The intention here is not to debate the merits or failings of that approach per se. That has been
done extensively by others (see van der Linden, 1986; Huchzermeyer, 1999). Rather the intent is to
show how these two factors together reinforced a mode of settlement planning that evolved
originally to manage new housing development on vacant land and was built around the project
cycle. That defines a specific approach to development that follows a particular sequence, namely
306 J. Abbott / Habitat International 26 (2002) 303–315
feasibility, pre-planning, planning, design, construction, management. This is a tried and tested
approach which is extremely effective (in terms of time and cost) for new developments and that is
liked and understood by all major players. Thus from a political perspective, it leads to physical
order, which means effective control over the area. From a professional perspective it means that
existing planning norms and design standards can be applied. And from a funding agency
perspective it means that known and tested models of micro-economic development can be
applied (for example in terms of construction, job creation and capital accumulation). Sites and
service schemes automatically follow this development route. By linking slum upgrading and sites
and service schemes as twin approaches, the same thinking came to be applied to upgrading.
When this was finally seen to be ineffective, the solution was perceived to be more appropriate’’
services, and the linking of service provision to affordability. This was the result of the empirical
approach described in the introduction, which continues to have such a profound impact on the
thinking around informal settlement upgrading.