Introduction

Defining self-building is not an easy task. It varies from place to place, from time to time and according to the dwellers’ income. Self-building may be an evident option for high-income residents but remains highly challenging for low-and moderate-income households all over the world, in particular, in densely urbanised city-regions with their characteristic scarcities of land and contested uses of space. This book investigates the self-build initiatives of low-and middle-income residents in city-regions in international comparison. We are interested in these particular experiences because of the pivotal role that urban citizens play with respect to claiming moral ownership over urban space. This necessitates an incorporation of social, cultural and instrumental use values in the production of urban spaces. In this sense, the claim of a ‘right to build’ is far more than an individual interest; it is an expression of public action, well framed in urban literature as the social manifestation of a ‘right to the city’ (Lefebvre, 1996; Purcell, 2003; Harvey, 2008). It is a claim of public participation and a claim of public appropriation by urban residents. The right to build forms an antidote to the selective exploitation of urban space for the sake of capital and commercial land and property values. It is also an antidote to the supplyled modernisation of the built environment. Many countries further social housing programmes in order to accommodate the housing needs of lower-and middle-income groups in society. However, even these socially directed programmes often tend to be based on government-led allocation, rather than enabling culturally embedded practices of accessibility (Salet, 2018). Actors may include the United Nations (UN), national and local public agencies, non-governmental organisations, and large developers, all of which more often than not face difficulties in terms of meeting needs on the ground. The needs, power and potential of citizens are at the core of this book. The book recognises the role of governmental programmes and developers’ plans as long as they make room for the commissioning role of residents. In all case studies, the public responsibility of residents vis-a-vis the other relevant actors is put centre stage.