071356603600675225141S821
POBLACIÓN2165410938763734784780337711931O3356712
HA301419
8.411.26.21.42.2
11+.+
Vlv./Ha.76.2886.2171.3771.79
• 71.4362.32160.7164.09
Kab/Ha437.08782,71412.47632,14426.79436.22632.14470.4^
para/viv3.739.085.789. oe3.965.305.307.34
TIPO. NoVIV POBLACIÓN KA Vlv./Ha. Hab/Ha pera/viv
BARRIO grupoSol d* libertadRlguaroSan CristobalKvxlco 5OXLibiaRuban DarloHanual Olivar»*Alananla D»». 1/3Hontoya 1-2Josa Doloras Estrada i
4 40-50 dwel./ha.
BARRIO grupo
BARRIO grupoSan Judaa Norta 2OXLarrvynagaDucuali 'Barri. 66X y S. Lui» N.Schik 1Jo»» laaias OontsAdolfo R»y»» 66XLibarlaFarabundo MartiS » 1 1 M Schibl» <OOM.Lugo)La EaparanzaJulio BultragoNino» H. y H. AyapalRalavl Rio»Port»zu»loStctor O-l
5 35-40 dwel./ha.
TIPO. HoVIV1 VF111111111
VDVDVDUVDUVBUU
V25O21328729169219360207974030
3681
POBLACIÓN1082110299240117591229107063639324018O
29228
HA42. 126.213.43.34. 2
19. 24. 11. 9O. 70.3
Vlv./Ha.59.4350.69
1 54.4051. 2132. 1455. 735O. 4951.0557. 1460.00
Hab/Ha257.03393.09179.18533. O3292.6255.73
203.90206.84342.86360.00
pars/viv4. 327. 763. 29
1O. 413.612.974.044. 056.006. 00
114.1111111111111
TIPO.
Tipa.Va-VD-VDVDVDVDVFVDVDUUUUUUVBU
NoVIV
NoVIV1986995800596460468279233244198100Ibï»20813410672
7046
POBLACIÓN
POBLACIÓN127247829 .642742674OO1282227192335146411881O269909508O4570432
50548
HA
HA49. 423.616.712. 7IO. B1A. 1
63.73.5
42.24
45. 12.72.31.7
Viv. /Ha.
Viv. /Ha.4O.41.47.46.42.42.46.41.44.49.
1 44.41.40.49.46.42.
:¿o81909359165023365064257863O935
Hab/Ha
Htb/Ha
257,5732S.9S384.85335.98370.4&254.23453.17409.65266.18297.OO458.O4247. 50186.27297.78247.83254.12
pera/viv
p»ra/viv&. 417. 87e. 037. 168. 706.039.739. 946.006.0010.266.004.376. 003.366.O0
BARRIO ' grupoJoa* Banito EsoobarVtntiuviaCoata RicaHaría Auxiliadora 30XA n a n a CastroArlsl Daroa 33XRtnt Cisn»rosLaureano HalranaCoata RicaAdolfo Rayss 33XJonathan OonzalazEspaña ' \Oaaar Turólos , 'Edgar HungulaAXaaania Dsaocrat. ,Santa Ellaa**Waalala
11111111111111111
TIPO.VDVDVDVdUVDU
uVDVDUUUUUVD
u
NoVIV1312
' 117267224B
, 5323O647536219513920416O148126103
. -15048
M 7 2
POBLACIÓN1496893887O47672153374193283O2316163313131224980888672618326288
6O984
HA43. 132. 322. 36. 71314
12.89.33.23.39.64.2
43.4
1 2.74.21.2
1 B'l -^
Vlv./Ha.35. OS36.2839. 1O37.Ol36. 6036. 1437. 1138.9237.5
39.7136.4338. 1037.0037.06,36.1335.7140.00
Hab/Ha347.29296.84316. Ol1003.13333.80299.50222.66249.O3317.88375.71216.57233.33222.00197.65226.6977.62
240.00
pera/viv9. 908. 168. 06
27. 109.678.296.006. 408. 489.466.006.136.003.336.002.176.00
59
ALTERNATIVE 1. Continuation: dwellings in regular state
6 30-35 dwel./ha.BARRIO GRUPO
Altagraela 45XVilla RevoluciónDa Junio 14Santa Ana 38XRarla Auxiliadora 70XEl R«ortoOsvaldo MtntinirraUnion SovlatloaCs»lio Ch, (Osear Llno>Edgar LangCatoroa da S»pti»»brwEdgar HungulaHlrafloraaEl CortijoCoatado Crux Roja 'Lota AVilla RoñaCvlflda niranda
T I P O .L V DL V FL V DL V DL V DL UL UL UL UL UL UL UUUUUVDU
N o V I V116873953843B5778174862642331711281261O69b8363
213> 246292
POBLACIÓN1208478378774313744O1433O237613B413981O26768673636576498378302193
30193
HA37.224.3
1714.918.423.414.28.27. 75.24. 13.73. 23. 12.51.86.60.7
Vlv./H31.3O.31.30.31.34.34.32.30.32.31.34.J3.3O.33.35.32.34.
a.4O4165743691232O26882205139720003829
Hab/Ha324.84322.SI339.63346.11239.18185.O4181.41193. 17181.56197.31187.32181. 89198.73183.81199.20210. 0043.76
278.57
p*r«/vlv1O. 3310.60
' 10.7311.267.635.30
1 5. 3O<6. OO6. OO6.006.OO3.346. OO6. 006. 006. 001.408. 1J
7 25-30 dwel./ha.
BARRIO GRUPOC.5andlno3/6, B»lla CruzVilla Vtmxufli BIXSi»rra Ha»atraCamilo ChamorroJoro» Dimitrov (
Demitila LugoJo»» Dolor»» EatradaÉl Ed»n iCarloa Stnchtz 'G*orglno Andrad»S » 1 Í M Schibl»»Soeritta Sandinotoi Laur»l»aGrenadaBvrtha CaldtronVilla AuitrliB»rtha Diazn»xico SOXninia 1 y 2NombachoCarolina Cal»roCaalmiro Sot»loLoa Angvlea 5XDucuali
111111111111111111111111
TIPO.VDVFVDVDUVDVDVDVDUVDVDVOuuuVDVDUVÜ
uVBVDU
NoVIV2365203712691339104069192662292472341b3307S14114U135O5241702242111301033443
lbJ/fe
POBLACIÓN22042
< 1713311807
B23B62405633547*464243314330. 38363101 '2B03246624Ub18SS1791170913449U87B0623273256
114110
HA1O171
49.653.435.627.435.4
2331
23.216.4
1128.614. 9ÍS. 312. 7IB. 9
6
a. s7. 54 . 74 . 11 . 31 . 7
V i v . / H a .2 3 . 4 O
t 2 8 . 9 72 3 . 5 823.4529.21 .25. 2226. 1627. O429.8128.7725. 37
, 3O.0026.2627. SB2b. 21¿y. 5627. 7228. 332b. ja2B. 1327.66
23. 122b. Ib2b. 2y
Hab/Ha218.24241.39238.04154.27
1 175.28206.31154.77201.83140.35172.62233.9O2B1.91
98. OÍ163.3O137.25146.Ob94.76
284.B3158.12121.07lbS.96132.44210.UO151.7b
p»r*/vlvB. 39B. 349. 3U6.066.00
a. IB5.927. 4b4. 716. OO9. 229. 403.736. 006. OU3. 3O3. 42
IO. 056. 00
| 4.306.006. 07
• 8.03Ê. 00
60
ALTERNATIVE 1. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN BAD STATE AND MORE THAN 25 dwel./ha.
(nroups 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7)
2 +60 dwel./ha.BARRIO grupo TIPO.
Quinta NinaBanadíoto ValverdeBarricadaCpMunldad BulgariaPablo UbedaFrente a la NarvalChtoo PelonCanino Solo j
3 A3 VA333333
NoVIV POBLACIÓN HA Viv. /Ha.890 61BS 11.2 179.46456 4394 3 91.60300 32O7 6. 4 78. 13400 2779 4. S 66. 89170 1O9O 2.7 62.9666 331 1.3 " • 15150 301 2. 3 65. 2270 396 0.8 87. 5O
2724 19103 "3-4."2.
Hab/Ha pera/viv352.23B7B.6O301.O9617.56403.70423. 65217.63493.00
6.959.396.416.936.416.413. 345. 66
TIPO.J A3 A3 A3 A
3 50-60 dwel./ha.BARRIO grupo
Granada IILoa AngalvaMadrea líartlree da Pant.Laa Torrea 6X
4 40-50 dwel./ha.BARRIO grupo TIPO,
BARRIO grupo T1PU.Laa Torraa 94X 3 AAcahual inca 3 VAUraciaa a Dio» 3 A
S 35-40 dwel./ha.
HoVIV POBLACIÓN270 1732ISO 12509O 57755 429
593 398Ô
POBLACIÓN
NoVIV PUBLAC1ON639 6733B6B 518614b 1010
1652 12929
KA3. 13.5
/'I
HA
Viv. /Ha.32.94
6O. 0035. OO
Viv.
HA Viv./Ha.17.8 47. 1319.6 44.293. 3 43. 94
Hab/Ha p»n/wiv339.61 . 6.41357.14 6.94384.67 fe.41429.00 7. 80
Hab/Ha pera/viv
i
Hab/Ha para/viv378.2b e.03iíb4. 59 5. 97JUb.0b 6. 97
BARRIOJoaa Benito Eecoberti RodeitoVeapenSan SepeetianLoa CocoaHonitnor Lesoano
6 30-35 dwel./ha.
grupo
BARRIOSur Xo lot lar»tnrique SchmidtLa CruxSan JacintoAcahualinca Nor i*Aqui Nicaragua 'Enrrlque Schaidt(Loa LaureleaLaureano flalrenaAngel B.Barrio*
BARH10Jonathan Gonzal«zD* Julio 19Loa Roble» 5UXBataholaHotaatepeSur da Villa FlorLa Cuaresma 5OXt»»lmiro bóteloLaa HiedrecitaBLoa MaranoneaCtiiniro SoteloModeato Bejarano
GRUPO
33333
'J
TIPO.AAAAAA
NoVIV300213165605620
Blb
POBLACIÓN192413091146384364
1603287
HA7.5.4.1.1.O,
21
57274
, 30
Viv./Ha.40. 0037.7239. 2939. 2940.0040.00
Hab/Ha pm
236.33229.65272.B6223. BB260. OO320. 00
ra/vlvb. 416.096.936. 40b. 3Oe.oo
25-30 dwel./ha.ÜHUPU
AAAAAAAAAA
'JJJ'JJJ
JJ
JJJJ
TIPO.
TI PU.AAVLAAAVAAAAAA
NoVIV POBLACIÓN400127808470bb6b403534
HoVIV546382212lbü134yu9Ub j
42-O¿/2b
2779602'555538449423311277242236
6412
PUBLAC1UN35O2245017439/5859bSbbJUJ412fa9
¿lãIV'2128
HA12. S4. 22.52.6
22
2. 1i. *
11
31.1
HAia.12.7.5.b.J.
1.1.
u.
Viv. /Ha.
1
687814J2b11y
32.003O. 2432. OO32.3135. OO33. OO31. 4333. JJ35. OO34. 00
Viv. /Ha.29. Jb29. 0427. S325. 8b2b. 2/2b. 47JO. UU¿b. 5028. 00
i 27.2/2/. UU2/. /B
Hab/Ha pera/viv222.32143.33222.002O6.92224.50211.30148. 10230.63242.00236.00
Hab/Ha pIBS.28191.4122b. -Jbiba.ioiba.4J1/2. Ob176.6717U,SO179. 331S3.b41/2. UU142. 22
6.934. 746. 946. 406.416. 414.716.93b.91b.94
iere/vívb. 41b. 418. 22b. 5Ufe. 4 1b. bUb. uyb. 4.Jb. 4U
1 /. 10b. JVb. 12
nSÍ //767
61
ALTERNATIVE 1. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN GOOD STATE AND LESS THAN 25 dwel /ha(grouns 8- 9-10)
8 20-25 dwel./ha.
BARRIU GRUPOMonltnor LvzcinoRigoberta Lapex Per**Hlcarao 8SXBella Horizont» 23XSan Joa* Oriental 30XVail» DoradoVilla FlorXolotlan
22
> 222222
VJVJVGVKVSVKVKVK
Linda Vlata Sur
TIPO. NoVIV
2 VK
712983567324233167462¿ia
POBLACIÓN93578037318634493220206516271389
HA31. 1
4O25. 221.212.47.6
22.310
Vlv./Ha.23.8924.3823. SO24.7220.3621.9720.3321.60
Hab/Ha300.872OO.932O3. 79162.69259.66271. 7172.31136.90
ptrt/vlv1 13.14
8. 169. lã6. 38
12. 6312.373.526.3"?
1574O45
1O77334O7
7. 317 7.3
21.51 147.33
9 15-20 dwel./ha.
BARRIO GRUPOSan Jome Oriental 3OXPameasan 66XCHamorro-Rlguero N.Largaeapada 3/6Nartha QuezadaPancasan 33XLaa PalmasLinda Viata Nort*Hlgual BonillaJardines de Santa ClaraVilla Panama SOXSan Patricio 'Nejapa SurBolonia 60XBelmonteSanto DomingoColinas 60X 'MotastepeSilvio HayorgaEl CarmenBolonia 40XOuadalupeVina Panama 25XVilla Panama 25XLaguna de TiscapaCl Mirador 73XColinas 3OXBosque de BoloniaSanta Ana 3XBosque d* BoloniaSan Juan 3UXSan Juan 70XAltos Santo Domingo 55XLos BoMberoaSerranoCdo.Contraria La grutaViata HermoaaSanto ÜomingoBslalr ITiscapaJardines d* HanaguaKllochoEl CortijoLaa .Colina* 1OXLa Aviaciónti Mirador 15XBosque *1 H»cr»oLaa FloreaEl Mirador lux i
TIPO.
AltamiraPedro Joaquín ChamorroCountry Llub
10 0-15 dwel./ha.B A H K 1 C J
A i t a g r a c l aL « a B r i a a aC i u d a d J a r d í nA l t a m i r a d e E a t *R o b e r t o H u e m b e sJ « v i # r C u a d r a an i r a i l o r e aL o a R o b l a * S O XC t M n t t r l oS a n n a r t l nJ a v i e r C u a d r a aL * r g a * a p a d a 1 / 6H a n t i c aS a n t a A n a 9 X
U R U P U
2 VJ2 VL
VGVLVGVLVL
2 VK2 VO2 Vñ2 V»2 VL2 VL2 Vñ2 VL2 vn2 Vñ2 VL2 VE
VLvnVLvnvn
2 VEvnvnvnVJ
vnVLVL
vnVLVLvnvavnVLVLVLVLVJ
vnVL
2 VM2 VL2 VL¿ vn2 VL2 VL'2 VK2 vn
T I P O .2 V J2 V K2 V K2 V K2 V K2 V J2 V L2 V H•¿ VJ•¿ VLü VJ2 VL2 VL2 VJ
NOVIV81
3903321692451941562131/0921041201001143494
13O6174
163763O5232b247665014VJ25¿53616Ü4Ü Ü
fe4'2'J
2922¿21*»17211 J
9yüb
4
"<J''H
NoVIV
527
61944O401405338211227921OO633264
4483
POBLACIÓN3270321124122132193016041560148O1O84919737
' 6416J06096063323434874744474063843643b3333272271265233Ü'JS2292¿921O20419a192ltíJ
1721671611401321158973
' 5b5042'Jfalã
HUBLAC1UN12O71&0644580258724O1234223O517431328791377423331156
37703
HA14.832. 126. 133.724.4
3619.719.712.36.3
31.93O. 319.931.713.9
326O
24. 53. 1
30.834.615. 1
156. 6
330. S84.56.71. 26.7
10. d12. 866.89.6
495. 44.8ld
2. 53. 26. J13
2. 525. 42. 32J
5. 97. e2b
2. 42. 2
LU21. 2
1 14<->. 4
HA27.749.2
3723.2
1 23. 225. 616. 313. 9
124.9
65. 4
33.6
2C í- "2
Viv./Ha.• 5.47
7.4911.613.61
10.043.118.02
10.6113.6010.623.263.963.032.213.862.942. 172. 49
14.515.942.2O1.993. 477.68
12. 4O1.540. 787.4611.67b.422.311.950. 341.678. 3O0. 3113.331.61
11.606. 883. 491. 4b6. 8OO. 835. 65'o. 391. bJ1. O30. 241. 67
u.uuu. ouU. UU
Viv./Ha.19.0318.7816.7318. 9717. 2815.7018. 4715. 1618.9218.7616.6713. 3717. 3317. 76
Kab/Ha22O.9561.6383.8463.2679. 1O42. 21eo. 2o73. 1386.72108.1223.7321.1631.6611.7643.6017.239.05
19. 8892. 9414.3111. 7323.4324.275b. 0066.608.92
, 3.2139.55
212.SO35. 0721.2017. 693. 14
21.2549. SO2.01
3a. 13SI. Ssb
bfa.80
50. 3123. 491U. 154b. 003. 5O
31. 74
tí. 47
i5. 361 1. 447. bOU. UUU. UÜ0. UU
Hab/Ha435.78123.25123.78111*511O3. 499O. 78
1 2 5 . 9 61 2 5 . 4 O1 1 0 . 6 71 6 1 . 4 3
9 6 . 1 77 8 . 7 0
1 1 O . 3 34 3 . 6 9
p e r s / v l v4 0 . 3 7
8 . 2 37 . 2 7
, 1 1 . 2 6' 7 . 6 6
8 . 2 71 0 . O O
6 . 9 36 . 1 3 89 . 9 97 . 2 63 . 3 46 . 3 03 . 3 4
1 1 . 2 23 . 6 74 . 1 67 . 9 66 . 4 12. 445.34
12.807. 006.965.375.794. 115 . 3 O
1 8 . 2 1. 5 . 4 7
, 9 . 1 69 . 1 65 . 8 3
1 2 . 7 55 . 6 26 . 4 02. Bbb. 93S.767.326. 736. 956. 764.245. 62b. 11b. bfa
b. 2b
b. 0Û4. 5ÜLKNERHEHK
pera/viv22. 916. 5b7. 405. 6B5. 995. 766.628. 265.858 . 6 05 . 7 7
5.126.372.47
ALTERNATIVE 1. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN REGULAR STATE(groups 8- 9- 10)
AND LESS THAN 25 dwel./ha
8 ÏO-Z5 dwel./ha.BARRIO GRUPO
Ariel Dira» 66XSant* R O NC K M I I O OrtagaRana P. y Schiok Ho 4WaapanCl ParaiaoAltagracla 1OXJulio BultragoFranelaoo"HaiaD* Hayo 1Camilo ChamorroLa EapvranzftCawilo Ch. <Q. Pacheco!Caalnll-o Bótalo
9 15-20 dwel./ha.BARRIO GRUPO
C.Sandino 2/6,Baila CruzC.Sandinol/6,Baila CruxCubaBarricada 33%Omar TorrijoaSan Ignacio da Bola*La EiptnniiLola C (42X>Camilo Ortega
TIPO.VDVdVDVDVDVDVDUUUUVBUVB
TIPO.1 VD1 VD1 VB1 VD1 VB1 U1 VB1 U1 U
HoVIV POBLACIÓN HA Viv. /Ha.B72 7896 36 22.95891 7262 43.2 20.63797 682O 33.6 23.72796 6211 3 3- g 23.48764 5538 34. 5 22. 14437 4150 18.1 24.14321 2942 ÍS 21.40295 177O 12.1 24.38199 1194 8.9 22.36173 1038 7.6 22.76131 786 6.2 21.1398 531 *•* 2O. 4276 496 3.1 24.5232 197 1.3 24.62
5882 467*1 2ttf3
MoVIV POBLACIÓN HA Vlv./Ha.1711 15194 90.6 18.89858 7106 44.2 19.41226 2914 13.5 16.74307 2187 ÍS. 6 16.51330 1873 17.1 19.3080 480 4.4 la. 1870 459 3.5 2O. OO90 3OO 3. 3 19. 1532 193 1.9 16.84
3664 . 3O7O6 1 1 7 . I
Hab/Ha pan207.79168.10
, 202.98183.2216O.52229. 2B196.13146.28134.16136.58126.7711O.63147.10151.54
1/Vl V
9. U68 15
56eo25501700000000
5.426.006. 16
Hab/Ha pera/viv167.70160.77215.85117.58109.53109.09131.149O. 91101.98
8. 888. 28
12. B97. 12'5. 666. OO6.566. 00
1 6.0J
10 0-15 dwel./ha.
BARRIOVilla VanazualaLoa Angelea 95XBailo AmanecerSan Lula SurCuba LibraSan Judaa Sur 1/6Arlan SiuTICOMO
Pacto AndinoCuadraa (5anta Julia!CuadraDaniel ChavarrlaManzana Gadala HariaSan IgnacioAlfredo SilvaAJe»ania demcrat. 1/3HabanaSan PedroAlemania De*. 1/3Uecar RobaloColonia MilitarSalín Schlble
GRUPO TIPO.1 VF1 VP1 VD1 VD1 VD1 VD1 VD1 VD
VFVDVDUuuuVBVDVDVBUVFU
NoVIV47b4475903641802O3150BB787â918272
6O494643322019
3141
POBLACIÓN3909367329O9273722701436108963755551b4964924323Üb36029428624719712O42
Ü3U78
HA35.9
3263. 127. 4
1816.7
2517.56.76.54. 97. 40.93- V
56.94. 58.9
61.71. 5J. ZJO3
Vlv./H13.13.8.
13.10.12.6.5.
11.11.10.11.
14.12.7.
10.4.5.
11.12.U.
a.3897722600160003645441Ü6
8b00ic»,6783337b6700
Hab/Ha pa110.11114.784b. 0499. 89126.1189.9943. 5636. 4062.8479.38101-226b. 49
40U. 00104.O972. OO42.6163. 5627.7532. 837O. 59¿tí. OOO. 00
ra/viv8. 238.225.287.52
12. bl7.077.,267.24
' 7. 126.669.736. 006.007.006.006.005.969.746. 166. 002. 21
63
ALTERNATIVE 1.(groups 8-9-10)
BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN BAD STATE AND LESS THAN 25 dwel./ha.
8 20-25 dwel./ha.BARRIO
aantos Lopes¿raclas a ÜlosLa CascadaVilla ftoea 3OXEl RodasMiguel GutlerrpzCostado Cruz RojaFrta. HÍn. CulturaRigobarto Lopez Per**
GRUPO3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A
TIPO. HoVIV
Ibü2O32OOISO12O45333O15
95O
POBLACIÓN181714221176104267927021020873
6899
HA6. a9. 49 - i 6
6. 74. a1.91. 61. 2O. 6
Viv./Ha.22. 0621.ai2U. 8322.3923. UO23. bB2i. ba25. OO25. OO
Hab/Ha267.21
122. 5O155. 52141.46142. 11131.25173. 33125. OO
per»/viv12. 116. 943. aa6. 93S. 666. 006. OO6.933. OO
9 15-20 dwel./ha
BAHRIUCarlea ReynaSan CrlatobalLoa Chagüite»Laa JaguitasLaa PledrecltaaHi«li el Parado£aq.opueata a li
GRUPO
Norsal.
TIPU.3 VA'J A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A
K o V i V13013215012567S3¿O
699
P U B L A C I O N1O9897546269437233O128
4359
HA6.
6.3.
1.
8883631O
viv./Ka.19. 1219. OO
' 18. 7319. 2318. 6118. 33IB. 18
Hab/Ha161.47121.ea120.25106.77103.33110.00116.36
pere/vlv8. 456. 416. 415. 35
j 5.55. 6. 00
6. 40
10 0-15 dwel./ha.
BARRIO GRUPOCristo dal R.y San S.77X ~~AltagraciaDa Julio 19 74XItere ado OrientalS.Sebastian. C.d. Ros 22XLa Cuere»»»Santo Dos. y Buen AirManchesterSanto"DosingoGersan Posare»DE julio 19 26XHontafraaco
Ft». Reataur. TinajonesOsar TarricosEl ChorizoS.Sebastian, C. d. Rol/19narcos CarrionEntr.Jardine» VeracruzMartha QuezadaRotonda DianaVan Pac
Casino Sto DosingoBiblioteca Bo CentralCandelaria
333333333333333333333333
TIPO.VCcVCVAVCVAVCAAAVCAAAAVCAAAAAAAVC
NoVIV405231
- 177146679O836O6O5O6O433O3025222020161816a73
1711
POBLACIÓN3010126289884172254844641641632O30527520820617316613812812S113111514232
10956
HA- 42
11.813. 310.6
99 . 6
45. 1" 46.83.3
32.92. 11.61.32. 4
9 . 7 31.82.41.92.8
1 3 . 71 6 5 . 3 5
Viv./Ha.9.64
15. OO11. 138.21
10. OO8.65
15. OO11.7612. SO8.82
13. O310. OO1O. 3411. 9O13.7513. 338.331.85
10. OO6.674. 212. 5OO. 22
Hab/Ha71.67
76. 1063. 2368. 1160.6946.46
104.OO81. 5780. OO44.8383.3369.3371.7282.38103.7592. OO53.3312.6263.8946.2526.8413.002.34
pera/vi7.4J5. 4«5.0T5.608. 3P6.0*3.376.936.996. 4O5.0»6. 406. 9*6.936.9X7.3*6.9O6. 4D6.946.3*6.946.366.0O10.61
ALTERNATIVE 2. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN GOOD STATE AND MORE THAN 30 dwel /ha(groups 2- 3- 4- 5- 6)o i /. /in A i /k C H A K T 2 6 -2-3-4 40 +- dwel . / h a .
BARRIOVilla LibertadKlguvl Gutltrrtx
BARRIOPrlRtro da HayoBatahola SurTandarlSan JacintoRuban Dar¿o
BARRIORonMnor LtxcinoUnidad d* PropositoKoriitnBoaquva d» AltamlraHaxlMO JsraxEl PilarUnidad d« PropositoVilla FraternidadColombiaColonia Managua
35-40 dwel./ha
grupo TIPO.2 VO2 VG
grupo
grupo
22222
2222222222
VOVGVGVGVO
VJVÜVOVKVGVEVGVGVGVG
TIPO.
TIPD.
NoVIV1733374
21O7
NoVIV119O10O0441
3273470
NoVIV1733790384
1U50618Sil21033399
12b60/5
POBLACIÓN12766291315679
POBLACIÓN96348333350O3338319228217
POBLACIÓN19713636163466174599734702726199791690*
566O6
HA26
6. 23*2.1-
HA22.617.48.89. 4
66"' 1KA39.218.912.926.212.310.4
5a
2.23
I3S-S
Viv./Ha.66.656O. 32
Vlv./Ha.32.6337.4750. 1154.4754. SO
Vlv./Ha.44.7741.8043.2740.0849.4449. 13
4241.6345.0041. 67
Hab/Ha491.00469.84
Hab/Ha426.28490.4O397.73337.23332.OO
Hab/Ha302.88336.36491.94235.65479.76335.96545.2
249.63416.36302. OO
para/viv7.377.79
para/viv8. 108,. 537.946Í569.76
p*ra/vlv11. 238. 05
10. 873. SB9. 70
10. 7012. 986.OO9. 257. 23
BARRIOV1XJ.B ProgrtioRubtntl >tiavatro GabrielBlanca SvgoviaNlcarao 15XPlan Piloto
6 30-35 dwel./ha
BARRIOCantroamvrlcaBvllo Horizont* 75XBatahola Hort»D* Junio 10Higuvl OutltrrtzLaa ttarcvdvaHtrotí y n.dal BocayCriatlan. ParazLaa Harc*d«aDon Botco 66XLoa CaidoaDon Bosco 33X
grupo222222
GRUPO222222222222
TIPO.VGVKVKVEVGVG
Tl PU.VKVKVGVGVGVKVKVKVKVGVÜVG
NoVIVb756393J04fc'/20461
2376
NoVIV12511571LOÜO74S557391469184ífea32E>9b
16369¿J
POBLACIÓN49323757325624281810434
16617
POBLACIÓN1O374 '10347853339OO42743167313015361J3711363225. 3
50101.3
HA16. 1
168.813
5. 11.6
CZ6,
HA37.55O.229.7
24Ib. S12.914.63. 33. 3
IO. 22. 95. 3
TI A.6
Viv./Ha.37. 2939. 9437.5035. 9240.0038. 13
i
Vlv./Ha.33.3631. 2933.6731. 1733.7630.3132. 1234. 7230. SS31.9632. 7630. 75
H*b/Ha272.49234.81370. 00186. 77334.90271.25
1
Hab/Ha276.64206. 12287.31243.83259. O3245.50213.75289.81246.73111.37111.03
1. OO
ptrt/vlv7.313.889.873. 208.87
' ,7.11i
para/viv8. 296. 598. 537. 897.67B. 106.728. 35
3. 483. 39O. Ü3
65
l ' ' I T H DWELLI fJCÎS I N REGULAR STATE AUD MORE THAN 30 dwel./ha
2-3-4- 40 and + dwel. /ha.
BARRIO grupoSan Judaa Horta SOXSchlck Ho3RavolualonSchlok 2Salomon MarañoOarwan PoaaraaGarwan PoatrtiOucuali
BARRIO grupoSol da llbartadRiguaroSan Crlatobalflairlco 50%LibiaRuban DarloManual Olivar*'Alanania D*B. 1/3Hontoya 1-2Joa* Doloraa Eatrada
BARRIO grupoSan Judaa Hort* 20X^LarraynagaDucualiBarri. 66X y S. Lula H.Schik 1Joaa laaiaa Oo**zAdolfo Rayaa 66XLibarlaFarabundo RartlSalla Sehibla (Doa.Lugo)La EaparanzaJulio BuitragoNinoa H. y H. AyapalRafa*l RloaPortazualoSactor Ü-1
5 35-40 dwel./ha.BARRIO grupo
Joa* Bwnlto EacobarV*n*zu*laCoata RicaHaría Auxiliadora 3OXAndr*a CaatroArlal Daroa 33XRan* Cian*roaL*ur*ano Halr*naCoata RicaAdolfo R*y*a 33XJonathan Gonzalez
Oaoar TurcloaEdgar HungulaAlaminli Democrat.Santa Ellaa 'Waalala
6 30-35 dwel./ha.BARRIO GRUPO
Altaaraoia 4SXVilla RavoluolonD* Junio 14Santa An» 36XHarla Auxiliadora 70XEl RaoraoOavaldo Hanxanar**Union Sovl*tloaCaaülo Ch. (Oaoar Lino)Edgar LangCatara* d* S*pti*«br*Gdgar HungulaVflraf lor*aEl CortijoCoatado Cruz RojaLot* AVilla Ro*aCvlflda Nlranda
TIPO.VDVOVDVDVDUUVD
TIPO.1 VF1 VD1 VD1 VD1 U1 VD1 Ui va
HoVIV POBLACIÓN3814 2183412O7 109361336 7837603 3478800 ' 4780673 3377223 1193141 1O33
6621 56712
NoVIV POBLACIÓN2302 1O8211328 10299729 2401169 1759219 1229360 1O7O2O7 83697 3934O 2403O 180
3681 29228
HA301419
6.411.28.21.42.2
Vlv./Ha.76.2886.2171.3771.7971. 4382.3216O. 7164. O9
Hab/Ha437.08782.71412.47632. 14426.79436.22832. 14470. 43
ptra/vlv3.73,9. 083.789.083. 9a3.303. 307. 34
TIPO.1 Va-VD-1 VD1 VD1 VD1 VD1 VF
VDVDUuU i
uuuVBu
TIPO.
HoVIV19869938OO396460468
. 27923324419a1O0165
13410672
7046
HUBLAC1UN127247629642742674OO12822271923331464118810269909308O4370432
30348
HA42. 126.213. 43. 34. 219.24. 11.9O. 70,5
HA49. 423.816.712.710. 811. 1
65.75.3
42.24
43. 12.72. 3
Viv./Ha.59. 4330.6934. 4O31.2132. 1455.7350.4951. O537. 1460. 0O
Viv./Ha.40. 2O41. 8147. 9O46.9342. 5942.1646. 5041.2344.3649. 5044. 6441. 2340.7849. 6346.0942. 35
Hab/Ha257.03393.09179.18333.03292.6233.73
203.90206.84342.86360.OO
Hab/Ha257.37328.93384.SS333.98370.46254.23453.174O9. 65266.18297.OO456.04247.30166.27297.78247.63234.12
p*ra/vilv4.327. 763.29
10. 413.612.974. 044.036.006. OO
p*ra/viv6. 417.878.037. 168.706.039.739. 946.006.l00
10. 266. DO4.576. 003.386. OP
111111111111111
VOVDVDVdUVDUUVDVDuuuuu
1 VD1 U
NoVIV1312
1 1172672248532SO647336219313920416O1481261O3ISO48
6972
POBLACIOH14968938870476721333741932850231616531313122498Uaaa672618326268
60984
HA43. 132.32J2'. 3B.7IS14
12.89.35. 23. S3.64.2
4
3. 42. 74. 21. 2
Viv./Ha.35.0636.2639. 1037.0136.8036. 1437. 113S1. 9237. 5
39.7136. 4338. 1O37. OO37. O636. 15US. 7140. OO
Hat>/Ha para/vlv347.29 9.9O296.84 8.18316. Ol 6. 08
TIPO.11111111111111111I
VDVFVDVDVDUuuuuuuuuuÜVDu
NoVIV1168739338438377a 174862642331711281261O696S36321324
6292
POBLACIÓN120847837377431374401433O2376158413981026768673636376496378302195
5O193
HA37.224.3
1714.9ia. 423.414.2a. 27.75. 24. 13.73. 23- 12. 51. 86. 60.7
Vlv. /Ha.31.403O. 4131.633O. 7431.3634.9134.2332.203O. 2632. aa31.2234.0333. 1330. 9733. 2O33. OO32. 5834. 29
335. SO299.50222.66249.03317.88373.71218.37233. 33.222.OO197.63226.8977. 62
240.00
Hab/Ha324.84322. 51339. 63346.11239.18163.04181.41193.17181.56197.31187.32181.89198.73183.81199.20210.0045.76
278.37
9.678. 296.OO6.408.489.466. 006. 136. 003.336. 002. 176.00
tp*ra/viv10.3510.6010.7311.26
7.635.305.306.006.OO6.OO6.OO3.346.OO6. OO6.O06.001. 408. 13
56
ALTERNATIVE 2. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN BAD STATE AND(groups 2- 3- 4- 5- 6)
2-3-4- 40 and= dwel./ha.
MORE THAN 30 dwel./ha.
•ARRIO grupoOuint* NinaBanadloto Valvard»BarricadaComunidad BulgariaPablo UbadaFranta a la MoraalChico PalónCanino Solo
BARRIO grupo
BARRIO grupoUranada IILoa AngalaaMadrea llartiraa da Pant.Laa Torrtí 6X
BARRIO grupo
33333333
333'J
TIPO.AVAAAAAAA
TIPO.
.IPO.AAAA
TIPO.
NoVIVB904585OO4OO1708615070
2724
NoVIV
NoVIV27OISO9O55
995
NoVIV
POBLACIÓN6189439432O727791090591901396
19103
POBLACIÓN
POBLACIÓN17321290977429
39B6
POBLACIÓN
HAII
642i20
HA
HAS.3.1.
/'
HA
Viv./Ha..29
. 4
.9
.7
. 3
.3
. 8
.-2.
Vlv.
Vlv19S1•1
Viv
79.91.7B,68.62666967
. /Hi
. /H52.51.60.SS.
. /H
. 46, 6O. 13. 89.96
. 15
.22
.90
• •
a.944300OO
a.
Hab/Ha552.676901617403423
• 217499
Hab/Hi
. 23
. 80
.09
. 96
.70
.89
.63
.OO
•
Hab/Ha339.397.384.429.
61146700
Hab/Ha
para/vlv6.1999.59
6. 416.996. 416.413.345. 66
para/vlv
para/vlv6.416.94«.417.80
para/vlv
BAHKIDLmm Torraa 94XAcahuallncaUraciaa a Oioa
5 35-40 dwel./ha.
BARRIOJoa* BanIto EacobarEl RodaitoHaapanSan SabaatlanLoa Cocoaflona*nor Lazcano
30-35 dwel./ha.
grupo ¡TIPO.3 AJ VA3 A
grupo TIPO.3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A
NoVIV POBLACIÓN639 6733866 918614b 1O1O
1652 12929
NoVIV POBLACIÓN3O0 i924219 13O9165 114660 38456 3642O 160
81b 5267
HA Vlv./Ha. Hab/Ha para/v}v17.8 47.13 378.26 B. 0319.6 44.29 ¿¿64. b9 5.473.3 43.94 JU6. Ofe 6.97
HA7.3a. 74. 21.71.4O. S21 o
Viv./Ha.40. OO37. 7239.2935. 2940. 004O.O0
Hab/Ka25&.S3229.65272.86225.88260. OO320.OO
para/viv6. 416.096.95b. 406. SO
a. oo
BARRIOSur Kolotianfc-nrlqu» SchaidtLa CruzSan JacintoAcahualinca NortaAquí NicaraguaEnrrlqua SchmidtLoa LauralaaLiUTtmo MairanaAngvl B.Barrioa
GRUPO3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 AJ A3 A
TIPU. NoVIV400127608470
66664O3534
POBLACIÓN2779602555538449423311277242236
HA13.54. 22.52.6
22
2. 11. ¿
11
Vlv./Ha.32. OO3O. 2432.0032.3135.' 0033.0031.4333. 3335. OO34. OO
Hab/Ha222. 32143.33222.00206.92224.50211.SO148.10230. 83,242.00,236.00
para/viv6.954.746.946.406.416.414.716.936.SIb. 94
6412 •31.1
67
ALTERNATIVE 2. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN GOOD STATE AND LESS THAN 30 dwel./ha(groups 7- 8- 9)
7 25-30 dwel./ha. .BARRIO
!>• S*ptl*»br* 14Santa Ana 3OXAltanlra 1 y 3Nutvt d* Juni.oLoas V*rd»-S*MlnarioJardín** d» VcnoruxLo« Arco*C«ntroa»trlci 9XHafavl Htrrart 7SXSan Antonio
GRUPO22
22222222
TIPO.vaVJVLvuVLVKVitVKVÜVG
HoVIV96148373044940933625211022722/4184
POBLACIÓN963033243301291027142668134764482Ü723
30483
HA37. 2la. i26. JIb. 413. /IJ. L
93. 87. 6
a. is'53.35
Viw./H25.2*s.27.27.29.23.28.2a.29.27.
a.03faS76388363OO958783
Hab/Ha25B.87305.19123. 31177.44198. 1
203.66149.67222.11IO».16aa. 7i
ptri/viv10, UÜ11.444. 326.4tf6. 647.943. 357. b/
3. iy
0 20 25 dwel./ha.
BARHIUDonunor L*xo»noRlgobvrto L e p » Pmrmx.Nloarao asxBailo Horizont* 23XSan Jo«*> 0rl*ntai SOXValí» DoradaVilla FlorXolotlanLinda Viata Sur
GRUPO222'¿
22222
TIPO. HoVIVVJVJVGVKvaVKVKVKVK
712983bfc/324235167462218157
4045
POBLACIÓN9337803/3186344932202O63162713891077
35407
HA31. 1
4O25. 21
21.212. 47.6
22.31O
7.317 7. •>
Vlv. /H22.
,24.22.24.20.21.2O.21.21.
a.8938307256,97S38051
Hab/Ha3OO.872OO.93205.79162.69259. 6827Í.7172.31138.90147.33
pira/viv13.14a. is9. 156. 58
12.6312. 373.526.376. 86
15-20 dwel./ha.
BAHK1UAltagraciaLav BriaaaCiudad JardinAltamira d*> Eat»Roberto Hu»mb»«Javivr Cuadra*Hlralior»*Loa Robl** SOXC»Mnt«rioSan HirtinJívitr Cuadra*Largatrapada 1/6HantieaSanta Ana 9X
CSHUFO TIFO. KoVIV2 VJ2222
2222•¿
222
VKVKVKVKVJVLvnVJVLVJVLVLVJ
5279246194404O14O53U8211
921OO
3264
4483
PUBLAC1UN120716O644500
2401234%230317431326791577425331158
37703
HA27.749. 2
3723. 223.223. BÍS. 313.9
124.9
65. 4
33.6
Viv./Ha.19.0318. 7B16.7318.9717.2815-7018.4713. 1818. 9218.7a16.6715. 3717. 3317.78
Hab/Ha435. 78123.25123.78111.51103. 499O. 78123.96125.4011O. 67161.4396. 177B. 70
110.3343.89
prra/viv22. 91
6. 5b7. 405. So3.995.786. 828. 26S.S5a. 605. 775. 126. 372. 47
68
ALTERNATIVE 2. Continuation: Dwellings in good state
10 15 and - dwel./ha.
«ARRIOSan Jo»» Oriental SOXP«reai»n 66K <CHamorro-Riguaro N.Largaaapada 9/6nartha guasadaPancaaan 33XLaa PalmamLinda Viata Hort»Hlgu»! BonillaJardinam d» Santa CiaraVilla Panama SOXSan PatricioM»Japa SurBolonia 60XBvlwontaSanto DomingoColina* 60Xnotaatap*Silvio HayorgaEl CirMnBolonia 4UXGuadalup»Villa Panama 25XVilla Panama 25XLaguna d» TlscmpaCl Mirador 7SXColinaa 3OXBoaqu» d» BoloniaSinU Ana 3XBo*qut d# BoloniaSan Juan 3UXSan Juin 7OXAltoa Santo Domingo 55XLoa Bombarom iSvrrano
Cdo. Contrtr» La grutaVlat* HarmoaaSanto DomingoBalalrTlmcapaJirdlnti d» nanagu*KilochoEl CortijoLaa Colin»» 1OXLa AviaciónKi Mirador 15XBoaqu* »1 H«crtoLaa Florva£1 Mirador 1UXFrowiayAltamira
P*dro Joaquín UHiinorroCountry Ulub
DRUPD TIPO. NoVIV2 VJ2 VL
VOVLVO
2222 VL2 VL.2 VK2 VO2 VH2 vn2 VL2 VL
VHVLvnvnVL
2 VE2 VL2 VH2 VL2 VM2 VH2 VE•¿ vn2 vn¿ vn2 VJ2 vn2 VL2 VL2 vn2 VL.2 VLi vn
VL.VL.VL.VLVJ
2•i222222 Vh2 V L2 V H2 V L2 V L2 V M2 V L
2 V L2 V K
Bl3903'J218924319415a2131/092
1O41201001145494
13O61741837630Sü3*bü4/663O144J
¿5^33616343Ü6429¿S22'¿'¿1917211399ab4
411 ¿il
POBLACIÓN:J27Ü3211Ü4122132193O16041580148O1OB49197376416J06396O65329434874744474O6384364363333272271265299¿35
'2292i¿921O2041981921SJ17216716114813211389735bSU4¿3618
HA14.852. 128. 133.724.4
3819.719.7
12.58. S
31.930.319.951.713.9
3260
24.59. 1
3O. 834.615. 1
156.6
53O. 384. 56. 71.26.710.812.666. 89.6
495. 44.818
2. 53. 26.313
2. 525. 42.323
3.97.82b
2. 4¿. ¿
lfc*21. ¿
114O.4
Viv./Hb.7.
11.
5.1O.5.6.
10.13.10.3.3.5.2.3.2.2.2.
14.3.2.1.3.7.
12.1.0.7.
11.6.'2.1.0.1,
B.0
1311163160501
101Ü
u• o
a.47498161O41102Bl608226960321
aa9417493194209947
aa40547846, 67. 42. 31, 93. 34.67.30. 31. 33.61.60. 88.49. 46,.80.63: 6S>.39. bj.03.24. 67.OO.OO. 00
Hab/H220.61.83.63.79.42.8O.75.86.
108.23.
i 21-31.11.43.17.9,
19.92,14.11.29.24.bb.66.8.3.
39.212.33.
XI.17.i3.bi.49,
2.38
6650231U4633128517UUO
a9b6384261021201372127316667B6025OS889451734327OO60922155SOO72U89. 14.25,30. 01. 13. bb.80. 31. 49. 15. 00. 50. 74. 39. 47. 3U. 44. bO. UU. UO. UU
ptra/vlv4O.¿I.
8. 23-7.27
11. 287. 888.27
10.006.936. 389.997.28S. 346.305.34
, 11.22t3.874. 187.986.412. 445.34
12. 807.006.98,5.373. 794. 11S. 30
18. 219.479 . 1 69 . 1 69. 83
12.75i. 826. 4O2. 86b.935. 767. 326. 736. 956. 764. 245.626. 1 1b. bb'b. 256. OO4. 5UtHHLRREkh
69
ALTERNATIVE 2. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IM REGULAR STATE(groups 7- 8- 9- 10)
7 25-30 dwel./ha.
AND LESS THAN 30 dwel./ha
BARRIO QRUPO TIPO.C.Sendlno3/6, Bella CruxV I H * Venezuela 81XSierra HeeatreCaello ChaaerroJorge DieltrovDealtila LugoJoe» Ooleree EetradaEl CdenCarloa SenohexGtorglno AndradeSella Sahibi.eeSooratee StndlnoL O B LaureleeGrenadaBertha Calderónvilla AuetrlaBertha OlazMexico 3OXninaa I y 2HoabtchoCarolina CaleroCaeI miro tioteloLoe Angelee SXDucuall
8 20-25 dwel/ha.BARRIO GRUPO
Arlal Dafee 66X 1Santa Roea 1Camilo Ortega 1Rene P. y Sohlck No 4 1Haepan 1El Paraíso 1Altagracla 1OX \Julio Bultrago 1Franclaao Reza 1De Hayo 1 1Camilo Chamorro 1La Eeperefiza 1Camilo Ch. (Q. Pacheco) 1Casimiro Sotelo 1
11L111111111111111111111
VDVFVOVDUVDVDVDVDUVDVDVDUUUVDVDUVuUVBVU
u
TIPO.VDVdV0VDVDvuVDuuUuVBuVB
HoVIV25652037126913391O4O691926-622924-72341633O7314114O135O52417O2242111301033443
16276
NoVIV
872891797796764437321293199173131987632
5ÖB2
POBLACIÓN220421713311807823862403653547946424331435O38363101280324662406185517*1170913449OB
veo623273238
11411O
POBLACIÓN
789672626 8 2 06 2 1 13 3 3 84 1 3 02 9 4 21 7 7 01 1 9 4103a786
331456197
46791
HAÎOI71
49.633.433.627.433.4
2331
23. 216.4
1126.614.913. 312. 7ia. 9
68. S7.54. 74. 11. J1. 7
HA
3843.233.633.934.316. 1
1312. 18.97.66. 24. 83. 11. 3
Vlv./Ha.25. 4O28.9725.5825.4529.2123.2226. 1627. O429.8128.7723.3730-OO26.2627. 3826. 2127.3627. 722a. 3326. 33
' 28.1327.6623. 1226. 1523. 29
Vlv./Ha.22.932O.6323.7223.4822. 1424. 1421.4024. 3822.3622.7621. 1320. 4224.5224. 62
Hab/Ha218.24241.59238.04154.27173.28206. 31154.77201.83140.33172.62233.90281.9196. Ol163.50157.25146.Ob94. 76
284.83158.12121.07165. 9615:2.44210.UO151.7b
Hab/Ha207. 7916a.10202.98183.22L6O.32229. 28196.' 13146.28134.16136.58126.7711O. 63147.10131.34
pere/vi\8. 398. 349. 3U6. 066. 00a. ia5.927. 4b4.716. OO9. 229. 403.736. OO6. OU5. 303. 42
10.036.0O4. 306.006. 07B.Q36. OO
pere/viv9. O6a. is8.367.807.259. SO9. 176.006.006. 006. 00S. 426.OO6. 16
S 15-20 dwel./ha.
BARRIO GRUPOC.Üandino 2/6,Bella CruzC.Sandlnol/6,Bella CruzCubaBarricada 33XOrnar TorrijoaSan Ignacio de BolaaLa EaperanzaLote C <42X>Camila Ortega
111111111
TIPO.VDVDVBVDVBUVBUU
HoVIV1711838226307330807OSO32
36b4
POBLACIÓN13194710629142187167348045930O193
30706
HA9 0 . 64 4 . 21 3 . 518.617. 14. 43. S3. 31. 9
147. |
Vlv./Ha.18. 8919. 4116.7416. 5119. 3Oia. is20.001*>. 1516- 84
Hab/Ha167.7Oieo.,77
' 215. as117.sa109.S3109.09131.1490.91101.58
pera/vivB. aaa. 28
12. ay7. 12s. 6a6. 006. 366. 006. ÜJ
10 15 -+ dwel./ha.BARRIO GRU?0 TIPO.
Villa VenezuelaLoe Angelee 9SXBello AmanecerSan Lula SurCuba LibreSan Judae Sur 1/6 'Arle* SluTleoaoPaeto AndinoCuedree (Santa Julia)CuadraDaniel Chavarria.Manzana dadala HaríaSan IgnacioAlfredo SilvaAlemania deacrat.1/3HabanaSan PedroAlemania Dea. 1/3üecar RóbeloColonia Militar 1 VFSelim Schlble ' 1 Li
11111111111111111111
VFVPVDVDVDVDVDVOVFVDVDU
uuuVBVDVDVB
u
HoVIV47544733O3641602O3130867875518272
>a60494843
, 322019
1141
POBLACIÓN390936732903,2737227014361089637333316496492432'JHS3bO29428624719712O42
23O78
HA33.3
3263. 127.4
1816. 7
2317.56.76. 34.97.40.93. V
S6.94.5B. 9
61-71 . * 53 . ' 23O3
V i v . / K a .13. 3S13. 97a. 72
13. 2810.0012. 166. OO3.O3
11.6411.5410. 4111.08
14. 8612.OO, 7. 101O. 674.833.33
11. 7612.67O. OO
Hab/Ha110.11114.78
1 46. 04V9. B9126.11as. 9943. 3636. 4O82.8479.381O1.226». 49480.OO104.0372. OO42. 6163.3627. 7332.8370.392Ö- 00O. OO
pera/vlva. 23e. 225. 287. 52
12.617, 077.267.247. 126.8891. 736. too6. 007.O06.006.003.963.746. 166.002.21ERR
70
ALTERNATIVE 2. BARRIOS WITH DWELLINGS IN BAD STATE AMD LESS THAN 30 dwel./lia.(groups 7-8-9-10)
7 25-30 dwel./ha.BARRIO GRUPU
Jonathan Gonztl«z '3 AD* Julio 19 J ALoa Roblas 5UX j VLBatahola J A.fiotastvpa 'j ASur d» Villa Flor j ALa CuirtiM 50X J VACasimiro Sot»lo j ALaa Piadraclts» J ALoa Haranonaa j ACasimiro Sotalo j AHodaato Bsjsrano j A
T1PU.
8 20-25 dwel./ha.BARRIO GRUPO
Santos LopazGracia* a DloaLa CascadaVilla Roma 50XCl Rod*oHigual outlarra*Coatado Cruz RojaFrta. HIn. CulturaRigobarto Lopes Paraz
3 A'J A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A
TIPO.
9 15-25 dwel./ha.GRUPOBARRIU
Carlo* RtynaSan CristobalLos ChagoitasLas JaguitaaLas Pladracita*Pista si DoradoEsq. opuasta a ia Nomtl.
10 15 and - dwel./ha.
TIPU.3 VA3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A
V54bJü¿212lbO1349U9UbJ4230272b
HoVi V
PUBLAC1UN HA
ibU20b2OOISO12045353O15
95O
NoVIV13OIb215012567552O
699
Ü5O2245O174397585956bbJO341269213172128
POBLACIÓN1Ö17142211761O426792702102087b
6899
PUBLACIOK109897596269437233O128
4559
18.12.7.b.b,J,
11
U
i
66, 7. B• 1
. 4J2
. b• 1
1- 9
• 9
HA
Viv./Ha.
6.9.9.6.4.1.1.1.0.
A\.
HA6
63
1•:1
29.29.27.25.26.2b.JU.2b.28.27.27.27.
'JbB4b3862747UU5O. OO. 2/. UU. 78
Viv./H846789626ü
22.21.2U.22.25.23.21.23.2b.
Hab/Ha para/vivïua19122biba168172176I/O179193172142
. 28
. 41
. 3b
. 10
. 43
. 06
.67
. 50
. 33
. b4
. UU
. 22
a. Hab/Ha068163390066880000
Viv./Hs..88
e. 5.63
. 1' O
1919ia19ia1818
. 12
. OO
.75
. 23
. fal
. 33
. ia
267.
122.1SS.141.142.131.173.125.
21
5O5246U253300
Hab/Ha161Ui.120106103110116
.47
. 8 8
.25
.77
. 33
.op
. 36
b.b.
a.6.b.b.
5.b.6.7.6.b.
P»
414122bU41buey4.)4U1Uy v. 12
rs/vtv12.6.5.6.b.6.6.6-5.
119488956600OO9300
para/viv
ii
a66
b66
. 45
. 41
. 41
. 55
.55
. OO
. 40
BARRIO GRUPOCristo dal R.y San S. 77X ~Altagratfi»Ds Julio 19 74XMarcado OrlsntalS.Sebastian,C.d.Roa 22XLa CuarvanaSanto Dom. y Burn AirHanchaatarSanto DomingoGanan PonaraaDE julio 19 26XMont»!rrscoFts. Rvstaur. TinajonasOmar TorrljoaEl ChorizoS.Sabastian, C. d. Rol/19Marcos CarrionEntr. Jardinas V«n:ruzMartha OuazadaRotonda DianaVan PacCaalno Sto DomingoBiblioteca Bo CantralCandelaria
333333333333333333333333
TIPO.VCCVCVAVCVAVCAAAVCA "AAAVCAAAAAAAVC
NoVIV405231
- 177148679083606050604330J02522202018
la16873
1711
POBLACIÓN301012628988417225484464164163203O52752082oa173166138126125115111514232
10956
HA- 42
11.B13.310.6
99.6
45. 1" 4
6 . a3. 3
32.92. 11. 61. 52. 4
9. 75i. a2. 41. 92. 8
13. 7165.35
Viv./Ha.9.64
15.O011. 138.21
10. OO8.65
15.0011.7612. 508.8213.0310.0010.3411. 9013. 7513.336. 331. 85
1O. OO6.674. 212. 5OO. 22
Hab/Ha71.67
76. 1063.2366. 1160.8946. 46104.OO81. 57
eo. oo44. as83.3369. 3371.7282. 38103.7592.0053.3312. 8263. 8946.2526.8415.002. 34
para/vi7.4S5. 4*5.07S. 608.306. 0*5. 376.936.936. 4O5.0»6.496.916. 9>6. 927. 556. 9O6. 4o6.946. 3«6. 946. 306. OO
10. 6T
71
11.5. UP-Grading alternatives in relation to land-use and atmicro-level.
This subject is very broad and it is linked to a determination ofan urban-typology (types of urban development layout) a social-typology (family and community organization) and a prototype ofbuilding elements for the consolidation and/or building up theinfrastructure and the dwelling.The main issue here is the interrelation between theconsolidation of the spatial structure and the social developmentof the barrios.Already in the DIAGNOSES (1985) and in the Reff lections:Realisinthe need for Pilot Plans (1985),the general premises forestablishing interventions in the different types of barrios wereformulated.These premises had as a starting point the situationof extreme poverty and the physical /social character of eachbarrio.Diagnoses emphasised the need to extend the studies of the humanfactors (survey 86).Such as the demographic ,socio-economic andemployment conditions.This meant going deeper into the sub-cultural forms that preceeded the present reality and to look forthe tendencies of social changes including the socialPatologies.social organizations.The focus is on the relationship between human space.family houseand community settlement.not just as a mechanical causalsubordination of function to space.but a dialectic involvinginteraction and reciprocity. In consequence the physicalenvironment can become a powerful instrument in accelerating andfacilitating the development of human and communal values,or,from the negative viewpoint.be a source of social pathology(alcohol ism.spéculât ion.black market.etc.)and a brake ondevelopment, it was noted that the fact that there cannot be asocially meaningful physical environment without theparticipation of the users.The form of receptivity or rejectionof a group with respect to its built environment should beorganic and anticipated and stimulated by those who shareresponsabi1ity in establishing them.The f i nal analysis group participation constitutes the onlyacceptable pattern of control over and assaesment of the validityof the work of technicians.Integrated up-grading is a process that implies a continousintervention between the spatial,economic and social componentsof target groups.In the existing transitional conjunctureNicaragua is deeply affected by foreign aggresion.and has beenforced to orient integrated up-grading towards subsistence forms.These forms permit transitory adjustments to the situation of warand at the same time establish the bases for integrateddeve loprnent. This process includes a gradual incorporation of thecommunity into the benefits of development.Integrated up-gradingimplies environmental,economic and social improvements of thepopulation.
Managua's barrios have experienced an accelerated process ofinmigration from rural areas.in addition to growth from thenatural increase of the population.What is being sought is an equilibrium that allows theinteraction of the population in its socio-cultural dimensionswith an urban reality that is a result of what are now obsoleteinterests.This involves searching for elements of a socio-spatial
72
character both at the family and community levels.which permitthe process of integrated development.At the level of the household elements exist that express formsof cultural authentically and at settlement scale elements existthat strengthen the willingness for social changes.but theseachievements are only possible in so far as there existpossibilities for the participation of the people in settlementdecision-making at a regional.zonal and settlement scale.Thisdoes not however.diminish the fact that the definition ofprototypes of habitat and settlements is a theme profoundlyrelated to the planning of regional resources.particularly inrelation to the use of certain materials and the productionprocess defined by the national strategy.In this is included the design of prototype elements for drainageworks.channe1 ing of rain water,pavement in general and sewegesystems at the household and community level.
11.5.1.General criteria for adjustments to land use.
1. The existing land-use within the barrio is a matter ofspecific analysis in each particular situation. For these reasona method has been established to evaluate the present situationwith a predicted one.(Chapter III),The predicted situation is not only linked to local imperativesbut also with the forms of general urban structure and thefeasibilities of economic development.2. The alternative adjustments of land-use.must mainly considerthe present economic and financial limitations of the country.andshal1 consider the low purchasing potential of theusers.Therefore alternatives of low initial cost must bedeve loped.this does not mean a great change in the urbanstructure,but higher potential could considerable improve thefuture possibilities for the consolidation and density increasesrequired in the city.3. It is necessary to guarantee a certain harmony between publicand private space according to flexible criteria and thecharacteristic of each barrio.To define relationship between public and private space isfundamental when we are faced with into such extreme poverty. Thecharacterizatiuon of family relationships and those of the"allegados" (newcomers sharing a house not necessarily having ablood relationship with the primary household).The equipment of the house,its defferent spaces.the domesticproduction.the cycle of using water and the relationship betweenopen and closed spaces are all issues that must be evaluated ineach particular situation.Then the "habitabi1ity" of the dwelling is considered within itsinmediate location (neighbourhood) and the barrio itself.The environs of the dwelling (private space) contain the familyspace and its equipment.which is the nucleus where the familydeve lops,produces and consumes. The neighbourhood space is thearea used by a number of houses for shared functions (childrenplayyards,"finding" space.domestic and group production .etc.)The communal space are collective Centres which provide functionswhich do not have a place in the dwelling.4. To provide the barrio with its future requirements andconmensurated with those spectative of the city. This requiresthat the land-use alternatives must contain a process ofprogressive adjustments to the land-use. The studies point out
73
CHART 2 7 .
Ik
I N T E G R A L P L A N F O R S L U M U P G R A D I N G
11 I . I . System for evaluation andpriori t i zat i on of intervent ions
II I .2 . Action Plans
75
III.SYSTEM FOR EVALUATION POPULAR SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS.
II I .1. The Method.A method was required in order to evaluate the conditions of thebuilt structure of the city in the different phases of theupgrading and urban p lanning.1. There was a need to make an inventory of the existingsituation of the popular settlements in relation to thefeasibility of up-grading actions in order to establishpriorities.2. There was a need to evaluate the different technicalalternat ives of improvements.
The first phase requires some general knowledge of the barriosand a number of technical assumptions of an empírica] nature.The second requires a deep knowledge of the existing reality ofprototype sett lement.a good knowledge of the specif ic problemthat is needs to be resolve and comparison it with concretealternatives.
The evaluation has then two phases :
1. Evaluation of the existing conditions (both at the level ofthe Basic Unit (a geographical unit used for planning purposesof an area with a radius of about 800 m) and at the level of thesettlement itself.
2. Evaluation of alternative projects at the level of DIRECTORPLANS of prototype settlements (includes technical design andfinancial options of each project).
The system of evaluation that has been developed in this study isrooted in the MÉTODO DE EVALUACIÓN DE PROYECTOS DE VIVIENDAS ofthe Plan de Desarrollo Técnico de la construcción. Dirección deEvaluación de proyectos. Vicepresidencia de proyectos.ComitéEstatal de la Construcción. CUBA.
Only the philosophical and some formal aspects of this studycould be adapted to the particular situation of Managua.
The most important starting points, are the following:
-Evaluation implies to weight the present reality of popularsettlements and to compare it with the social,technical.politicaland economic possibilities for improving them.
-We need a methodological mode 1 able to evaluate the conditionsof every settlement across the whole scope of variables.
- To evaluate means to divide each part of reality and to compareit with a given goal, within a rational range of possibilities.
-Each component of the urban reality is weighted in a differentway in relation to the feasibility of up-grading actions,therefore the different BASIC DETERMINANTS of the reality withina "weight system" shows the hierarchy of the different variableson a structured whole.
76
- Assesment of BASIC DETERMINANTS using values.norms orindicators.Each component contains a problem and a solution.
- To evaluate means to compare a problem with a solution and itis then characterised using an indicator.This involves describingthe reality requiring improvement and to evaluating it.Thus each problem has its reference value, both as a subjectivereality (the desires and aspiration of low-income populations)an as añ objective reality (the lack or existence of any urbanservice or technical infrastructure network.This reference value is derived either from existing data orexisting norms. e.q. the Master Plan of the city. Ministry ofHousing.buiIding norms,programme of the various institutions-,or the data should be established on an empirical basis which hasbeen prooved by practical demostration.This values are the urbanindicators.
- In order to determine the level to which a problem or asolution fulfills the value of the given norm,the unity is used.
III.2. Application of the Method. Determination of order ofpriority for settlements to be upgraded.
The goal is to select in order of priority those settlements•which must be studied in order to initiate and establish action-programmes for each of them.
111.2.1. Basic determinants.
The BASIC DETERMINANTS are divided into two large categories,theone being all those of an urban-social nature, and the others allthose of a technical nature.A greater weight (value=60%) was given to the urban-socialcomponents because social dynamics were considered of higherpriority than shortages in technical infrastructure components(40%) .The urban social components comprises three main aspects: socio-economic .land-use and relationship to the Urban Development Planof the city.Their weighting is 30%,20% and 10% respectively.The technical infrastructure components comprises -the existingnetworks (20%) and the feasibility of upgrading (20%).The socio-economic component has a high weighting because it isan important factor when determining the level of development ofthe barrios.The relationship of the existing situation with the UrbanDevelopment Plan of the City (EDUM) is not as important given thegenerally critical situation of the city as a whole. Under thesecircumstances the short term (emergency) solutions necessary atsettlement level are more important than overall city plans.Use of land.This component has a greater value than the above(EDUM).because it relates to direct actions concerning presentemergency level problems (the high rate of rural-urban migrationand the negd for urbanised land).Regarding the technical infrastructure aspects both components(existing infrastructure and feasibility of upgrading) score inthe same proportion.
11 .2.2.Criteria for the Qualification of the Basic Determinants.In reality a strict fulfillment of the value of the reference or
77
norm is seldom given. The solution is usually greater or lessthan the norm value.The observation or non-observation of thenorm can be both an advantage or an outrage for the goals of theproject.Therefore we differenciate Positive and Negativedeterminants.II.2.2.1. Positive Basic DeterminantsAre those which increase produce an improvement from functionalor economic point of vieuw.e.q. A greater rate of popularparticipation (over the value of the norm) increases thefeasibility of the project.11. 2. 2. 2. Negative Basic Determinants.Are those which increase is a disadvantagem2.or a greater amount of lineal pipeline xgreater expenditure is required than islesser.economies can be made.The fol lowing chart shows the differentpositive and negative Basic Determinants. Notice that a Positiveor a Negative aspect can both observe or bear no relation to thenorm,therefore the se are four possible situations.
CHART 28.
E.g. Steel input xha. if the solutionnecessary,if it is
weight assigned to
OS
w
I—Iin<
O
h-l
»—i
Cr
N = value / norm or indicator(always = 100)
F = Positive factor
F - Negative factor.
40 60 80 100 120I I I . 2 . 2 . 3 . D i f f e r e n c i a t e d Requirements .
140 160 200
Works assume a different importance according to the size andcharacteristics of each settlement. Three categories are heredifferenciated:
I Category Typical Barrios > of 800 dwellings. Planned withconventional norms,So lut ions in serie (répétitives)
II Category Barrios a-typical, from 200 to 800 dw.With specificsolutions to each barrio
I11 Category Singular solution.less than 200 dw.
Note: The vertical axis indicate the qualification expressed incentesimal.The inclination of the line is 45 /2.The curve of the2nd category is tangential at the point N to the line F.Thecurves are parabo 1 es with an exponent based on Vn-2.
111.2.2.4.The following schema shows the applicability of thesystem that was used for the prioritization of barrios.
CHART 29
BARRIO DATA AND THEIR EVALUATION FOR SANITATION FEASIBILITY.RANKING OF THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS THROUGH URBAN INDICATORS.
Name of the Barrio: Number of households:Population : Age of the Barrio :
OBJECTIVES
UR
BA
N SO
CIA
L
(60%
)T
EC
HN
ICA
L (4
0%
)
' J
COMPONENTS BASIC DETERMINANTS
. ScholarshipSOCIO- . Employment
. SanitationECONOMIC . Popular Particip.(30%) . Overcrowding
E.D.U.M. . Importance /EDUM-
(10%) . Rel.City Centres
USE . Useful area. Residential area
OF . Circulation area. Communal area
LAND . density dw/ha(20%) . Restrictions
EXISTING * R ? ^ s Phys-State
, ml/ha sewerageNETWORKS . ml/ha drainage(20%) . ml/ha water
UPGRADING * t0P°Sraphy. relation -network
FEASIBILI- - seweragerpY - water supply
- drainage(jnf\ - altern.sewerage
- altern.drainage
x:00-H<D
484104
55
522 .254
4484
3
33533
Qualification
value ref value I.C.U
79
Ill.2.3.5.Criterías for the weighting of Basic Determinants.
The selection and prioritization of barrios on were to carry outup-grading plans needs to be carefully studied. Overall is theneed to create a demonstration effect for to assure re-applicability of popular actions.
The criteria used for the weighting of Basic Determinants andtheir relationship with each reference value or norm are thefol lowing:1. Level of Education.(4%).Credit is given to those barrios that contain inhabitants with ahigher level of education.lt is considered worthwhile to givethese greater support because assure greater commitmentípoli tical,social direct implementation) .in the development andconstruction work.Education is evaluated as follows:
Qual if i cat i on credit
1234567Thehas
TechnicalUniversitySecondaryPrimaryadult education1 iteratei 11 iteratecategory of illiterate receives abeen proven to delay further deve
1086421
-2negative value
lopmentbecause it
2.Employment (Q%.)A high value is given for employment in the Public ProductiveSector because this is a policy of the present government. Alesser value is given for unemployment and the Í informal) sub-employment sector because the economy is presently in crisis andit is not possible to subsidise the non-productive sectors.Service sector employment.including commerce.receives anintermediate value because of its support role to the growth ofproduction and distribution.
Sector credit
1. Public productive 102. Private services and commercial 73. Small Individual (business) 54. Informal -35. Unemployed -3The informal and unemployed sectors receive a negative valuebecause they do not support economic development and supportinflation in a distorted economy.
3. Level of Health {4%).A higher value is given to those barrios with the greatest healthproblem (usually due to poor sanitation).The determinant iscalculated per 1000 inhabitants and is valued as POSITIVE insetting priorities for works because illness has a negativeeffect on the economy.
80
4. Popular participation (10%).Greater value is given to popular action than to the level oforganisation in a community.All community activity that isrelated to community developments and encouraged and implementedby popular organization receives the same credit.
Issue Credit
1. Level of Organization 12. Community action by own initiative 33. Community action by non gov.organization 34. Community action initiated by the state 3
5.Dwelling occupation (overcrowding) 4%.Overcrowding receives a POSITIVE value because it is considered anegative factor which requires assistance.
6. Relationship to Urban Development EDUM .(5%).The direct reference used by the Urban Development PIan is used.
7. Re lationship with the "city centres" (development nodes at thecity)(5%) .In order to asses this aspect the indicators of the norm wasused,in this case the Index of satisfaction,according to therelationship between the settlement and the Urban DevelopmentPlan.The same criteria is used to assess the relationship betweenthe settlement and the City Centres. The value is POSITIVE.
8. Land Use.(5%).The assessment of land use in each barrio is in terms of netcapacity and categorised as residential 2%.circulation 2% andcommunal areas 2%. The proportions are compared with the normcontained in the preliminar norms of Progressive Urbanization(MINVAH).
9. Densities (5%).The categories of dwelling/hectare.inhabitants/ha andinhabitants/dwelling are all aspects compared against the MINVAHnorms of social housing.
10. Environmental Restrictions f 4%).A reference value of Good.Acceptable or Bad is given according toconditions of habitation for each barrio.Factor which are takenin account are water contamrnination, floods and the feasibilityof connection to service networks at a reasonable cost.
11. Physical Conditions of Existing Networks.11.a. Road system (4%).A norm is used as reference value eq l=good) in order to assessan Index of Satisfaction. A greater value is given to roadsystems in the worst condition and a lesser value to those inbetter condition.The value is NEGATIVE .11.b. Seserage (4%).Since Managua is well serviced by a primary sewerage system theassessment is mainly in terms of the feasibility of improving orcompleting the secondary networks.reference is generally made tothe efficiency of the existing system described in ml/ha.ml/dwand the numbers of inhabitants either already connected or to beconnected to the networks. More specifically:
81
a. the number of dwelling units already connected to the networkin relation to the total number of dwelling units in thesettlements ie. the existing situation without regard to theunderutilisation of the existing system.b. the potential of the existing network in relation to itscapacity in terms of dwelling units and in relation to the designdensities of the settlements.This indicator shows the effectivecapacity of the service in relation to the maximum housingcapacity of the project. Sewerage is an expensive service toinstall and maintain and it is necessary to plan with accurateindicators particularly in the low-income settlements.The mostimportant physical indicator is the ml/dw which is used toevaluate the technica1-economic feasibi1ity of the proj ects andto asses the locations s iutable to be given priority forincreased densities on the basis of their ability to be serviced.Those areas without potemntial in their existing networks requirealternative solutions.Possible soil infiItration.These areevaluated according to their productivity and also in relation tothe costs of extending the system with reference to futureservicing.U.c. Rainwater Drainage (&%).The efficiency of the net measured in ml/ha,ml/dw and ml/p isused as reference value.The problem is separated in to localdisposal of rainwaters and disposal to its final destination.Theanalysis of local disposal is done by the same method as forsewerage.the larger system of closed and open cnanneIs isassessed on the basis of direct and indirect volumes of waterreceived in relation to the capacity of the existing system.11.d.Drinking water (4%).The analysis of the drinking water network is also doensame method as for sewerage.A specific factor in this casedaily consumption per capita which is an indicatorinterventions needed in the domest ic water networks.11.e.Topography (3%).The topographical indicators ("bad" or "better") relatecharacteristics of the topography according to theupgrading action that is intended.Others indicators include depth of water table.regime of surfacewater (flood areas) soil stability, (geo-technically problematic2ones).In the case of alternative waste water disposal indicators ofwater percolation in the soil is also considered.
byisof
totype
thethethe
theof
82
Ill.2. ACTIONS PLANS.
The last phase of the PSIB is the formulation of Action Plans.Forsetting the priorities of interventions.the PSIB makes use of theEvaluation Method.which cri terias and assessments are incontinuous process of adequation to the changes ocurrying in thecity and to the interest of the various Institutions and PopularOrganizations involved.
The following list is done in February 87 and was used as ActionPlan the ongoing year as far. This list is matter of discussionat the Regional Buró (Delegación Regional de la Secretaria de laPresidencia) inasmuch it coordinates the annual programmes of thevarious Regional Institutions.In making this list.simplified criteria was used for theestablishing of priorities.In the list the barrios are classified in 3 priorities P1.P2 andP.The idea is to attend about 50.000 persons per year insanitation upgrading.
PROGRAMME OF INTERVENTION IN MANAGUA'S POPULAR SETTLEMENTS, 1986.
MMPROVAL
PHYSICAL UPGRADING
WORKS
u uu «• «* me ¿s
«
C l_«J Sc «
. . s"O PH M -HC O 1» - ^ •-*•H U O -H « -W
2-S5i « U U _
PHYSICALRENEWAL
M
CM « "O 413 M O -HU S O UU I .C C M9 V k II U
u M c o e >«j « * ai a»01 C ^ J3 H ^D O U U ^
n h < < 'ri « u*J C tl 01 -H
r* n •* c w va u
RAISING FUNDS»INGRASF. PRODUCTIVECAPACITY.
mai Q) »• oi11 tl tl «U l- V •**U « > l*
*N 4) 4i -M a.U^D U k<•H U 01e u w « *J3 C M ^4 CHM-^H 11g OO M « U -Hu ai ai -H
> > c u•H i-I O C*J *J rt 3« (0 *J O
•H OCO
01 dl 3 I5. A-a s-Ï O : O 0 iJ
O O U 'H(J U QÊ U
urban prototype(urban image)
social prototype(popular action)
sanitary prototype(technical infrastructure)
no investments In physical worksimproveî in sanitary conditionssocio-economic improveaenta j
33 settlements, 10.434 dv!
settlement restructuringiœproval of living conditions(services)some civil workssocio-economic iroprovalincrease of productive capacity;
71 settlements, 43.550 dw. /
sone civil worksrestructuring of settlemntsimproval of living conditionsincrease of productive capacity
32 settlements,32.200 dw.
83
PRIORITIZATION OF BARRIOS FOR UP-GRADING INTERVENTION CHART 30
pB.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
BPPP
1APrio
1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A
. PrioIBIBIB
Tip.peib
FFFFFFFCFFFFCCEF
Tip. psi:EEE
B. PrioP IEP IEP IEP IE
B.PrioP IFP IFP IF
BARRIO TIPO.Domitila Lugo VDDomitila Lugo CSanta Rosa VdSanta Rosa CCarlos Sanchez VDJose Dolores Estrada VDJose Dolores Estrada CJose Dolores Estrada UWaepan VDWaepan ACamilo Chamorro VDCamilo Chamorro CCamilo Chamorro UCamilo Ch. < Oscar Lino) UJosé Benito Escobar VDBertha Diaz VD
BARRIO TIPO,C.Sandino 2/6,Bella CruzVDC.Sandino3/6,Bella Cruz VDC.Sandinol/6,Bella Cruz VD
B.Prio Tip.psib BARRIOP 1C C Catorce de SeptiembreP IC E Sol de libertadP IC E Villa RevoluciónP IC E Villa Venezuela 817.P IC E Villa Venezuela
BARRIOCamilo OrtegaCamilo OrtegaSan Judas Norte 8OXSan Judas Norte 8OÍÍSan Judas NorteSan Judas Norte 207.San Judas NorteSierra Maestra
Tip.psib BARRIOC Francisco MezaC Jorge DimitrovD San José OrientalA San Jose Oriental
Tip.psib BARRIOF Arial Darce &&'/.p Ariel Darcep Ariel Darce 33'/.
TIPO.
B.PPPPPPP
PrioIDIDIDIDIDIDID
Tip.psibFCF
AFA
UVFVFVFVF
TIPO,VDUVDVACVa-VD-CVD
TIPO.UUVJ
c
NoVIV
69145
6912379249266630
764165
135980131233
1512524
8.578
POBLACIÓN
5653267
7262129643515479
461180
553811468238
437786
1398149681791
59.251
NoVIV POBLACIÓN1711 151942565 22042
858 7106
5.134 44.342
TIPO.VDCVD
NoVIV128
2502739
2057475
5.9U1
NoVIV79732
38140
10219863271269
8.327
NoVIV199
10408189
1.409
NoVIV872142506
POBLACIÓN768
108217837
171533909
40.488
POBLACIÓN6820193
21854
558127241788
11807
55.744
POBLACIÓN119462403270486
n.190
POBLACIÓN7896776
4193
1.520
HA
27
43
3135
135
453
68
4319
306
Viv./Ha.
25. 22
20.63
29. 81
26. 16
60. 0022. 1439. 2925. 45
21. 1330. 2635. 0827. 72
HA Viv./Ha.91 18.83
101 25. 4q44 19.41
236
HA
442247136
177
Viv./Ha.31. 2259. 4330. 4128. 9713. 33
HA Viv./Ha.34 23.72
2 16.84150 76.2a
49 40.20ERR
50 25. 5f
185
HA Viv./Ha.9 22. 3fl
36 29.2115 5.47
60
HA Viv./Ha.38 22.95
14 36.14
12.865 52
Note:
P = priority
viv. = (vivienda)= dwelling
Tip.PSIB = PSIB typology of barrios84
B.PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Pno2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A
TFFr>DDDDDDBDDDD
B.PrioP 2EP 2E
NoVIV226236458
016638840512
4832014166429
2517
POBLACIÓN291412905157
09072Í222342
65552416025587
158158
21139
PRIORITIZATION OF BARRIOS FOR UP-GRADING INTERVENTION
Continuation
Tip.peib BARRIO TIPO.Cuba VBCuba CSanta Ana 38V. VDSanta Ana VJSanta Ana CMonseñor Lezcano CJavier Cuadras VJJavier Cuadra CSanta Ana 50% VJMonseñor Lezcano ASanta Ana 3'/. VJSanta Ana • CSanta Ana 9*/. 'f VJSanta Ana C
B.Prio Tip.psib BARRIO TIPO,P 2B D Monseñor Lezcano VJP 2B A Monseñor Lezcano CP 2B D Monseñor Lezcano VJp 2B A Las Torres 6*/. Ap 2B B Los Angeles Ap 2B B Rigoberto Lopez Perez AP 2B A Las Torres 94% AP 2B F El Paraíso VDP 2B F Larreynaga VDP 2B F Larreynaga C
B.Prio Tip.psib BARRIO TIPQ.p 2C D Altagracia lOJí VDp 2C Altagracia VJp 2C Altagracia CP 2C D Altagracia VJP 2C A Altagracia C
TIPO.
NoVIV175526071255ISO15
83943799567
5315
POBLACIÓN19713142193574291250
75673341507829366
51323
BPP
Prio2D2D
TipFF
psibRigueroRiguero
BARRIOVDC
NoVXV POBLACIÓN321 2942
O
o o527 12071231 1262
1079 16275
NoVlV POBLACIÓN1328 10293
39 21310.512
HA Viv./Ha.14 16.74
15 30-740
26 15. 7C
1811
26.40.11-
69OQ67
4
78
17.
HA Viv./Ha.39 44.77
31141
181824
22. 8955.0051. 4325. 0047. 1324. 1441. 81
136
HA Viv./Ha.15 21.40
28 19.03
43
HA Viv./Ha.26 50.69
26
Tip.psib BARRIOF VenezuelaF
TIPO.VD
NoVIV1172
1,
6Q
.240
POBLACIÓN9538
372
9.960
HA Viv./Ha.32
32
85
PRIORITIZATION OF BARRIOS FOR UP-GRADIN INTERVENTION
Continuation
B.Prio TipAAACIADAAARBAFDAEBFEGGGGFHHCGFIECE
psib BARRIOAcahualincaAcahualincaAcahualincB NorteEdgar LangSan PatricioJulio BuitragoJavier CuadrasJulio BuitragoJonathan GonzalezJonathan GonzalezSanto Dom. y Buen AirSanto DomingoBenedicto ValverdeLOB Angeles 357.Rigoberto Lopez PerezRigoberto Lopez PerezColonia ManaguaCamino Sto DomingoSan Luis SurTenderiDe Junio 10Maestro GabrielNicarao Q5XNicaraoAdolfo Reyes 66*/.Bello Horizonte 25ÍÍBello Horizonte 757.De Hayo 1Nicarao 15'/.Adolfo Reyes 335íSanto DomingoPrimero de MayoCamilo Ch. <Q. Pacheco)Villa Libertad
TIPO.VACAUVLUVJuuAVCAVAVDVJ
cVGAVDVGVGVKVGCVDVKVKUVGVDVMVGUVG
NoVlV8 6 8
3 87 0
1 7 11 2 01 6 51 0 02 9 52 0 45 4 6
636 0
4 5 84 4 79 8 3278125
a3 6 44 4 17 4 83 3 05 6 7
4 72 7 95 2 4
15711 7 32 0 41 3 9
9 41190
7 61733
13499
POBLACIÓN5186
2 0 74 4 9
10266 4 19 9 05 7 7
177012243502
4 4 64 1 6
4394367380371520
9 0 65 1
27373500590032565136
2 5 627193449
1034710381B101315
5 5 29634
4 5 612766S9936
HA2 0
25
3 046
1 26
1 91 0
55
3 24 0
32
2 79
2 49
2 5
62 15 0
854
3 22 3
32G
4 7 2
Viv . /Ha .44. 29
35. 0032. 88
3. 964 1 . 2516. 6724. 3836. 4329. 35
a. 6511. 7691. 6013. 9724. 58
41.674. 21
13. 2850. 1131. 1737. 5022. 50
46. 502-4. 7231. 2922. 7640. 0039. 71
2. 9452.6524. 5266. 65
PRIORITIZATION OF BARRIOS FOR UP-GRADING INTERVENTION
P r i o r i t y
1 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F
2 A2 B2 C2 D2 E
P
T o t a l
T o t a l MA-NAGUA/85
N°of Dwellings
8.5785.1345.9018.3271.4091.520
2.5175.3151.0791.3671.240
13.499
55.886
117.557
Population
59.25144.34240.48855.74411.19012.865
21.13951.32316.27510.5129.960
99.936
433.025
% of t o t .p o p u l a t .
6 ,84 %5,12 %4 ,67 %6 ,43 %1,29 %1,48 %
2,44 %5,92 %1,88 %1,21 %1,15 %
11 ,53 %
49 ,96 %
866.533 100,00 %
Ha.
306236177185
6052
78136
4 32632
472
1.803
4 .828
86
I N T E G R A L P L A N F O R S L U M U P G R A D I N G
IV. P i l o t P l a n s
87
PILOT PLAN FOR THE UP-GRADING AND SANITATION OF LOW-INCOME
SETTLEMENTS IN MANAGUA
The Integral Sanitation and Up-grading Plan generally hasa multidimentional character. It intends to tackle theconsequences of poverty at their most sensible points,through integrated development programmes that can generatephysical improvements and create conditions for the economicbasis of growth within the settlement.
The functions of the Plan are:
1. REVISION of hypothesis concerning different types of low-income settlements and of new modes of intervention fortheir improvement.
2. EVALUATION of different up-grading and sanitation alternatives , in relation to the needs of each settlement andtaking account of the community organization's experien-ces ,
3. FEED-BACK to the model in order to have an ongoing refor-mulation of the action plans of local institutions and inorder to be able to use it as a methodological system inother countries of the region.
4. DATA BANKS, mainly those concerning forms of communityorganization, self-help, performance and productivity ofthe works carried out and follow-up possibilities (re-ap-plicability) in other context.
CHART 31
TYPOLOGY OF BARRIOSTYPE OF BARRIO
Spontan. settl.,ruins and cuarte-rías (illegal oldand new)Progressive ur-baniza. (site-&-services after 1979)Planned popul. barrios (old)-Spontan. popularbarrios
Sub-total
Residential •
Total
AND PILOTPOPULATION
66.869
28.081
237.449
259.587
152.362
777.348
PLANN° DWELL.
10.434
5.387
30.966
38.168
22.168
108.822
% DWELL.
11,7
4,95
28,45
35,07
79,64
20,36
100,00
PILOT ]
B-15
3ARRI0
J. Gonzales
CiudaddiñoCamiloAdolfo
San-
OrtegaReyes
88
SETTLEMENT TYPES, PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CHARACTERIZATION AND
TYPE OF REQUIRED INTERVENTION CHART 32
Type of settlement Socio-physical characterization Required intervention
Spontaneous settl.Slums and Ruins
Settl. developed in inadequatezones-high density- overcrowding-advanced physical dilapidation-lacking public services-margi-nal sectors( e.q. populationdisplaced by the war)- extremepoverty - mainly adult popula-tion-weak social organizationsusceptible to anti-socialactions.
Need resettlement-emergency up-gradingprogrammes (especial-ly health and sanita-tion)- income impro-vement and survivalprogrammes.
Progressive developments
New settl. (site-and-servicestype)- self-help- lay-out designed by the Ministry of Housing(MINVAH)- with collective infrastructure but without seweragesystem- dilapidated dwellings-young population- high unemploy_ment and informal employment-population with a high degreeof community participation con-sciousness .
Need provisional im-provement of condi-tions of physicalinfrastructure anddwellings-Need lesser degreeof physical rearran-gement-Need income and pro-ductive capacity im-provement programmes
Planned low-incomesettlements
Settl.with legalized properties- presenting different types oflay-out and different degreesof consolidation - many havingsome type of infrastructure-dwel^lings in process of consolida-tion- unemployed adult popula-tion having different handicraftskills.
Need some type ofphysical rearrange-ment- infrastructureimprovement of dwel-lings- improvementof productive capaci'ty and of employmentpossibilities.
Spontaneous low-in-come settlements
In general these settlementspresent situations of legali-zing properties- low density-adult population- communityorganizations with experiencein collective work and improve'ment actions.
Need physical rear-rangement (lay-out/land use adjustments)basic infrastructuresystems- improvementof dwellings and ofproductive capacity-density adjustments-efficient public un-conventional services(that require lowmaintenance and popu-lar participation).
89
STAGES OF THE PILOT PLAN
STAGE I Design, election of technologies, constructiondrawings, preparation / programming of construction worksand other executions to be realized in collaboration bet-ween govermental and non-govermental local organizations.
STAGE II Stage of consolidation and reinforcement of com-munity organizations and of collective programming of worksto be carried out.
STAGE III Stage of construction and of collective produc-tion and survival programme initiation based on organiza-tion, participation, and self-help.
STAGE IV Stage of the organization and the building ofbasic civil works. Rearrangement of the settlement and re-location of dwellings that need to be demolished.
STAGE V Stage of construction of basic infrastructureworks: sewerage, drinking water, rainwater drainage, pe-destrian road pavement (surfacing), public lighting, af-forestation of communal areas.
STAGE VI Stage of dwelling improvement linked to collec-tive production or to community enterprises and to popularparticipation.
90
TYPE OF SETTLEMENT, QUANTIFICATION AND PERCENTAGES CHART 33
Dwellingcondition
Type of settlement Population Number ofdwellings
% oftotal
Pilot settle'ment
Dwellingsin poorcondition
Spontaneous settl. ,slums and ruins(illegal new andold)
66.869 10.434 11,70 B-15Acahualinca
Dwellingsneedingimprovem.and/or en-largement
Progressive develo£ments (site-and-services after 1979)
Planned low-incomeand old settlements
Spontaneous low-in-come settlements
28.081
237.449
259.587
5.387
30.966
38.168
4,95
28,45
35,07
JONATHAN GON-ZALES
Ciudad Sandi-no
Camilo OrtegaAdolfo Reyes
Sub-total 79,64
Dwellingsthat don'tneed enlargement orrepair
Residential quarters 152.362
TOTAL 744.348
22.168
108.822
20,32
100,00
91
r|^ Ï > . BE'. * ff •• E 5
: =í£S;.^^I
ALTAMIRA
Density : 41 dwel l . /ha .Ci rcu la t ion : 4,8 ml/dwell
ADOLFO REYES
Density : 38 dwel l . /ha .Ci rcu la t ion :8,5 ml/dwell .
ïtrVILLA VENEZUELA
Density ; 35 dwel l . /ha .Ci rcula t ion : 11,6 ml/dwell .
•
I m
¡ r
1 :
GRENADA
Density : 29 dwell./ha.Circulation: 10,1 ml/dwell
f:
!.-•t
• l_TT_TT^Z
CAMILO ORTEGA
Density : 31 dwel l . /ha .Ci rcu la t ion : 8,6ml/dwel
MONSEÑOR LEZCANO
Density : 27,8 dwel l . /ha .Ci rcu la t ion : 9,Oml/dwell.
SAN ANTONIO
Density :37 dwell./ha.Circulation : 7,02ml/dwell.'
LAND USE LAY-OUT SYSTEMS IN DIFFERENT BARRIOS OF MANAGUA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
I N T E G R A L P L A N F O R S L U M U P G R A D I N G
Exis t ing condi t ions in the f ive P i l o t Barr iosPhotographic I 1 l u s t r a t i o n
PHOTO 1. Factory "Carlos Arrollo Pineda"Metal moulds for the production of pipes.
PHOTO 2. Factory "Carlos A. P."Concrete block production.
PHOTO 3. Factory "Carlos A. P."General view. Storage and drying.
92
PHOTO 4. Factory "Ribas Salazar"Casting of multiple washing units (single and doubleconcrete washing units).
PHOTO 5. Factory "Ribas S.Slab íor latrine floor*
93
PHOTO 7. Barrio CAffILQ ORTEGA. One of the roads belonging tothe "basic main road network" that will be (consolidated) re-constructed in the short term. Note the rainwater drainage sys-tem opperating through open channels along the street. The"street-bed" has deep erosion furrows which make the ciculationof vehicles almost impossible.
PHOTO 8. Barrio C. ORTEGA. The oame road of the last photo af-ter a heavy rain. Note the evolution of the erosion furrows.Rainwaters do not reach the drainage channel because they are ona higer level than that of the street. In such cases erosion willfinally destroy the drainage channels
94
PHOTO 9. Barrio C. ORTEGA. One of the roads belonging to whatwould be the "basic main road network".Note the lack of drainagesystems and the depth of the erosion furrows and potholes. Theconsolidation project for this barrio includes, in the emergencyphase, the reconstruction of this street. In this stretch concretestreet tiles will be laid and open channels will be dug. Becauseof the deteriorated state of the street,it would be necessary touse machinery for its reconstruction. Note that a water supplypipe (indicated by an arrow) lays bare because of the erosionprocess.
PHOTO 10 Barrio C. ORTEGA. Typical examples of very rudimentaryreceptacles used for the storage of water, also a double washingunit. Note the direct disposal of waste water.
PHOTO 11. Barrio C. ORTEGA. Concrete tank for the collection ofwaste water, close to the boundary between the lot and the publicroad.
95
PHOTOS 13 and 14. Barrio C. ORTEGA. Two aspects of the samestreet: before and after a heavy rain. Note the enlargementof the erosion furrows. The erosion caused by the rain tendsto block the outflow channels thus imparing the efficiency ofthe drainage system and causing local flooding. Note the greatamount of garbage on the street. For this area the consolida-tion project includes the pavement (concrete street tilesï andthe excavation of open drainage channels.
96
% ' " • • %
12 15
PHOTO 12. Barrio C. ORTEGA. View of a passage over an open "ditch*which contains a great amount of accumulate garbage and a pigfreely wandering about.
PHOTO 15. Barrio C. ORTEGA, In this situation a dwelling is athigh risk of slippage of the 5 rot. sub-vertical slope behind it.In this case the dwelling must be relocated and the slope regra-ded, or reinforcement works must be carried out.
PHOTO 16. Barrio C. ORTEGA. A pedestrian street without drainage,as shown by the large puddle. In such cases adequate drainagesystems must be installed or the street regraded to eliminate the"low point".Hote in the background the works for the installationof a drinking water network.
PHOTO 17. Barrio C. ORTEGA. A street to be reconstructed as apedestrian way. Note the existing large drainage channel. In thiscase the consolidation plan proposes that a foot-path be builtbeside the channel to improve pedestrian circulation during therain season.
PHOTO 16. Barrio C. ORTEGA. A street belonging to the main roadnetwork, near a "ditch".Note the amount of garbage on the street.
98
PHOTO 19. Barrio ADOLFO REYES. Aspect of one oí the streets to bereconstructed as a pedestrian way. Note the relatively good pre-servation of the place. Observe also that the street is ratherflat and therefore severe erosion processes do not occur.The re-construction of this street is planned on the medium/long term,with the use of aided self-help labour.
PHOTO 20. Barrio A. REYES. One of the streets to be reconstructedas a pedestrian way. Note the effects of erosion and the amount ofgarbage scattered along the drainage channel. This area alreadyhas a sewerage system. It is proposed that the road hierarchy willbe main roads with a large number of pedestrian streets. In thissystem garbage will be collected from the main roads only,
99
21
22
PHOTO 21. Barrio A. REYES. One of the streets chosen to be partof the "main road system*. Concrete street tiles will be laid inthe medium term. Hate the amount of garbage thrown in the draina-ge channels and on the street.
PHOTO 22. Barrio A. REYES. Aspect of the main street near a ditch.Although the area is relatively flat, there is a concentration ofrainwater in this part of the street (see drawing Ï.The absenceof drainage system results in water invading the houses on theleft side of the photo. Sand bags are used to try to protect thehouses front the rainwaters.
PHOTO 23. Barrio A. REYES. Main access road to the barrio.Thebuilding, which belongs to a school, is on a lover level thanthat of the street. When there are heavy rains the water flowsfrom the adjoing streets into the school (see drawing Ï.The con-solidation project proposes the disposal of this waters beforethey reach the school.
100
25
PHOTO 24. Barrio A.REYES. An adjoing street which contributes tothe flooding of the school. As an emergency measure this watersmust be collected near the intersection of the streets (foregroudof the photo) and disposed of into the channel that existes on theboundary of the area.
PHOTO 25. Barrio A. REYES. Private collector that has been exposedby the effects of erosion.
101
27
28
PHOTO 26. Barrio A. REYES. Manhole exposed by the erosion.
PHOTO 27. Barrio A. REYES, Garbage thrown on the streets and thepresence of a loose pig.
102
PHOTO 28. CIUDAD SANDINO. Zone 2. Aspect of a main road under theofficial urbanization proposal.Note the dimensions of the "street-bed", the absence of foot-paths and of any drainage system. Thestreets are generally flat, close to the "high points" (photo),they are in good shape, without major damage by erosion.
PHOTO 29. CIUDAD SANDINO. Zone 2/3. Note the large number of hou-ses with floor levels lower than that of the street, presentingvarious degrees of difficulty in disposing the rainwaters into theroad system. Note the kerbs placed to protect the houses. In theback-ground one can see signs of erosion on the street-bed. Thismeans that the waters do not drain along the kerbs but along thestreet.The existence of houses in this conditions makes itdifficult to install drainage and sewerage systems.
PHOTO 30. CUIDAD SANDINO. Zone 3. Aspect of one of the streetsclose to the ditch that runs through the area. Presently, rainwa-ters are carried exclusively by superficial drainage to the dit-ches (natural channels) that drain the area. The accumulation ofrainwater causes erosion and finally jeopardizes the circulationof vehicles. Note the great amount of garbage on the street.
103
31
PHOTO 31. CIUDAD SAKDINO. Note the absence of any rainwater drai-nage system. The maintenance of streets is carried out by repeatedscraping which causes a deepening of the street-bed in relation tothe foot-paths. This can be observed in the foreground (right) ofthe photo. This practice can result in chronic problems.
PHOTO 32. CIUDAD SANDIN0. Street situated between zone 3 and zone4.Note the damage caused by erosion, that makes the circulationof vehicles very difficult. Note also the low population densityof the area.
104
PHOTO 33. CIUDAD SANDIHO. Rudimentary installation of water supplythrough a flexible hose. Note the direct disposal of (non sanita-ry) waste water and the presence of a loose pig in the drainagechannel.
PHOTO 34. CIUDAD SAHDINO. Latrine under construction. Observe thesmall dimensions of the hole and the erosive processes taking pla-ce immidiatly under the masonry bolck foundation.
PHOTO 35. CIUDAD SANDING, Latrine under construction. Single seatplaced on pre-fabricated slab.
105
37
38
PHOTO 36. CUIDAD SANDINO. Latrine with double seat. Observe therudimentary construction.
PHOTO 37. CIUDAD SANDINO. Construction details of a "mini-skirt'type dwelling (mixed system oí masonry/wood).
PHOTO 38. CIUDAD SANDINO. Construction details of a mini-skirttype of dwelling.
106
PHOTO 39. CIUDAD SANDINO. Zone 2. On top of the generalized pro-blems of lack of drainage and of erosion, there are localisedproblems which are relatively serious, such as the constant over-flow of the existing ditch between zone 8 and zone 2. In this way,rainwaters drain freely over the streets from zone 2 to zone 4,where they reach another ditch on the boundary of the area (seedrawing 4Ï. The photos 39 and 43 show other aspects of this pro-blem. Note in the left of the photo the accumulation of rainwaterand the beginning of erosive processes (observe the dimensions ofthe street).
PHOTO 42. CIUDAD SANDINO.Zone 4. A street below the collectionpoint described in the last photos. Note the dimensions of theerosion furrows and the partial destruction of the already com-pleted drainage works. Observe the accumulation of garbage.
107
43
PHOTO 40. CIUDAD SANDINO. Point of rainwater collection on theboundary between zones 2 and 4 (see drawing 6). Although there isa drainage system from this point to the existing boundary ditch,most of the rainwaters drain onto the streets causing large ero-sion furrows and overflows.
PHOTO 41. CIUDAD SANDINO. Another aspect of the collection pointdescribed in the last photo.Note the lack of barriers to preventaccidental falls.In the background one of the few tiled streetsof the area. In the present consolidation project high priorityis being given to the main road network. This will include (as faras possible) the paving of those streets which present largerdrainage and erosion problems.
PHOTO 43. Barrio B-15 (JOSE BENITO ESCOBAR). Buildings along theEast zone. Observe the dilapidated dwellings with exterior card-board protections.
108
45
PHOTO 44. Barrio B-15. Buildings along the West zone.
PHOTO 45. Barrio B-15. A street of the oldest area. Note the narrow street, which is well suited to pedestrian «ay. Obsreve thesmall drainage channels <"canaletas") which are made on-site.Note the entrances to the houses and the lack of foot-paths.
109
48
PHOTO 46. Barrio B-15. In the background can be seen the zone ofmore recent occupation.Note that the strrets are considerably wi-der iapprox. 12TH.). Observe also the existing slope of the street-bed near the "canaletas" which makes it impossible for the rainwa-ter to reach them.
PHOTO 47. Barrio B-15. Open "canaletas" in the intersection of twosteets. This is one of the weak points of the open "canaletas"system, because there are generally accumulations of garbage, adecrease of the flow capacity and a need for reinforcement to al-low traffic circulation. There is also the problem of continuosmaintenance.
PHOTO 48. Barrio B-15. Public watertao on the foot-paths.
110
PHOTO 49. Barrio B-15. Public watertap on the foot-paths.
PHOTO 50. Barrio B-15. Domestic installation with rudimentarywater storage.
Ill
52
PHOTO 51. Barrio B-15. Boundary of the inhabited area, with astrip of cultivated land that reaches the edge oí the lake.
PHOTO 52. Barrio B-15. Area of more recent occupation. A street oflarge dimensions. Note the dilapidated state of the drainage "ca-naleta". Large volume of water drain onto the street. In this casethe camber of the street would have to be changed to provide aslope for runoff to the "canaleta". In some situations, the pla-cing of small artificial humps across the street can help to guidethe rainwaters to the "canaletas*.
PHOTO 53. Barrio B-15. Small drainage channels which are beingdestroyed by erosion and do not work because of the relative dif-ference in levels between the street-bed and the edge of the "ca-naleta".
PHOTO 54. Barrio B-15.Area of more recent occupation. Note the lowpopulation density and the Lack of any infrastructure.
112
55
PHOTO 55. Barrio JONATHAN GONZALES. Aspect of one of the streetsproposed to form part of the main road network. Although being ofofficial urbanization priority, it has no pavement or drainageinfrastructure. This portion of the street will not be the objectof any woks on the short or medium terms. Note the width of theroad of approx. 15 m,
113
PHOTO 56, Barrio J. GONZALES. Viev of part of one of the streetsto be reconstructed as a pedestrian way. Note the erosion furrowsand the garbage accumulation on the street-bed.
114
PHOTO 57. Barrio J. GONZALES.Area near the Av. B. Zeledon. Notethe absence of slope, the street width and the low population den-sity. The drainage channel only serves the Hospital area (rightside of the photo). Note that rainwater that drains onto thestreet-bed does not have access to the drainage channel becauseits edge is higher than that of the street.
PHOTO 59. Barrio J. GONZALES. Area near the Avenue. Here frecuentfloods take place. There is insufficient slope to allow thesuperficial drainage of rainwater. When the barrio is consolida-ted, this area would have to be treated with priority. Note £ inthe foreground) that the floor of the houses is on a lower levelthan that of the street, which causes problems of drainage andfloods.
PHOTO 60. Barrio J. GOHZALES. Another aspect of the area describedin the last photo. Note the accumulation of rainwater and the re-latively flat streets.
PHOTO 61. Barrio J. GONZALES. A street located in the "low part"of the barrio, near the Avenue. It is not possible to drain thesurface rainwater without an increase on the longitudinal slope ofthe streets; this can be accomplished through minor infilling. Thefilling must be generalized in order to allow the drainage of theadjoinig lots to flow towards the road system.
115
62
PHOTO 62. Barrio J. GONZALES. Rudimentary domestic installation
with the use of flexible hose.
PHOTO 63. Barrio J. GÜNZALES. (Hon-sanitary) waste water storageat the exit of the domestic installation.
PHOTO 64. Barrio J. GONZALES. Viev of a double washing unit withthe end of the hose submerged in the water tank.
116
I N T E G R A L P L A N F O R S L U M U P G R A D I N G
Alternatives of Interventions in Pilot Barrios
I 1 lustrations
Note: The definitive Director Plans are inelaboration .the final results should be
printed in April 1968.
...„„..,„.1
-. « J. ,„. ,„...„•
NTLAMO 1
BARRIO ADOLFO REYES
LAND USE ADJUSTMENT'ALTERNATIVES
Barrio level
142
IJ AR RIO: ADOLFO RHYI-S
•*i f4
r*
I;studio del cumplimiento de las norma eu
frente y fondo: máximo y minimo
calles:primaria y secundaria
manzan.i del barrio A Reyes
13 Oft
800 «'IO
no cumple con la norma
callé primaria perfil max
JL
1
Bo ADOLFO REYES
Bo A D O L F O R E Y E S .R t l o c i o n l a t a n ^ , 1 , 1 i n d o
r•LCILDU Df «M>«M
.1 •"—'y
BARRIO ADOLFO REYES
LAND USE ADJUSTMENTALTERNATIVES
Manzana level
w&*%rr^-. \
fe
riMUr^
Tj/jtt-js'sr,}.-,,'
-* rewL tif]
145 BARRIO CAMILO ORTEGALAND USE ADJUSTMENT"ALTERNATIVES-Barrio level
BARRIO CAMILO ORTIXiA
I JW_
I
• / • ' V
E» CHm.0 W'tG
CAMILO ORTEGA S.
B. CAMILO ORTEGAMANZ. 34 ESC.
147
BARRIO CAMILO ORTEGA
LAND USE ADJUSTMENTALTERNATIVES -Manzana
Manzana level
ALTERNATIVE "A"
COLLECTION-NETWORK 4 BIODIGEgTION +
INFILTRATION EVAPORATION
1. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
- Secondary collector inside the blocks, with diameter
0 100 mm, articulated by a system of gathering and
transit boxes
- Main Collector along the sidewalks of the streets,
0 100 BOD or 0 150 uso, depending on the situation.
- Biodigestive Unit, dimensioned for averagely 50
dwellings, working with sewage and solid wastes.
- Infiltration and/or Evaporation Unit, dimensioned
for the disposal of the effluents from each
Biodigestor.
2. CONSTRUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Boxes
- see examples sketched in annex
2.2 Biodigestive Units
- construction in enforced mortar
2.3 Infiltration/ Evaporation Unit
- trenches or beds according to scheme
148
S I M B O L O G I t
PENDIENTE
PREDOMINANTE
ALTERNATIVA "A"I :I ooo
COLECTORA SECUNDAD
COLECTORA PRICIPAL
CAJA DE UNION
CAJA DE PASAJE
CAJA OE VISITA
UNIDAD BIOOIGSTORA
UNIDAD INFILTRACIÓNEVAPORACIÓN
E S Q U E M A G E N E R A L DE
RAMA LES DE I N F I L T R A C I Ó N
EVAPORACIÓNA TRANSPIRACIÓN
MEDIOARENOSO
COLECTOR
CAJADISTRIBUCIÓN
S E C C I Ó N "A"
TUBERÍA PERFORADA
M.ME.TRI C O
150
ALTERNATIVE "B"
IMPROVED LATRINES + JOINED COLLECTION OF GREY-
WATERS AND RAIN-WATER
1. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
- ventilated latrines for the exclusive disposal of
human excretes
- water from dish-washing, cloth-washing, etc passes
through grease- traps and is .than thrown into the
drainage system.
Sub alternatives:
B-l: grey-waters are conducted through pipelines
towards gutters alongside roads
B-2: grey-waters conducted by open channels from
the households towards open drainage.
2. CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Latrines (see scheme)
- sub-alternative 1: single latrines
- sub-alternative 2: double latrines
2.2 Grease traps
- see scheme.
151
• • o l a - ïrr n O'
a \a
Ua' -a
D
a o a n3 G•
D
DD
u G
D
11
f
c] u
a• n D
a D
D
JD
o
0
6
c DD
0 °
D
UD
D
s
i
i
ALTERNATIVA B
ESCALA I IOOOS I M B O L O G I A
TUBERÍA DRENAJE
nrj TRAGANTES
O TRAMPA DE GRASA
CANALES AB DOMICILIO
*• v- * RECOLECTORA DE A3UAS
SERVIDAS NO FECALES
D LETRINA VENTILADA
= — = CANALES ABIERTOS DE
DRENAJE
152
TUBO DE VENTILACIÓN
"5-JET
'O
F
LJr=
AL8ANILERIA ABIERTA
IC/R CANTERA)
PIEDRAS SEPARADAS
SUB-ALTERNATIVA 1 ; FOSA VENTILADA SIMPLE SUB-ALTERNAT1VA 2 :FOSA VENTFLADA DOBLE, USO AlTERNADOEN PERIODOS DE I AÑO
SECCIÓN TRANSVERSAL SECCIÓN
153
MANGUEIRA
ACUMULO DEAGUAS PLUVIAIS
MOVIMENTO DEAGENTES CONTAMINADOS
« I X A DE
REDE PÚBLICADE ABASTECIMENTO
SOLO SATURADO
FIG. 1 - ESQUEMA TÍPICO DE CONTAMINAÇÃO 00SISTEMA DE ABASTECIMENTO.
lb-1
TAMPA DE FUROS PARA
155
I PTO E d - A I S
INSTITUTO DE PESQUISAS TECNOLÓGICAS DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO SADIVISSO DE EDIFICAÇÕES - AGRUPAMENTO DE INSTALAÇÕES E SANEAMENTO
FOLHA
PSIB-PLAN DE SANEAMIENTO INTEGRAL DE BARRIOS S-OlMELHORIA NAS CONDIÇÕES DE ARMAZENAMENTO PRECÁRIO
ESC S/ESCALA |DES GILSON VERI FICA 00 APROVADO DATA A60./B7
• % •
DE FECHAMENTOAUTOMÁTICO POR TOR- SNEIftA DE BÖIA
CORTE AAESC. 1: 20
PLANTAESC. 1: 20
FUROS BLOQUEADOS PARAPOSICIONAMENTO ALTER-NATIVO OE ALIMENTADO*,TORNEIRA E EXTRAVASOR.
156
IPTOEd - AIS
INSTITUTO OE PESQUISAS TECNOLÓGICAS DO ESTADO DE S % PAULO S.A.DlVlSlO DE EDIFICAÇÕES - AGRUPAMENTO DC INSTALAÇÕES E SANEAMENTO
PSI8 - PLAN OE SANEAMIENTO INTEGRAL DE BARRIOS
SISTEMA DE ARMAZENAMENTO DOMICILIAR DE A'GUA C/DESCONEXÃO HÍDRICAESC
: 20 DES GILSON VERIFICADO APROVADO
FOLHA NB
S - 02
DATA AGO / 8 7
CONEXÃO A SAIDADO COMPARTIMENTODE LAV DE ROUPAS
exTRAVASOR ^ ^/ P / S r S T DE T A M P A
Je Of' ¿> i»S V .
* * |
5
i j L_—J
1 — J 1 _ ^ _ -s .j j S
CORTEESC- t 20
ü
- -
AA
\
f
-
4d
1
mi
a—^
o
11
——
-
EXTRAVASOR/ * 2 »
Ö/
—1
10J 40 IlO
' t tSO
RESERVATÓRIO/ D E AGUAS CINZAS
/ (VOL Ltt. APROX «70LJ
. . ^
—ni
lÀ\
1
i
_
/
CAIXA DE CORDURA /*~ (TRAMPA DE GRASA)
SIMPLIFICADA EM*~~ ARGAMASSA ARMADA
375
!
/
0
ii
i•i' )
i
iIi
i
i
t
!
ii
tii
!
!
iri
I
•
111
1
|
CONECTA-SEA BANHO
PLANTAESC I : 20
1137
IPTOEd - A I S
INSTITUTO OE PESQUISAS TECNOLÓGICAS DOESTADO DE SAO PAULO SA.DIVISÍO DE EOIFICAÇOES - AGRUPAMENTO DE INSTALApSES E SANEAMENTO
PSI8 -PLAN DE SANEAMIENTO INTEGRAL DE BARRIOS
SISTEMA DOMICILIAR OE DISPOSIÇÃO DE A'GUAS CINZAS
FOLHA N=
S - 03
20 JDES. GILSON I VERIFICADO APROVADO DATA A G O / 8 7
ft-
CO
.-4-
1
O
PLANTAESC ! ?O
CORTE AAESC I ?O
CORTE BBESC 1 ?O
1PT- A IS
INSTITUTO DE PESQUISAS TECNOLÓGICAS DO ESTADO DE SSO PAULO SAOIVI Ï ÏO Di totric*cötï - lonuraMiNTo DE I H I T I L I Í M I E j t u t i m m o
PSiB - PLAN DE SANEAMIENTO INTEGRAL DE BARRIOS
FOSSA VENTILADA DUPLA
S - 04
1 ¿O | D " GILSON j "«wi r ic*oo AGO / 8 7
CORTE AAPLANTAESC 1 M>
INSTITUTO OC PESQUISAS TECNOLÓGICAS DO E5TAÛO DE SÍO PAULO S.AM IBIMCÍCOU - *WU>*MINTO PC tH%TM.AtÕ€t t MNCAWCTITD
PSIB - PLAN DE SANEAMIENTO INTEGRAL DE BARRIOSPOSSA VENTILADA DUPLA C/ COMPOSTAGEM OC RESÍDUOS SÓLIDOS
