Quality: 1 - Punto

Daidalos Tourist Resort

0

Daidalos Tourist Resort

Mismatches
Financing
Urban Design

Main objectives of the project

Diadalos, a tourist village on Kos Island, harmoniously integrates with the Aegean landscape through its adaptive architecture. Divided into private, communal, and staff zones, the design prioritizes privacy, sea views, and respect for the site's topography. By eschewing repetitive hotel patterns, it aims to authentically capture the spirit of Greek Island architecture.

Date

  • 1992: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Architect: Nikos Valsamakis

Location

Continent: Europe
Country/Region: Greece

Description

Diadalos is a tourist village designed for 1000 people and located on Kos, one of the Greek Dodecanese Islands. The village is built on a plateau at 90m. elevation overlooking the sea to the south. The main design idea was the creation of an architecture that is well adapted to the physical and cultural identity of the place. Specifically, this architecture would take advantage adapted to the physical and cultural identity of the place. Specifically, this architecture would take advantage of the landscape, respect local topography and climate, and draw inspiration from the spatial qualities of the settlements in the Aegean. With the use of the simplest formal devices and contemporary means of construction, the design seeks to recapture the spirit of the architecture of the Greek Islands, and to bring out the quality of the Aegean landscape without resorting to the use of borrowed features and figures. This design approach also helps to transform the repetitive architectural patterns that are often associated with the architecture of hotels. The resort is divided into three zones.
The first provides private accommodation, the second consist of communal facilities while the third is that of the staff accommodation. There are two residential types, namely single-bedroom or two-bedroom family units. All units have a private verandah. Rather than opt for free standing pavilions, units are linked to form single or double-storey terraces of varying configurations. The terraces define an irregular pattern of narrow pedestrian streets, covered walkways and enclosed gardens. The principles governing the layout include the provision of privacy, the creation of views to the sea and respect for the slope, contours and orientation of the site. The resulting variety of spatial relationships gives a distinct identity to each point of the arrangement.

Authors:

Fundació Mies van der Rohe Barcelona

Social Housing at Marianella

0

Social Housing at Marianella

Policies and regulations
Financing
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

The Marianella project (1983-1988) in Naples focused on rebuilding post-1980 earthquake. Objectives involved transforming a serial-type plan into dynamic urban interventions, creating three-floor residential blocks with courtyards. Using the French prefabrication system, it successfully addressed both housing needs and the reintegration of the outskirts.

Date

  • 1989: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Architect: Franco Purini
  • Architect: Aldo Aymonino
  • Architect: Laura Thermes

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Naples
Country/Region: Italy, Naples

Description

The idea behind the project for a block in Marianella, a center of the outskirts of Naples, consists in making react a type-morphological plan of serial nature, with the outline of the area, considered as a perimeter on which are projected different conditions of the context. In contact with such a outline, which is configured as an active margin, the model undergoes a series of subtractions that are proposed as architectural variations of the plan. It is subtracted so to the repetition inherent in the initial model by purchasing a geometric and plastic variability, which results in an increase of the complexity of the urban intervention.
The intervention for sixtyfour accommodation in Marianella, in the metropolitan area of Naples, was designed in 1983 and completed in 1988 after the earthquake of 1980, an event that ruined not only the historical center of the city but also the peripheral expansions. The project was thought both to be to rebuild a number of destroyed houses and to reconnect separate parts of the peripheral tissue. A urban fabric in which was spread a courtyard typology, which gave rise to complex residential units designed to accommodate families of farmers in the Neapolitan countryside. The project has taken this typological matrix, obviously transformed, proposing a series of residential blocks of three floors, organized around two types of courtyards. On the larger courtyards overlook houses with continuous balconies supported by iron pillars; the smallest include the stair’s towers which, through four gangways, distribute eight apartments for each floor. The residential blocks are made with the French prefabrication system “banches e tables” and then plastered. The stairs have an iron structure covered with tuff. Also the portals of entry to the courts are made with tuff.

Documents

Authors:

Fundació Mies van der Rohe Barcelona

Granby Four Streets Community Land Trust

0

Granby Four Streets Community Land Trust

Mismatches Functional adequacy Services Demographic/Urban growth
Policies and regulations Local policies Building capacity
Urban Design Urban fabrics Quality Liveability
Promotion and production Participatory processes Innovation Self-promotion

Main objectives of the project

Granby 4 Streets developed out of a community group that campaigned against the demolition of houses and relocation of the community. It has successfully halted the demolition and provided a focus for the community using a creative approach. Its long term goal is to renovate all of the houses in the Granby triangle providing homes for 250 families who are either members of the original Granby community wanting to return home, or local families in housing need.

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Liverpool
Country/Region: Liverpool, United Kingdom

Description

Project Description

Granby 4 Streets and its predecessor community group have, for many years, kept the Granby community together. Its ultimately successful campaign to halt the demolition of houses provided a focus for the community but its approach was unconventional and creative. It focused on reclaiming empty houses and streets from dereliction and boosting the community’s pride in the area. It runs a street market that sells vintage clothes, cakes and Caribbean food. This has kept people visiting the area and has provided a visual presence for the community in the wider area and the city.

It organised community painting and community gardening. This work manifested itself in murals and artwork on the bricked up windows of empty houses and in the displays of flowers and vegetables planted in recycled containers along the length of the streets. This activity won the North West in Bloom Award in 2014.

In 2011, it successfully attracted funding from a Jersey-based social entrepreneur. This enabled the community to commission architects to set out plans for the area. These featured a number of highly innovative designs including turning one house with no roof into a glazed winter garden. The designs achieved significant media attention and won the prestigious art award the Turner Prize, in 2015.

In 2012, Granby 4 Streets successfully negotiated with the council for ten homes to be transferred to the Community Land Trust for renovation. Five have been sold and five retained for low-cost renting.

The work helped inspire other renovation projects to take place in Granby. A renovation programme by local housing association Plus Dane has seen work start on renovating 27 derelict houses. Liverpool Mutual Homes is renovating 40 houses and a local housing cooperative, Terrace 21, is soon to start renovating five houses.

In 2015, Granby 4 Streets set up Granby Workshop, a social enterprise based in Granby itself that makes household products, such as door handles and fireplaces from the waste and rubble left by the houses that were demolished. The composite material they produce has become known as Granby Rock.

In 2016, Granby 4 Streets successfully secured Arts Council funding for the Winter Gardens house. This, when built, will use two derelict houses to create a glazed communal space that they envisage will be used like a botanical garden to grow exotic plants. The building will also provide a common house for the community, have bed and breakfast accommodation and conference facilities to help generate income for Granby 4 Streets.

Aims and Objectives

Granby 4 Streets aims to bring community regeneration to the whole Granby neighbourhood, not only undoing the damage and neglect of the last forty years but retaining the best of what remained and building a better, stronger and inspiring area. Its vision statement describes creating “a thriving, vibrant, mixed community, building on the existing creativity, energy and commitment within the area”.

Its initial redevelopment brief described “retaining the generosity and flexibility of the original buildings”, and “creating a neighbourhood, which provides affordable housing; the greenest quarter in the city; is architecturally rich and includes the imaginative renovations of Victorian terraces”. Its long-term goal is to renovate all of the houses in the Granby triangle, providing homes for 250 families who are either members of the original community wanting to return home or local families in housing need.

The main issues Granby 4 Streets aims to address are:

  • Lack of cohesion and resilience.
  • Low levels of civic engagement to hold accountable bodies to task.
  • Social isolation that some groups within the community experience e.g. minority groups.
  • Lack of buildings for public use or social activities for the good of the community.
  • Lack of communal spaces to enhance community cohesion and healthy lives.
  • Poor state of housing in the area.

Context

Granby is a small area of Liverpool. It comprises a series of roads of nineteenth century terraced houses, located in the Liverpool L8 area, about a mile from the city centre. It is the most ethnically diverse area of Liverpool and reportedly the home of the UK’s oldest Black community. There is evidence to suggest that a Black community has lived in this area for almost 400 years.

The community is amongst the poorest in the UK. In 2015, it was measured to be within the 1% most deprived wards in the country under the indices of deprivation. This measure considers levels of income, employment, education, health, crime, living environment and barriers to housing. The main street that runs through the area (Granby Street) was, until the early 1970s, a busy high street with grocery shops, butchers, small scale manufacturing and even a cinema. But during the 1970s, the area began to decline, residents experienced high levels of unemployment and increasing levels of poverty. Tensions in the area spilled over into 1981 with a serious civil disturbance known as the Toxteth Riots. One person died, hundreds were injured, hundreds more were arrested and many buildings were damaged or destroyed.

In the years following the riots, life in Granby became increasingly bleak. Poverty and unemployment levels became worse, more shops went out of business and empty houses began to appear as people’s perceptions of the area became more negative. Liverpool City Council’s response to these problems was highly controversial within the local community. It acquired hundreds of houses in the area for demolition. New houses were built in their place but some areas were left as vacant demolition sites. Allocation policies for the new houses were also controversial; the community perceived that they had the effect of breaking up the original community. The original houses were left standing in just four streets. But even here, most of the houses were acquired by the council and housing associations and bricked up and left vacant. Many members of the community felt that there was a policy of managed decline. Some perceived it as “special measures” (a term borrowed from the UK government’s response to failing schools) in response to, and possibly as punishment for, the 1981 riots.

Council intervention was accelerated in the early 21st Century with the introduction of the national government’s Housing Market Renewal Programme. This provided government funding for councils to deal with areas with housing in decline. During this period, more houses were acquired and bricked up and more were demolished. There was little maintenance carried out and, as a result, the remaining houses, most of which were now empty, fell into serious disrepair.

In 2010, Liverpool City Council attempted to sell the whole of Granby to a developer. There was interest and a developer was selected but after a series of challenges the procurement process eventually stalled and the contract was withdrawn. By 2011, just four of the original 14 streets remained. Most of the houses were vacant and bricked up. Just 70 residents were left in the area. Yet the residents association that had formed in the 1990s to fight the demolition of houses was still present and they sensed that an opportunity had arisen.

They became a Community Land Trust in 2011 and raised funds for refurbishment and community control.

Key Features

Community Land Trusts are locally driven, controlled and democratically accountable organisations. Membership is open to all who live or work in the defined community, including properties that the Community Land Trust does not own. Members elect a volunteer board to run the Community Land Trust on their behalf on a day to day basis. The wider community in Liverpool L8 have offered Granby 4 Streets support from 2011, with open events taking place at Granby Market.

Granby 4 Streets deliver street events, social gatherings and participative projects, e.g. a planting group, to engage the immediate and wider community. They also use their website and social media presence to update and encourage participation and deliver a digital (and hardcopy) newsletter to boost information sharing.

Granby 4 Streets has a governance structure led by a board of Trustees that comprises:

  • One third of residents from the four streets.
  • One third of residents from the wider L8 area.
  • One third of stakeholders who work in the community with applicable skills, competencies and knowledge of the issues.

The Granby 4 Streets approach was to instigate, constitute and lead a network of projects, partnerships, and collaborations forged through longstanding negotiations with public and private stakeholders. The local authority transferred properties over to Granby 4 Streets in 2012 as an asset transfer. Steinbeck Studios, a social investor, offered an interest-free loan and funded the ‘vision document’ for the area that subsequently encouraged other partners to get involved. Steinbeck Studio provided project management in the early days and has now developed plans to redevelop homes on Ducie Street which will have a budget of several millions. Other houses in the Granby 4 Streets area are being developed by Plus Dane, LMH and Terrace 21 housing cooperative. Further financial support was obtained from Nationwide Foundation, Power To Change, Homes and Communities Agency, National Lottery, National CLT Network, Steve Biko Housing and Plus Dane Group, North West Arts Council, Trust House Foundation.

What impact has it had?

Granby 4 Streets has had an impact on Liverpool City Council’s thinking towards housing regeneration and how the council engages with local communities. There is evidence that the council has changed its approach to demolition. In 2016, another much larger area of derelict houses that was scheduled for demolition has been handed to developers for renovation.

Granby 4 Streets is cited in Liverpool Council policy as an example of community-led development. Granby 4 Streets are mentioned as proponents of good practice in terms of how residents and city officials work in partnership. They are also part of the Re: Kreators European network and they have recently presented to EU Urban Agenda ministers as proponents of good practice.

How is it funded?

Granby 4 Streets is moving towards a position of being financially sustainable. Income from rent for the houses, shops and workshop will pay the operating cost of the Community Land Trust and repayments on loans. They have calculated that every house they rent produces a surplus of £3,500 (USD $4,500) a year, which can be invested into the Community Land Trust. The set-up costs and capital costs for development work have been met by a series of grants and loans. The grants amount to £900,000 (USD $1.1 million) and are made up by:

  • £14,800 (USD $19,000) CLT feasibility grant (National CLT Network).
  • £128,000 (USD $164,000) affordable homes grant (Nationwide Foundation).
  • £32,000 (USD $41,000) feasibility grant (Homes & Communities Agency).
  • £37,500 (USD $48,000) grant (DCLG).
  • £10,000 (USD $13,000) feasibility grant – Four Corners (Heritage Lottery).
  • £10,000 (USD $13,000) project activity grant (Awards for All).
  • £385,000 (USD $ 496,000) community business development (Power to Change).
  • £249,000 (USD $ 321,000) Winter Garden (Arts Council).
  • £40,000 (USD $ 51,000) Winter Garden (Trusthouse Foundation).

There was also a development loan of £500,000 (USD $640,000) from Steinbeck Studio (the Jersey-based investor referred to earlier) in the project description. As Granby 4 Streets move into the next stage of their development, they are planning to use the sale of five homes to meet some of the costs. Projected income from the sale of Granby 4 Streets Community Land Trust’s five homes is £450,000 – £600,000 (USD $580,000 – USD $772,000) depending on valuations and confirmation of ‘affordability’ criteria at the point of sale.

Why is it innovative?

Granby 4 Streets is unique in the UK as a community-led regeneration of an entire neighbourhood. It is all the more remarkable because the community is amongst the poorest in the UK and has experienced perhaps the most extreme decline and dereliction seen anywhere in the UK in peacetime.

Ronnie Hughes, one of the founders and a Granby 4 Streets Trustee, said:

“What’s happening in Granby is an important prototype for northern councils, who’ve been so badly hit by the cuts, two years ago, the whole area was nearly signed over to a private developer, but now the people who live here have finally got a formal stake in the place. It’s an extraordinary achievement – and now it’s extraordinary forever”

Community Land Trusts are relatively new to the UK, and although the number is steadily growing, Granby 4 Streets is the first Community Land Trust to focus on the renovation of existing buildings. Their regeneration model is innovative internationally and has been recognised by Swiss Community-Led Housing specialists Urbamonde as an international case study.

Granby 4 Streets has embraced art as a means towards regeneration. This has seen it commission innovative designs and architecture and has encouraged creativity. This approach has led to the creation of a social enterprise and has helped engage the wider community. In addition, this has led to wider recognition, most notably by winning the 2015 Turner Prize. The Turner Prize is the UK’s most prestigious art award and is organised by the Tate Gallery. This has opened up wide media attention and has considerably boosted fundraising activities.

What is the environmental impact?

The project involves the renovation of existing buildings rather than demolition and reconstruction, making use of existing resources and maintaining original structures where possible. Granby 4 Streets has ensured that the DIY spirit from which the Community Land Trust emerged and a desire to reduce environmental impact are incorporated into their designs, e.g. the Granby Rock household appliances manufactured by Granby Workshop.

One of the first activities of the community group which predated Granby 4 Streets was community gardening. The group that continues this work, the affiliated ‘Blooming Triangle’, have renovated and created new green spaces with the local community. They continue to work with residents in maintaining the status as winners of the North West in Bloom and as finalists in Street of the Year 2015 by The Academy of Urbanism, in making Granby the greenest area in the city. Granby 4 Streets has also leased five homes to Terrace 21, an eco-cooperative, who will retrofit five homes to ‘passiv haus’ standard.

Is it financially sustainable?

Granby 4 Streets is on a path towards financial sustainability. It has a 30 year business plan which sees the organisation become fully financially sustainable by 2021. Its early work was reliant on grants for capital costs and volunteers carrying out activities to keep revenue costs to a minimum. As the Community Land Trust grows it will develop more income generating potential. Income will derive from letting houses, leasing housing to other housing associations, letting meeting-room space and, in the future, it plans to lease shop space.

Granby 4 Streets has been very successful in fundraising to support the early development and initial capital costs of the project. They have also worked with social investors to access social finance. They aim to ensure that the organisation will not be reliant on restricted income or grants and will be able to further develop using their own generated income.

What is the social impact?

Granby 4 Streets has provided a focus for community dialogue and action, in a previously disempowered and ignored community. They have created a strong sense of solidarity around housing, green spaces and community ownership. Local volunteers have been instrumental in developing the projects and have been supported to develop their own capacity in all areas of the Community Land Trust’s operation.

Residents have been given the opportunity to come together and collaborate with international artists delivering sculpture and installations. Granby Workshop, a new social enterprise making bespoke household goods on Granby Street, employs 14 young local artists/creatives, working towards delivering orders from the Turner Prize exhibition. Granby Workshop have recently showcased at the International Business Festival 2016 in Liverpool. Granby Workshop will occupy space within the planned retail units to act as the hub for local retail, social and creative enterprises bringing further economic activity.

Granby Market has continued to expand and recently moved onto the main road, Granby Street, enabling it to grow and making it more prominent and visible. Building upon previous activity they have attracted internationally recognised poets and musicians to perform and co-produce with residents an atmosphere, activities and a sense of cohesion. This contributes towards the health and wellbeing of an engaged group of residents building their own social capital. Granby 4 Streets has to date created 50 new jobs in building construction, art and community organising. This is significant in an area where unemployment remains amongst the highest in the UK, especially among young people. The refurbishment not only boosted the local economy but also offered valuable training and employment opportunities.

Barriers

Granby 4 Streets overcame a huge barrier in negotiating the transfer of ownership of houses from Liverpool City Council to the Community Land Trust. This is particularly remarkable given the historic relationship between the community and the council. Other barriers it overcame include:

  • Commissioning competent and reliable contractors.
  • Additional building works outside the scope of the project due to unforeseen problems.
  • Volunteer board members having sufficient skills to oversee the works and feel comfortable challenging contractor decisions.
  • Obtaining funding that was flexible and responsive.
  • Establishing legal covenants to ensure that the properties meet mortgage criteria and are affordable for low-income community members in perpetuity.

They overcame these challenges by recruiting a specialist to help the board including representatives of Liverpool City Council and Steve Biko Housing Association (Liverpool’s only Black and minority ethnic (BME) housing group).

Lessons Learned

  • The need to evolve throughout the project lifespan and adapt the ways in which they work.
  • To stay focused on project aims and objectives rather than adapting the scheme or ideas to fit around funders’ criteria and timescales.
  • The importance of ensuring that the Board have the right skill set to deliver the project and having a plan to meet any gaps identified.
  • There was a need to commission specialist contractors to assist where there were gaps in expertise and knowledge such as contractor law and project management.

Evaluation

There is no formal project evaluation. The various funders have required regular feedback and some have commissioned external evaluations.

Recognition

  • The Granby 4 Streets Project was awarded the Turner Prize 2015 with their architects Assemble.
  • One of the four streets: Cairns Street was a finalist in the 2015 Academy of Urbanism’s UK Street of the Year.
  • Granby 4 Streets won a European urbaMonde Community-Led Housing Award in 2016 and they have recently been named in Nesta’s 50 New Radical Organisations.
  • Granby 4 Streets has attracted national media attention including items on BBC TV news and articles in the Guardian, Independent and Daily Mail newspapers.
  • They have also been used as a case study in a number of architectural, urban planning, geography and sociology dissertations, theses and peer reviewed articles. They have also contributed to a BBC programme on the history of architecture in the UK, appeared on several media arts and cultural programmes across Europe.

Transfer

The work of Granby 4 Streets has inspired and encouraged local housing associations to acquire and renovate empty properties within Granby. Current programmes by three housing associations will see 72 houses returned to use.

Granby 4 Streets is currently working with other groups across Liverpool, e.g. Homebaked Coming Home (social enterprise for bringing empty homes into use). They share their experience of moving from activism to organisational structures. They are collating what they believe are the important methodological approaches they took at each stage to share with other working class communities in other cities

Granby 4 Streets regularly hosts visitors to share their experiences with others. For example they run workshops (60 in 2016) for planning, architectural and social science students to influence place making and creating spaces for democratic management.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

50,000 Houses for War Victims

0

50,000 Houses for War Victims

Mismatches Functional adequacy Services
Financing Demand subsidies Sustainable development financing Progressive financing Public-private collaboration
Urban Design Urban fabrics Services and infrastructure Inclusion
Promotion and production Participatory processes Self-management

Main objectives of the project

This project has provided humanitarian and financial support to help communities displaced as a result of the Sri Lankan civil war to rebuild their homes. The target is to fund and build 50,000 houses, for an estimated total of 225,000 people. The majority of the houses, 44,000 are self-build, 4,000 will be built by plantation workers, while only 1,000 are to be built by contractors.

Date

  • 2016:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
City: Ahmedabad
Country/Region: Ahmedabad, India

Description

Project Description

Following the prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka from 1983 to 2009, the Government of India took the decision to provide humanitarian and financial support to the Government and people of Sri Lanka to help them recover from the trauma of war. In total, the Government of India is supporting a number of self-help housing rehabilitation/development programmes costing over USD $240 million. Some of this funding is a grant, for example the funding for the 50,000 Houses of War Victims project, and some takes the form of long-term loan assistance.

For this project financial assistance and organisational support has been provided to help internally displaced people to construct their own homes. The target is to fund and build 50,000 houses, for an estimated total of 225,000 people. The majority of the houses, 44,000 are self-build, 4,000 will be built by plantation workers. One thousand houses were constructed by commercial contractors before the owner driven approach was introduced as a more suitable solution. The focus on self-build is designed to give people a real say in their own housing solutions.

The programme focuses on internally displaced people in dispersed, rural areas of Northern, Eastern, Central and Uva provinces of Sri Lanka. The basis of the programme is that people are enabled to return to land and property which they owned and lived in prior to the war. In effect, this means that some families are moving back to the area they left in 2009 or before. 

The houses that are developed are on average 550 ft2 in size, so relatively large compared to those often built as part of rehabilitation projects. The home owners are able to make decisions on the design, materials used, size of the house and whether they wish to add in their own savings or loans to include specific features or make the house larger.

Since the construction work started in 2012, forty-five thousand, two hundred houses of the 50,000 target have been completed. The houses are built on existing sites in villages or new sites provided by the Government of Sri Lanka.

Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the project is to deliver homes for internally displaced people in a quick and sustainable way. These people are the direct victims of the conflict: those who lost homes, property, assets, family members, livelihoods, income and social networks. The other beneficiaries are the plantation workers living in poor housing and environmental conditions for whom 4,000 houses are being constructed.

Though this project is confined to the provision of houses, it has laid a foundation for a people-sensitive and community-driven approach to development. Housing is the crucial first phase in a long-term rehabilitation process that must be eventually followed up by:

  • economic rehabilitation of the families who lost assets, jobs and means of livelihood;
  • rebuilding physical/social infrastructure and economic base of the area lost in the war;
  • rebuilding people, communities and social networks that suffered ruptured relations, shaken confidence, internal divisions and trust deficit and have seen much violence.The delivery of the phases beyond the house-building lie with the Sri Lankan government and the people of Sri Lanka but this project’s contribution is to develop a receptive climate for participative development action which supports future developments.

Context

The Sri Lankan civil war lasted 26 years and left large numbers of houses and public infrastructure damaged or destroyed. Around 160,000 houses were affected in the Northern Province alone. After such a long conflict, community life was shattered with networks and relationships broken down. The economy and governance structures were in crisis. Displaced families returning to their places of origin were housed in temporary shelters, constructed by the Sri Lankan Government, humanitarian agencies or families themselves. Families survived with minimal security and scant protection from the elements. People were living in widely dispersed sites, many in forests with poor road connectivity, no electricity or other services.

This project is working in the districts of Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mullaithivu, Vavuniya and Mannar in the North and Batticaloa and Trincomalee districts in the East, which were areas of considerable conflict during the war and the most severely affected in terms of human and material losses: houses, physical and social infrastructure, transport, industry, commerce, business establishments, jobs and livelihoods were either destroyed or severely damaged.

Key Features

The focus on self-build housing changed the complexion of the reconstruction process and has planted seeds for people-led recovery.

Adopting an owner-driven approach meant:

  • putting owners in charge of house building instead of contractors;
  • handing over funds and decision making to individual families;
  • entrusting the delivery of the programme to people who are vulnerable (internally displaced people) and who had not recently had experience of being empowered to make decisions. This meant changing ways of working, setting aside apprehensions about shattered communities and discounting arguments that the families and communities would leave houses either incomplete or spend money elsewhere or construct poor housing. The role of the organisations supporting the implementation of the project was key in this regard as they were working with the communities at a local level. Empowering people with responsibility, decision making, money management and giving them a lead role in steering their own development process has enhanced their confidence and self-worth. The impact of this culture of self-help and dignity is demonstrated in the quality of houses built, their own financial contribution in enlarging houses and in the speed of construction as well as in the confidence they display in meeting other challenges.

The potential beneficiaries applied for inclusion in the project and the severity of need was used to for selecting those who would get involved and prioritised:

  • age (priority for older people);
  • poverty (priority for the poorest);
  • number of dependents (priority for the ones with more children and dependents);
  • women-headed families;
  • physical condition of the head of the family (wounded, disabled).

Both the beneficiary selection and grievance redressal systems involved the entire community, as the approved lists were displayed in public places for everyone’s information and intervention. Debate and discussion around the list and the openness of the system to listen to every view and opinion made the process participatory and democratic.

Besides officers of the Sri Lankan Government the four partner agencies, namely UN-Habitat, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Habitat for Humanity and National Housing Development Authority provide assistance in the identification and selection of the beneficiaries. The project wanted to serve the most severely affected people in the greatest of need.

The key features of the project can be summarised as:

  • Transparent system for beneficiary selection.
  • Re-settlement in the original village or new sites provided by the Government of Sri Lanka and approved by the community.
  • Making available 15 – 20 prototype house designs to select from with required modifications for climate, local traditions and cost effectiveness.
  • A house no smaller than 550 ft2.
  • Construction on self-build basis.
  • Grant of Sri Lankan Rupees (LKR) 550,000 (USD $3,800) per house towards construction costs.
  • Payment in four installments at specific construction stages through electronic transfer.
  • Facilitation through partner agencies for logistical support and technical assistance for speedy, cost effective and good quality construction via logistical support, technical guidance on construction, assistance in material procurement, quality, time and cost monitoring and account keeping.
  • Physical infrastructure and social amenities provided by the Government of Sri Lanka.
  • An effective grievance redressal system.

What impact has it had?

The project is still being completed and therefore it is a little early to expect it to influence policy or institutional change. However, this model of facilitation by partner agencies has been presented to the Government of India as a way to improve owner participation and the quality of construction in the national housing programme for rural communities.

The project goes beyond accepting the conflict/disaster victim communities’ right to housing and rehabilitation. It provides housing and infrastructure and it provides houses that are better and bigger than the minimum size prescribed and does so in a manner that builds community capacity to meet other aspects of full recovery challenge now.

How is it funded?

The Government of India provided a grant of LKR 34.8 million (USD $240 million) for this project.

Phase I for one thousand houses constructed by contractors at a cost of LKR 1.4 million (USD $10 million).

Phase II for the construction and repair of 45,000 houses had an outlay of LKR 33.4 million (USD $240 million) to cover the following:

  • Payment of fees to the four partner agencies.
  • Payment to beneficiaries for construction of a house – Total of LKR 550,000 (USD $4,000) in four instalments, (LKR 100,000 = USD $700; LKR 200,000 = USD $1,400; LKR 200,000 = USD $1,400 and LKR 50,000 = USD $350).
  • Payment to beneficiaries for repairs to houses – Total of LKR 250,000 (USD $1, 700) in three instalments (LKR 100,000 = USD $700; LKR 125,000 = USD $900 and LKR 25,000 = USD $200).

The cost of land, physical infrastructure and social amenities is met by the Government of Sri Lanka

The houses, both repaired and newly constructed, are ownership assets of the 50,000 families and so the costs of maintenance are the responsibility of the owners. The cost of maintenance of the physical and social infrastructure is borne by the Government of Sri Lanka through its departmental or development agencies.

Why is it innovative?

Self-build construction is not new in Sri Lanka. Houses had been constructed and projects had been implemented using that principle after the 2004 tsunami. What is new and an institutional innovation is the introduction of the partner agency as part of the organisational design for implementation. The facilitation role undertaken by the likes of UN-Habitat, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Habitat for Humanity and the National Housing Development Authority is new to Sri Lanka and the support and direction provided by these organisations has been key to the acceptance of the project by target communities and to the success of the project as a whole.

Innovation within a post conflict rehabilitation context can be expressed as follows:

  • Giving in kind, i.e. facilitation support rather than cash (benefitting families directly instead of Government to Government bilateral aid).
  • Self-build on a large scale programme instead of engaging commercial contractors.
  • Transfer of decision making responsibility to thousands of families.
  • Institutional innovation: conceiving, identifying, hiring, deploying and supervising work and performance of four partner agencies as facilitators, while accepting self-help as a community tradition.
  • The principle of “Building People and Communities while Building Houses” put the emphasis on the process as much as the product.
  • A government programme entrusting decision making to communities challenges custom and practice.
  • Investing in building a development platform while delivering a conventional service.

Though a majority of the home builders have used conventional materials and techniques, some innovations have been introduced by the partner agencies. A visit was arranged to Kerala, Gujarat and Maharashtra in India for staff from partner agencies so that they could see innovative materials, projects and experiments. Fifteen engineers and supervisors participated and tried many options such as rat-trap bonds for masonry; filler slabs for roofs; twin-pit systems instead of conventional soak-pit methods for latrines and cement soil blocks in place of bricks were tried out on experimental basis.

What is the environmental impact?

The choice of materials which are locally produced and available, usable by local craftsmen, easily repairable or replaceable, low cost and requiring low maintenance has been the main philosophy of the project. Home builders have been exposed to alternative materials, construction techniques and explained economic, environmental and social benefits. However, the project has not imposed any material or technique or technology on the home builders and the choice always remains with them.

In terms of the resilience of housing to natural disasters, several factors have been incorporated:

  • The structural design and detailing of the houses makes the structures disaster resilient, especially from cyclones and earthquakes.
  • The participatory process of decision making and construction has raised people’s overall awareness of natural disasters and how to reduce impact (bracing walls against earthquakes and roof anchors to stop roofs blowing off during cyclones).
  • The training of masons has also increased awareness and preparedness.

In addition, some of the partner agencies have developed features which help improve the wider environment. UN-Habitat has raised special funds for tree planting and developed a community supported tree planting program in new settlements.

Is it financially sustainable?

In terms of overall housing need in providing 50,000 houses, this project has met a quarter of the needs of the Sri Lankan people. The additional housing required and also the subsequent phase of this programme (focused on economic development and wider infrastructure) will fall to the Government of Sri Lanka to fund.

To reduce future costs for home owners care has been taken to produce houses of:

  • adequate size therefore reducing further construction costs;
  • safe and strong construction against earthquakes and cyclones;
  • good quality workmanship, materials and specifications;
  • reasonable sized plots of land.

What is the social impact?

The ‘owner-driven’ approach of this project has greater objectives than just the reduction in cost of construction through owner’s unskilled self-help labour contribution. The participatory/consultative approach is meant to see them as ‘owners’ and ’clients’ (as opposed to recipients of grants) and gives them decision making power. It has been noted that the system of self-build and decision making has not only improved the construction of the houses but has played a significant role in restoring people’s self-worth and cultivated a sense of dignity.

Housing is the first and the key input in the long term and multi-faceted rehabilitation and recovery process for the individuals and the communities. In the area of physical rehabilitation and full scale recovery much remains to be done in terms of development of infrastructure – physical and social, for example, the restoration of livelihoods, creation of jobs and employment generation. It is in that context that the social capital built through a participatory house building process will be advantageous. Over a year long process of engagement in decision making, responsibility sharing, problem solving, conflict resolving, finance management, delivering and achieving has left a more determined, confident and responsible individual and citizen.

Barriers

Initially the programme met many barriers:

  • lack of infrastructure facilities in the project areas;
  • restricted sand and timber permits;
  • social factors like alcoholism, divorce and separation;
  • increased costs of materials;
  • periodic inclement weather conditions;
  • lack of motivation for some and time constraint for others.

These barriers have been addressed by the project partners by:

  • working with government departments and suppliers to overcome gaps in infrastructure;
  • ongoing communication with government authorities to speed up the issuing of sand and timber permits;
  • the involvement of communities to address social issues;
  • collective procurement after researching sources;
  • adjusting the time of construction to accommodate the inclement weather;
  • activities to encourage motivation within the beneficiaries.

Lessons Learned

The success of the programme has been attributed to:

  • the attention given to factors such as involvement of beneficiaries in their house construction;
  • timely release of funds to beneficiaries;
  • transparency in beneficiary selection process;
  • the use of encrypted messages for transfer instructions to banks;
  • having an organised system of file handling;
  • regular monitoring of the project;
  • flexibility in adaptation to the ground conditions.

Evaluation

The houses have only recently been occupied and the program is still under implementation so no final assessment has been undertaken. However, a range of indicators have been considered during the development of the programme:

  • level of satisfaction of the users;
  • the sense of ownership they display;
  • the investment they make in extensions/upgrading;
  • evidence of togetherness and collective community action. In addition, there have been no cost escalations and no major delays to the construction process.

Discussions have started with local universities, NGOs, international development agencies and communities to undertake feedback studies on the impact of the owner-driven, self-help approach to construction.

Recognition

This is the first time that this project has been submitted for any award. However, the model has been acknowledged by the development partners in Sri Lanka including Diplomatic/UN Missions, INGOs and the Government of Sri Lanka.

Transfer

The model has already been adopted by the Indian government-owned Housing and Urban Development Corporation’s Committee on Rejuvenation and Strengthening of Building Centres Network, which is examining ways to revitalise the network of building centres in the country in order to support large-scale construction programmes. The approach of confidence building, motivating, initiative-taking and empowering the owners has been adopted for the 4,000 plantation workers’ houses, which are yet to be built. Beneficiaries and plantation companies have endorsed the approach. These houses were originally going to be constructed by contractors.

The positive outcome of the project approach, both in the well-constructed houses and in human terms (i.e. confident, self-respecting, initiative-taking communities) suggests the replication potential, not only in post-disaster reconstruction scenarios but also in normal circumstances where the clients are disadvantaged in some way.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Reconstruction of Habitat

1

Reconstruction of Habitat

Mismatches Cultural suitability Diversity
Policies and regulations Local policies Regulation Governance
Urban Design Liveability Regulación Técnica Participatory processes
Promotion and production Materials Self-construction

Main objectives of the project

This project has helped low-income communities in areas vulnerable to natural disasters to build resilient housing that revives traditional construction techniques and combines them with modern approaches. Programmes for disaster risk reduction and self-build housing have a long history in Mexico, but don’t combine an increase in community resilience, capacity building, sustainable management of natural resources, use of local materials in construction and community development.

Date

  • 2016:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
Country/Region: Mexico, Mexico City

Description

Project Description

Since the hurricanes of September 2013, Cooperación Comunitaria has been working in the Montaña de Guerrero region in Mexico.

The Reconstruction of Habitat project was implemented first in the community of Obispo, in the Municipality of Malinaltepec, after assessing the magnitude of the problems caused by hurricanes and is designed to enable replication in other communities.

This comprehensive habitat reconstruction project has improved the living conditions and increased the resilience of the residents of Obispo by:

  • reducing the risks of disaster through the development of a landslide risk map, which has resulted in the relocation of four houses;
  • promotion of the sustainable management of natural resources through practical and theory-based workshops about reforestation to reduce landslides;
  • a community centre which was built by the community and acted as a prototype
  • a practical construction workshop for the subsequent self-build of 33 reinforced adobe houses and 31 energy-saving stoves;
  • recovery of maize crops using agro-ecological[1] techniques.

The project started in September 2013 and finished in June 2015. It has now moved on to its second stage and is being replicated in three other communities of the Montaña region. It takes a comprehensive approach by tackling the multiple dimensions of vulnerability.

[1]The application of ecology to the design and management of sustainable agro-ecosystems.

Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the project is to reduce the vulnerability of the population in the region of Montaña de Guerrero by increasing the resilience of people living at risk and through the comprehensive reconstruction of their housing and habitat.

This is met by the following objectives:

  • Reducing the risk of disasters, increasing resilience of residents through detailed risk analysis and mapping, increasing residents’ knowledge regarding their territory and the risks of disaster.
  • Reinforcing housing for protection against earthquakes and winds through the architectural, structural and materials analysis of traditional adobe housing, and improving their suitability as living spaces by optimising temperature, acoustics and lighting.
  • Recovering the community’s traditional knowledge of their territory, reinforced construction techniques with adobe and sustainable management of natural resources, respecting social and cultural norms in the region, preserving traditional productive spaces.
  • Improving knowledge of agro-ecology techniques in order to limit the use of agro-chemicals, reduce plot rotation, avoid soil degradation, deforestation and therefore reduce the risk of landslides.
  • Strengthening the organisational and decision-making capacity of the community. Strengthening solidarity among residents and recovering traditional systems for community work, such as “mano vuelta” (reciprocal community work).
  • Improving the health of residents, reducing deforestation and the associated risk of landslides through the self-build of energy-saving stoves, which reduce the presence of smoke in the kitchen and the prevalence of lung and eye disease.
  • Strengthening the community’s autonomy by using natural construction materials and reinforcing food self-sufficiency.

The region of Montaña de Guerrero is home to 85% of the indigenous population of the State of Mexico. This project:

  • Directly benefitted 92 Me’phaa or Tlapanecos families whose housing and crops were affected by earthquakes, winds, heavy rain and landslides with: the construction (by the community itself) of a community centre/children’s library, and 33 houses with 31 energy-saving stoves.
  • Indirectly benefitted 275 families with capacity-building workshops on the above mentioned skills (e.g. self-construction with reinforced adobe), as well as community development workshops and risk diagnosis.

Context

Eighty-one per cent of residents in the municipality of Malinaltepec live in poverty. They are in the most seismically active region of the country and in an area where winds can reach up to 120 km/h. Local people are highly vulnerable to and affected by these factors, as well as hurricanes and landslides with 70+% of residents reporting damage to their houses.

In September 2013, Hurricanes Manuel and Ingrid hit western Mexico, causing 200 deaths and affecting 230,000 people. In the region of Montaña del Guerrero, these phenomena caused numerous landslides, affected communication channels and infrastructure, led to the loss of crops and irreparable damage to over 5,000 adobe houses.

In addition to these conditions, migration has also been a factor in the loss of traditional knowledge, both in construction techniques and in the management of natural resources such as forests, which in turn has increased the vulnerability of residents. This loss of knowledge has led to gaps in the application of adobe construction techniques such as: lack of stone foundations and skirting boards in 86% of cases which causes dampness and deterioration of the walls; lack of an internal structure which debilitates the structure as a whole and weakens the corners; and inadequate anchorage from the roof to the walls which affects the resistance to strong winds, causing the roof to blow off.

Residents tend to attribute these damages to traditional use of adobe, when in reality they are due to technical omissions.

Key Features

Women from the community asked Cooperación Comunitaria to help with the reconstruction of their houses which were affected by hurricanes and so the organisation carried out a diagnosis of damage and the causes. When seeing the size of the problem caused by landslides, high deforestation and the impact on crops and houses, Cooperación Comunitaria brought together an inter-disciplinary team: a geologist, biologists, forestry and agricultural engineers in order to carry out an analysis of the risks and combine that information with the traditional knowledge of the community and a geological study of the territory.

The team of architects, an engineer and the community committed to working together to develop and implement a comprehensive project. Risks maps were developed and workshops were carried out to improve the skills and knowledge within the community, to identify how to relocate certain houses and areas for growing crops and to build new houses as well as improve residents’ resilience to future natural events.

The selection criteria for the beneficiaries were: permanent residence in the community, having suffered considerable damage to housing and crops, availability to participate in the community process and willingness to provide labour. Residents from affected neighbouring communities also participated in self-build workshops on using reinforced adobe. Decision making took place at community assemblies at which objectives were defined, internal systems and a project calendar created and committees set up to coordinate construction. Participants had control over each stage of the project. Their active participation in the workshops, which were delivered using participatory techniques, helped with the knowledge exchange between the community and Cooperación Comunitaria, and new techniques were incorporated through learning by doing. Community development officers were trained to supervise and monitor construction and they will act as the technical advisers in the next communities to be included in the programme.

A broad range of stakeholders took part in the workshops:

  • Community authorities: in calling for assemblies and workshops; (Community authorities are a moral and legal entity in the indigenous law system. They have religious and political power in the communities and are recognised by the Mexican government and can sometimes act as representatives of the law).
  • Local authority: providing communication about the activities and the reinforced adobe construction workshops to wider audiences and to other communities; (The local authority endorsed one of the workshops and brought together the community representatives from across all the municipal area).
  • Community Goods Commission: involved in the sale of stone for foundations; (as there are no providers of materials within the involved communities, these materials were instead sourced from the ‘Office of Communal Goods’, which administers the natural resources of the municipality. This meant lower costs and benefits to the local economy).
  • Metropolitan Autonomous University: undertaking tests on the community adobe bricks and land resistance.
  • Guerrero Autonomous University: Diagnosis and landslide risk maps.
  • Cosechando Natural (Natural Farming): advisor on agro-ecology techniques.

SAI Group: structural calculations and resistance simulation in housing for the development of a housing model with reinforced adobe.

What impact has it had?

Cooperación Comunitaria supports the needs of people from rural areas in order to exercise their right to housing. Currently, government bodies are reluctant to use local building materials, classifying these as precarious in the official regulation. Faced with this, the project aims to reclaim the benefits of these materials, proving that they are resistant, adapted to the local climate and culture, less expensive, less polluting and supportive of a better quality of life.

Cooperación Comunitaria is a member of the Mexican Social Production of Housing Network which seeks agreements with national institutions for improved housing. This network participates in the National Habitat Commission, seeking changes in the legislation to increase attention on the qualitative aspect of housing as currently these are purely focused on quantitative aspects.

How is it funded?

After the hurricanes, Cooperación Comunitaria coordinated a fundraising programme in Mexico City in collaboration with individuals and civil society partners. It was this emergency humanitarian fund which covered the initial costs and the initial participatory analysis work be completed. Subsequently, funding was secured from the Merced Foundation for disaster-risk reduction, recovery of maize fields, reforestation and capacity building activities.

The Mexican Federal Government, through the Social Development Institute, provided resources for the construction of the community centre/children’s library. The ‘Sharing with Guerrero’ Fund supported the self-build of 33 reinforced adobe houses and 31 energy-saving stoves.

There were MXN (Mexican Pesos) 2. 5 million (USD $140,000) received for materials, administrative costs, transport, training and learning materials. Cooperación Comunitaria provided another MXN 105,000 (USD $6,000) through donations and contributions from partners, and the support of national and foreign foundations (Misereor, Misión Central, Fundación Sertull y Fundación ADO) for the second phase of the project in three communities.

The community provided labour, produced adobe bricks and pajarcilla (a mixture of clay, water and hay or dry grass) to insulate the roofs, and food and accommodation for Cooperación Comunitaria’s field team. The community contributes both materials and a monetary contribution of MXN 1,000 (USD $55) to a communal loan facility. These savings enable people who cannot provide adobe bricks to access a loan of MXN 3,000 (USD $165) which is used for building materials and which is repayable in one year.

The total cost of a house (materials, labour, eco-technologies) is MXN 117,000 (USD $6,500); or MXN 140,000 (USD $7,700) if you include the costs of the activities (mapping, diagnostic, etc.). Cooperación Comunitaria is registered as a Contractor so is able to obtain government housing subsidies, which represent 58% of the costs (MXN 64,500 = USD $3,500), and the rest is covered by the beneficiaries’ contributions (MXN 1,000 = USD $55) and materials, plus contributions from donors for toilets and stoves.

Why is it innovative?

The main innovation is the methodology for comprehensive community work which reduces vulnerability and improves living conditions. Programmes for disaster-risk reduction and self-build housing have a long history in Mexico, but none of them combine an increase in community resilience, capacity building, sustainable management of natural resources, use of local materials in construction, community development and an economy based on solidarity. The combination of traditional indigenous knowledge as a risk reduction factor and new adaptations to well-established building techniques is another innovation. The participatory comprehensive methodology implemented by Cooperación Comunitaria through an interdisciplinary team ensures the appropriateness of the programme’s objectives and activities in relation to the needs of the communities. The project takes into consideration the community’s cultural, economic, environmental and climatic conditions. It puts forward traditional techniques and proven technology, which are adapted to local conditions, thus guaranteeing their acceptance. Participation in the project helps incorporate the effective use of solutions developed by the community themselves.

This type of innovation can, for example, be seen in the adaptation of traditional housing models. Some elements no longer in use have been integrated into the widespread adobe model such as:

  • stone foundations and stem walls, with added reinforcement from adobe buttresses;
  • concrete frames with fixings for the roof’s wooden frame;
  • larger quantity of nails calculated according to the wind speed and the suction force applied to the roof;
  • improvements in the size of adobe bricks;
  • reductions in joints and horizontal elements for each three courses to improve seismic resistance;
  • pajarcilla for insulation;
  • earth floors to improve temperature control
  • lime-based white paint;
  • translucent panes to improve lighting.

What is the environmental impact?

The increase in knowledge of construction techniques using local materials and eco-technologies, reforestation and landslide risk analysis all contribute to greater awareness of and consideration for natural resources as well as increased community resilience.

Cooperación Comunitaria favours the measured use of local materials in construction, such as adobe, local wood and the organic insulation of roofs using pajarcilla. This avoids the need to transport concrete blocks and steel structures to the communities from the city of Tlapa de Comonfort, reducing CO2 emissions by 22% and preventing the emission of 482 kg of CO2 per house, which translates into a total saving of 16 tonnes for 33 houses. It is worth noting that by using local wood for roof structures, arches, doors and windows, the users of the housing projects expressly commit to planting 10 trees for each house constructed, promoting preservation of resources for future generations. The project includes self-build dry toilets (composting toilets) in each house, which prevents pollution and excessive water use, whilst at the same time protects and increases the quality of arable soil by avoiding the contamination caused by untreated human waste.

The resistance of the houses was measured through seismic and material resistance tests and increased using new elements such as buttresses, reinforced roofs and stone foundations. The main cause of landslides is deforestation. The use of agrochemicals depletes arable land, thus contributing to degradation of forests. The implementation of agro-ecological techniques reduces the contamination of soil and underground water through the reduction of agrochemical use. The increased skills in sustainable forest management, use of energy saving stoves and reductions in crop rotation through agro-ecology has reduced deforestation and the risks of landslides.

The use of open fires generates significant wood consumption, causing progressive clearance of the environment. According to the National Commission for Protected Natural Areas, a rural family cooking on open fires can consume up to 32 mid-sized trees each year. By using self-built energy-saving stoves, 40% of deforestation related to wood consumption has been reduced, preventing the emission of 200 tonnes of CO2 and the cutting of 775 trees each year, promoting the reduction of greenhouse gases. In addition, this comprehensive project includes community workshops on reforestation and awareness-raising.

Is it financially sustainable?

A comprehensive project, Reconstruction of Habitat does not depend on a single funding source. In 2016, it has not only managed to fundraise from a number of foundations but has also established alliances with two other organisations interested in the programme’s social aim: a German international cooperation agency, Misereor; and a Mexican foundation, Fundación Compartir. These alliances have enabled the continuation of the regional expansion of the project and mid- and long-term planning. Other foundations have offered their collaboration or have expressed their willingness to participate in the future under the same scheme, due to the achievements and impact achieved in the short-term. These include Fundación ADO providing funding of MXN 500,000 (USD $25,000) and Fundación Sertull, providing funding of MXN 360,000 (USD $20,000).

The programme requires beneficiaries to have previous savings and access to credit. However, Cooperación Comunitaria thinks that for the most vulnerable people, getting credit without savings puts them in an impossible situation. For this reason, following the operational regulations of CONAVI (National Housing Commission), people can contribute in-kind savings through the provision of adobe bricks, covering 5% of the construction costs. Families receive the support of Cooperación Comunitaria with in-kind savings, their contribution of manual labour and receive personal advice on how to manage their micro-credit. Habitat for Humanity, the authorised Contractor Body by CONAVI and project partner, serves as the financial actor in charge of verifying the savings contribution and providing micro-loans.

Cooperación Comunitaria is developing a system of savings and loans through community funds, which are administrated by the participants themselves. In this way, each family saves from the beginning of the project and when the time comes to contribute to the house, they have capital to act as collateral for the micro-credit. Cooperación Comunitaria has already implemented this model in Veracruz state in a separate programme and it worked well, although implementation takes time.

The use of local materials reduces costs and promotes self-sufficiency, reducing dependency on industrial materials.

A productive space for coffee processing in the house is planned for the second stage, as this is the residents’ main activity. A space will be allocated with a modular roof with mesh for coffee drying, whilst other productive activities can take place underneath the living spaces.

What is the social impact?

Participants were involved in communal work focused on collective collaboration to achieve common goals. Better communication, willingness and cooperation among residents was evident in construction, reforestation and their work on risk analysis, as well as in the commitment of each resident as part of a strengthened community. Likewise, the project organisers have noticed an increase in empathy among members, which has reduced problems and misunderstandings. Also, a greater sense of responsibility in decision-making through the organisation of the project activities was evident, as well as the development of working teams in construction and agricultural activities and when the community reached legal agreements via discussions in assemblies. An example of this is the increased participation of members in assemblies. At the beginning, only leaders would participate, but latterly members engaged in discussions, and Cooperacion Comunitaria became witness to a process driven by the communities – whose members engage in debates about fairness in beneficiary selection, community work, etc.

Working together also increases the organisational and decision-making capabilities of members of the community in the long term. In this way, it facilitates the independent design and development of future projects. The people who participated in the project have shown their ability to judge short-term programmes and their lack of sustainability; they are able to work independently and have a reduced dependency on handouts.

The area has many government programmes that are based on people receiving a monthly monetary sum, with the only requirement being that they attend meetings or events. This is seen as a way of receiving income but does not help people to become self-sufficient. On the contrary, they are dependent on this handout that can stop at any point. The government also runs programmes providing fertilisers and agrochemicals to farmers in the area without them knowing how to use them properly. This project, instead, is looking to promote independence and self-sufficiency, with people being able to produce their own housing and food. Participants increased their construction skills to produce reinforced adobe houses and energy-saving stoves. They have also gained knowledge of the causes of risks in their local area, their role in these events and the importance of the measured use of resources.

People who participated in the project are safer as their houses are resistant to the elements; significantly reducing their vulnerability towards landslides and natural phenomena such as hurricanes, strong winds and earthquakes. In this way, there is increased resilience towards the effects of climate change. The residents have the tools to identify risks in the long term. All community members have access to the risk map, which they can consult when necessary. A year after completion, the houses faced strong storms without any damage. The housing design respects the social and cultural norms of the region and preserves traditional productive spaces (for example for coffee production), and the project reduces the loss of traditional knowledge in construction techniques and resolves the technical issues that lead to damage such as cracks and humidity in walls. Self-build construction of new housing has helped to solve overcrowding situations through the building of new homes for young families. The project has an impact on living and health conditions: natural lighting was improved and thermal and acoustic insulation increased with mud tile floors and pajarcilla insulation in the roof; and the energy saving stoves help reduce the amount of smoke produced, helping to avoid respiratory problems as well.

Barriers

The main barrier faced was the effect of the federal government aid programmes, making people familiar with receiving resources without doing any work. Because of this, the organisation of the project, communication and participation were a challenge at the beginning. This was resolved through assemblies, talks and community development workshops where dialogue, decision-making and participation were promoted and facilitated.

Another obstacle was that prior to the construction of the housing, a road was widened through the whole community, which involved works that complicated construction logistics and made the attendance of some stakeholders at the assemblies difficult. Logistical arrangements were adjusted, the wood from felled trees was put to use once the road was open and the construction concluded before the rains as planned.

Lessons Learned

The main learning point for the project was being able to adjust the finance and work schedule in line with the activities of community members, taking into account agriculture cycles and cultural celebrations within the community. This helped Cooperacion Comunitaria better understand the community’s pace and way of working.

Another important point was knowing more about their culture, rituals, medicines and traditions, which helped them to adjust the project for the next communities in the same local authority area, with whom they are currently working.

Whilst finishing the Community Centre some modifications were made following residents’ comments, which allowed some structural modifications to be made with the engineer in order to facilitate the construction process. The programme is continuing to improve the techniques of lime-paint, floors, the ways of using pajarcilla for insulation, etc.

Evaluation

The impact of the project has been assessed by obtaining baseline indicators, through a community audit. The results were compared with those obtained at the intermediary and final phases of the project. Qualitative indicators were assessed with techniques such as ethnographic analysis and a community biography in the initial stage, which provided data on appropriate living spaces, cultural use of spaces and adaptability. Surveys and technical diagnoses were carried out, measuring damage, risks and gaps, which provided baseline indicators. Four follow-up visits have been carried out following the end of the project in 2015.

Recognition

  • 2015 Razón de Ser (Raison d’être) Award, Sustainable Habitat category, presented by Merced Foundation and Kaluz Foundation.
  • Semi-finalists for the 2016 Fuller Challenge, Buckminster Fuller Institute.
  • Representative in the Mexico pavilion, 2016 Venice Architectural Biennale.
  • Enlace Ciudadano (Citizen Link) programme in CDMX radio, presentation on projects and perspectives, July 2015.
  • Project presentation in Ciudadana (Citizen) Radio, November 2015.
  • Participation in HIC-AL publication “Transformative Experiences in Social Production of Habitat”.
  • “Obispo residents: traditional knowledge incorporated to strengthen their resilience” Article published by UNISDR.
  • Visitors have included HIC-AL/Franciscan Central Mission (Germany); MISEREOR (Germany); ADO Foundation (Mexico) and National Housing Commission – CONAVI (Mexico).

Transfer

This project is currently being replicated in three communities in the same local authority area (San Miguel, Laguna Seca and Moyotepec). Since October 2015, they have completed a socio-economic audit, risk analysis and mapping, as well as building a traditional medicine centre (which served as a practical example for the construction workshop).

Community workshops on risk reduction, community development and capacity building in construction of reinforced adobe housing have taken place. They will build 81 energy-saving stoves, 60 dry toilets and 110 reinforced houses, as well as three community garden centres with native species for reforestation. Capacity building activities will be carried out on resource management, cooperative development, self-build and eco-technology maintenance and six community development officers will be trained. In order to replicate the project, Cooperacion Comunitaria have acquired the certification needed to be able to transfer a federal subsidy from the National Housing Commission (CONAVI) to the residents, applying the constitutional right to housing for any Mexican citizen.

Through partnerships and presentations, 17 communities have come forward to ask to be involved in the development of similar projects, which are currently being considered. One of Cooperación Comunitaria’s programmes is focused on research into adapting living spaces to their context. In the case of Montaña de Guerrero, the project has already been implemented and tested and for this reason they plan to work with the same approach in the same region, in communities keen to work with them.

The methodology developed by Cooperación Comunitaria was designed to adapt to different geological, climatic, social and cultural contexts. Participation of the residents ensures the relevance of the activities in relation to the needs of each place, through the stages of needs analysis, architectural analysis of traditional housing, diagnostic and prevention of disaster risks, participatory housing design, capacity building, adapted housing and sustainable management of public resources. In that sense, the project is fully transferable to marginalised rural areas in Mexico and other countries that are exposed to disaster risks, even if the solutions developed are unique to each community.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Intercultural Neighbourhood

0

Intercultural Neighbourhood

Mismatches Vulnerable groups New family structures
Policies and regulations Local policies Building capacity
Promotion and production Progressive housing

Main objectives of the project

Over 11,000 buildings on the Chilean coast were destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami in 2010. The challenge of reconstructing people’s houses and livelihoods in situ involved the design of social housing adapted to local needs and resilient to extreme natural events. A total of 180 ‘stilt houses’ were built with input from the communities in five villages where people make their living from the sea.

Date

  • 2016:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: Neuquén
Country/Region: Argentina, Neuquén

Description

The 2010 earthquake and tsunami destroyed 11,400 buildings on the Chilean coast – shattering people’s houses and livelihoods. For these families, the government’s reconstruction programme could have seen them resettling in a safer place away from the sea but this would have meant not only losing their homes but their livelihoods and community identity.

The challenge of reconstructing these houses and livelihoods – so deeply linked to the sea – involved the design of social housing adapted to local needs and resilient to extreme natural events.

This resilient social housing has helped to preserve the culture and identity of coastal communities and has supported people’s livelihoods. A total of 180 ‘stilt houses’ were built in five fishing villages for local families who make their living from fishing or by collecting algae.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the project was to develop a new model of resilient social housing to help rebuild fishing communities. This project’s objectives were:

  1. To rebuild communities of families that depend on the sea for their livelihoods by recognising and respecting their needs and wishes as well as architectural traditions.
  2. To help fishermen and algae collectors  to recover their livelihoods, which are so deeply connected to the coast.
  3. To design high quality, resilient housing which is able to minimise risks from future natural occurrences, such as tsunamis or tidal waves and which is simpler and quicker to rebuild or repair if affected by a future natural disaster.
  4. To support the development of the coastal culture, which is a national tradition.

Context

The Chilean coast is characterised by towns and villages where fishing and collecting algae are not only the main sources of income but also inherently linked to a sense of culture and identity. But the coast also represents significant threats. The Chilean coast is one of the most geologically active places on earth. Several earthquakes occur every year, occasionally and without warning there are big earthquakes and associated tsunamis. Such an event occurred in 2010. On that occasion, people from across the region of Bío Bío lost their homes and all their belongings. Future natural disasters are all but certain, exposing these communities to continuous threats. The threat is worsened by the type of housing typical of the area: mostly self-built, with few people complying with building regulations and standards. The families do not want to move from the source of their livelihoods, thus creating a situation of vulnerability. The design of the new housing aims to increase the resilience of these communities, allowing them to remain on the coast whilst ensuring their safety.

Key Features

An innovative design for resilient social housing that respects the wishes and coastal identity of the communities to stay in the same place, and allows them to recover their livelihoods. The new houses are architecturally and structurally designed to offer extra safety to the families and enable quick repairs if they are affected by future tsunamis or rough seas.

After the disaster, the affected communities became key players in decisions about what should happen next. There was close collaboration between them and housing professionals in the early technical assessments stage. Focus groups with neighbourhood leaders identified the most relevant and sensitive topics which needed to be considered for the reconstruction of the coastal villages. Then each family was consulted and asked whether they wanted to stay in the same place or be relocated somewhere safer. The ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of each option were discussed at community workshops. Lots of families wanted to stay on the coast as their livelihood depended on fishing. The communities that decided to remain became part of the Resilient Social Housing programme.

Community workshops were carried out with these families where they discussed and agreed which aspects of the physical appearance and functionality of the new houses were important to them. After this, the design proposal was finalised in assemblies or workshops in each locality. The programme focused on several related activities:

  • Identity and architecture: looking at how traditional materials and elements of architecture could be integrated into the design and architectural style of the houses.
  • Economic activities: supporting fishermen and algae collectors to acquire equipment and boats; support for small and medium sized enterprises to establish commercial activities and a wider programme of training.
  • Cultural activities: the development of various programmes including an annual festival ‘Viva Dichato’.

The involvement and collaboration of different actors and institutions was essential in each locality including:

  • local families and residents;
  • the technical and political authorities of each municipality;
  • the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (providing funds and resources);
  • the Universities (carrying out the risk assessments);
  • the Housing and Urban Development Service (ensuring the technical standard of the buildings);
  • different construction companies (carrying out the works);
  • the Coastal Border Reconstruction Plan team from the Regional Government of Bío Bío (in charge of project coordination).

What impact has it had?

The project demonstrates that public housing policies can and should respect local identities and ensure they are a joint development with the community. This project has placed the concept of resilience at the heart of Chilean reconstruction policy in a country which, because of its geographical location, is so prone to natural disasters. Public policy focused on the needs of the community whilst recognising the value and right to stay in the place where people live. This has facilitated the recovery not only of the housing, but of the coastal communities themselves, their culture, identity and dignity.

How is it funded?

The costs of Resilient Social Housing were covered by the Post-Earthquake and Tsunami Reconstruction Programme in 2010 run by the Chilean government’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The cost of each Resilient Social House was up to USD $25,000. The residents had already been identified as in need of social housing and so they were able to benefit from new homes, free of cost, without obtaining loans and getting into debt. Annual maintenance costs are covered by each household, which they have been able to achieve by re-establishing their coastal livelihoods.

Why is it innovative?

Although the country is characterised by its geographical location, the design of this type of housing, which is resilient to tsunamis or coastal storms, is new and provides opportunities for communities affected by global climate change. Resilient Social Housing was a pioneering social housing programme in Chile, as its features were designed and adapted to the requirements of the community and the coastal geography.

The design of other social housing programmes in Chile is neither the result of a participatory process with the community nor designed with potential coastal floods in mind, with their standard for structural calculation not conceived for use in coastal areas. Some of the unique features include:

  1. The houses are earthquake-resistant stilt houses, responding to a structural calculation model that considers the particular challenges of a flood-prone area.
  2. The ground floor is flood-able to take account of tsunamis and can otherwise be used as a work or storage area.
  3. The living space (bedroom, kitchen and bathroom) is higher and at a safer level which makes it much easier to make the house habitable again after a tsunami or high seas.
  4. The design of the houses acknowledges the local, architectural tradition expressed by the communities during the design process.
  5. The structural design allows for faster reconstruction in the event of potential extreme natural disasters.

What is the environmental impact?

The project focuses on sustainability in terms of the conservation and adaptation of housing in a coastal environment with high levels of risk:

  1. The stilt houses are an adaptation to local conditions and have a low impact on the local environment and topography.
  2. This type of construction deals with the risks inherent in being on the coast. The structure protects the heart of the house at a safe height by using a platform of pillars and slabs calculated to provide better performance in future floods.
  3. The houses are resilient as their design provides better performance in natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, and faster recovery (reconstruction). The new social houses will always be at risk from natural events but their structure will provide more resilience.

The houses are specified according to earthquake resistant design; reinforced concrete and high resistance steel make up the stilt platform and a wood structure is used over this platform (wood being the traditional construction material in the local area). The Resilient Social Housing complies with the General Urban Development and Construction Decree which defines Chile’s thermal regulation standard. Likewise, it complies with the requirements to be connected to the electricity grid as well as waste and drinking water networks.

Is it financially sustainable?

Being a social housing programme set up after the earthquake and tsunami of 2010, funds were only allocated for the reconstruction period. It is assumed that the new residents will take care of their new homes and provide for their maintenance and conservation in the same way as all beneficiaries of social housing in Chile. The Resilient Social Housing has allowed families to remain in the same places they lived in before the disaster and this has contributed to enable them to access their existing sources of income, has supported the local economies and also their community support network. This factor has been key to the economic and social resilience of these communities.

What is the social impact?

The consequences of the disaster caused by the earthquake and tsunami were not only felt by the loss of material goods, including housing, but also the risks from loss of jobs and incomes and the breakdown of communities and social cohesion. The destruction of the built environment causes the loss of access to services, weakening of family bonds and neighbourhood support networks as well as affecting other aspects of the daily lives of the families.

There are a number of social aspects of this project:

  1. The collaborative, joint work with the affected families allowed the opinions and wishes of the people affected to be better reflected in the solution to their problem. This joint process with the community enabled further empowerment of the community and the development of bonds which increased social capital.
  2. The flexible approach the reconstruction project took to finding housing solutions that are different to traditional ones and which are able to adapt to the needs of the coastal area (economic, cultural etc.) was key to designing the new housing. This has helped with the recovery of the housing and at the same time has supported the social fabric of communities by promoting their unique culture and identity.
  3. The resilience of the new social housing will help improve the social resilience of the families when they face future natural disasters.
  4. The project allowed communities to remain in the same place they had lived in for decades and so avoided a relocation process.
  5. The quality of the housing also has an impact on the health of the residents, who have benefited from improved living conditions and safer houses.

Whilst the project focused on the affected families – mainly fishermen and algae collectors – there was also a very significant impact on the whole community of the area, who were able to regain their rich coastal life and livelihoods. The wider community had been greatly affected by the tsunami and not only those who had lost their homes. Neighbours and relatives had provided housing and support to others, livelihoods had been affected where people depended on their neighbour’s work and family networks had been put under strain or had broken down. This programme helped re-establish these links – between families, within the community and in connection with employment. This wouldn’t have happened if the affected families had been relocated to other areas.

Barriers

Institutional issues:

  • The institutions involved were traditionally conservative in their approach and not natural innovators. This made the development of this model more difficult. In order to solve this constraint they strengthened the project teams by adding in the time and skills needed to help influence key people.

Political issues:

  • The priority of many local politicians was a speedy response to the housing needs caused by the tsunami. This made the comprehensive nature of the project more difficult to implement. This challenge was overcome by putting more time into communicating the benefits of the wider approach of the project.

Social issues:

  • The affected communities had to wait for the construction of the Resilient Social Housing whilst living temporarily in emergency camps which had limited facilities.

Technical issues:

  • Chile’s building regulations did not have a standard structural calculation for buildings that were at risk from both earthquakes and tsunami flooding. Because of this, the project had to carry out its own research and develop new approaches. This work has now been incorporated into the building regulations.

Economic issues:

  • The Resilient Social Housing costs were higher than those of social housing built under regular programmes. This meant that additional funds had to be found for these houses, which was justified by the long-term social benefits.

Lessons Learned

  1. The community should be part of the solution to the problem from the start and should be involved at each stage and kept well informed with a constant flow of communication.
  2. Managing the expectations of the community is key, particularly regarding the anticipated results as these can affect the performance of the process and in the end damage the perception of results. The timescales should be very clear and over-optimism regarding the speed of delivery should be avoided.
  3. Uncertainty or lack of information can become a real enemy and prevent genuine ownership by the community.
  4. A project is a lot more than one good idea. It is the result of individuals and organisations working collaboratively in a persistent and systematic way to create a community of thought.

Evaluation

The Resilient Social Housing project was completed in 2014 and no systematic evaluation studies have been conducted to date. However, several university dissertations focusing on the perception of the community have shown significant levels of satisfaction amongst residents in relation to the Resilient Social Housing[1].

[1] Masters Dissertation: “Planning strategies for the urban-social vulnerabilities in the resilient reconstruction process in the coastal locality of Dichato, VIII Region” Carolina Arriagada, Universidad de Chile, 2015.

Masters Dissertation: “Conflict and Dispute for an Alternative Construction of the Territory” Camilo Riffo, Pontificia Universidad de Católica, 2014.

Learning From 27F, A Comparative Assessment Of Urban Reconstruction Processes After The 2010 Earthquake In Chile. Columbia – Chile Fund, Global Center Santiago y CONICYT. Directed by Latin Lab, GSAPP Columbia University y Santiago Research Cell. 2015.

Recognition

  • Urban reconstruction post 27F PDF – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Chile, 2014.
  • Urban resilience: learning how to live with the threats of nature: the experience of the earthquake and tsunami of 2010 in the Bío Bío coast. Margenes Magazine, University of Valparaiso, Chile, 2015.
  • A new view from the Coastal Border. Theory and Practice from Urban Design Book, p. 113-122, Chile, 2014.
  • Dichato – from crisis to reconstruction. A model of risk management and resilience, Urbano Magazine, N°27, Chile, 2013.
  • Urban resilience: the challenges of reconstructing the coastal area, Urban Space, Reconstruction and Territorial Re-Setting Book, p.199-2012, Chile, 2013.
  • Urban Resilience: the Experience of Urban Reconstruction in the Coastal Area in the Bío Bío Region, Chile. Special Edition of the Escala Magazine, Bogota, Colombia, 2013.
  • Reconstruction Plan for the Coastal Area – Bío Bío Region. CA Magazine, Nº 145, p. 62 – 68, Chile, 2011.
  • Urban resilience: the challenges of reconstructing the coastal area, book: The City, a Social Anthropogenic Construct, pages 417-432, Mexico, 2015.

The project has been visited by various government delegations, academic, and researchers from national and foreign universities.

Transfer

The Resilient Social Housing project and the concepts associated with the reconstruction of the coastal area are now incorporated into the public policies of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development of the Government of Chile. These are now being implemented in other coastal localities affected by natural disasters, such as Coquimbo city (in the north of Chile), after the earthquake and tsunami of 2015.

This experience has been an “experimental laboratory” and has presented in congresses, seminars and at national and international meetings, the most recent in Ecuador following an invitation from the government of that country to present the Chilean experience and contribute to the reconstruction process after the earthquake in Manabí province[1].

The resilience of coastal communities is a local and global issue, particularly within the context of rapid urbanisation around the world and climate change. We need greater cooperation between donors to help encourage discussions and solutions. International organisations can make a big difference by disseminating information, supporting the transfer and exchange of experiences, and by targeting the creation of communities and networks of new knowledge.

[1] http://noticias.ubiobio.cl/2016/06/01/academicos-de-la-ubb-asesoran-evaluacion-tecnica-y-reconstruccion-post-terremoto-en-ecuador/

http://www.ing.udec.cl/node/276

http://learnchile.cl/academicos-de-la-universidad-del-bio-bio-asesoran-evaluacion-tecnica-y-construccion-post-terremoto-en-ecuador/

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

More than Housing

0

More than Housing

Mismatches New family structures
Policies and regulations National policies
Promotion and production Self-management Progressive housing Management and maintenance
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2016:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Zurich
Country/Region: Switzerland, Zurich

Description

Project Description

‘More than Housing’ is a large housing cooperative development that seeks to anticipate the future needs of its community and design buildings and ways of living that meet them.

The building is designed to use as little energy as possible but it also promotes sustainable lifestyles with low car use and low heating demands. This helps residents work towards the 2000 Watt society model that the City of Zurich has adopted.

The 2000 Watt society is an environmental vision originally promoted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. It seeks a reduction of individual energy use to a level that would be supported by the continuous running of a 2,000 watt generator. Average energy use is currently about 5,000 watts per person in Switzerland. The City of Zurich has signed up to a target that would see its citizens meet the 2,000 watt level by 2050.

The development is built with the changing make up of households in mind. It is designed to provide homes for households of all types including older people, single person households and traditional nuclear families. The development has apartments of different sizes and incorporates common spaces and rooms that are designed to be relevant for different demographics and family types.

Thirteen buildings with nearly 400 housing units, 35 retail units and large shared community spaces were completed between autumn 2014 and summer 2015. The project was completed at the end of 2015 with all housing units and 90% of retail spaces rented out. In 2016, 1,200 residents and 150 employees live and work in the buildings within the project.

Aims and Objectives

Cooperatives in Switzerland aim to operate according to the principle of “helping people to help themselves”. The ‘More than Housing’ development was based on this tradition. Other objectives included creating a community that embraced households and families of all types. The ethos is a community open to all, especially those in need of affordable housing and affordable working space. It also sought to promote an ethos of initiative-taking and self-organisation in basic democratic structures and to put into practice the vision of a 2000 Watt society.

Context

The Swiss population is aging fast. Switzerland has one of the highest life expectancies and one of the lowest birth rates in the world. This has led to an increasing population of elderly people many of whom are single. As a result, the make-up of Swiss households is changing, with more single person households and more older people. Zurich has a large cooperative housing sector. More than 25% of all homes in the city are not-for-profit. The majority of which are owned by housing cooperatives. But for many years during the late twentieth century the construction rate in the city was extremely low. The situation caused market priced housing to soar in value and many people were priced out of the city.

In 2011, there was a local referendum in which the city voted to increase the proportion of not-for-profit housing to 33% by 2050. In order to achieve this, the local authority released a number of sites for the development of low cost housing. The area of Hunziker Areal, where ‘More than Housing’ is based, was one of the sites released. It was a large four hectare site on the northern edge of the city. The land was waste ground next to a recycling plant. It was generally considered to be an unfashionable district of the city. The nature, location and size of the site made development high risk. No single cooperative was able or willing to develop the site by itself. However, a consortium of 30+ cooperatives came together to form ‘More than Housing’.

Key Features

Participation is at the core of everything that ‘More than Housing’ does. A ‘dialogue process’ was introduced at the beginning of the design of the building and continued through development and into the operation and management of the completed buildings. The design, for example, was decided through an architectural competition, which resulted in focus groups where not only the jury and the winning teams participated but also future residents, neighbours, the founding cooperatives and local authority representatives.

Up until the construction began in 2012, the feedback and visions of the participating parties were taken into account. Specific open spaces and parts of the surrounding area where deliberately left unfinished when people moved in, so they could be adjusted when residents were in a better position to see how they wanted the spaces to be used. All tenants are invited to play an active role in shaping the neighbourhood. Ten non-commercial common spaces are available for them at no cost. Additionally, an annual budget of approximately CHF 80,00 (USD $83,000) from the solidarity fund is at the tenants’ disposal for community initiatives, such as farming and communal gardens, establishing a grocery shop, café, swap shops, dancing and yoga classes. This fund is raised by contributions from residents.

Currently, over 40 groups are registered with and supported by ‘More than Housing’. In addition, close relationships and joint initiatives with the nearby school and other social networks in the north of Zurich such as a youth work project have been established.

What impact has it had?

‘More than Housing’ was itself conceived as an innovation. This means that it is used to test various research projects such as the 2000 Watt society.

How is it funded?

The development was financed with equity provided by the founding members, loans from the City of Zurich, national funds for cooperative housing and commercial bank loans in total amounting to CHF $195 million (USD $202.5 million). ‘More than Housing’ believes it is on target to repay the loans ahead of the due dates.

The cooperative is based on not-for-profit principles. This means there are no commercial shareholders and there is no payment of surpluses to members other than paying interest on members’ equity. Almost all the income is obtained from rent. This income has to cover repayments on the development loan and running costs as well as providing funding for further renovations and infrastructure investments.

Apartments are let at rents that are generally lower than one third of household income. The average rent for a four room family apartment is CHF 2000 (USD $2,000) a month. This is about 70 to 80% of market levels.

Twenty per cent of households in the development have an income that is below the Swiss poverty level. The rent of these households is subsidised.

  • In Switzerland, a rent cap is imposed on cooperatives annually. Budgets are set and if necessary costs are adjusted to ensure that rents are within the rent cap. This cap corresponds to the amount needed for cooperatives to cover the cost of the financial duties (interest rate, deductions), reserves for renovation and the administrative costs. This is the maximum they are allowed to charge.

Why is it innovative?

The scale and extent of this project makes it one of the largest and most ambitious cooperative housing programmes in Europe. The environmental features of the development go way beyond legal requirements. The development is the largest 2000 Watt neighbourhood and is an extensive test bed for low-carbon living.

The deliberate policy to promote social diversity throughout the project is innovative. The concepts are included in the architectural design (to respond to multiple needs), through to the management to the allocation of tenancies (by engaging organisations working with different underrepresented groups). The project brings together the knowledge of traditional cooperatives and new ideas from more recent ones, to produce a complex, experimental new form of cooperative.

What is the environmental impact?

The building complex is designed to be 2000 Watt compatible. That means the building’s energy use is low enough that people can live in it and reasonably achieve the 2000 Watt target with realistic changes to their lifestyles. So far, the living habits of the residents have not yet reduced to keep energy consumption within the 2000 Watt target but the design and lifestyle initiatives promoted in ‘More than Housing’ have helped to work towards this objective.

Floor space consumption is 33 m2 per person, this is less than the average in Zurich (42 m2). There are no individual washing machines. Instead, shared, free launderettes can be found in every residential building, equipped with energy efficient machines. Large private freezers are replaced by centrally located freezer lockers for rent. ‘More than Housing’ generates 45% of its electricity through photovoltaic cells on the roofs. Heating is provided through a district heating system. The building was built with low embodied energy materials. Two houses are constructed entirely from solid wood, one was built with insulating concrete. All the buildings have extremely high levels of thermal insulation.

‘More than Housing’ is nearly car-free and has good public transport, above-average bicycle parking and only 106 car parking spaces for people with disabilities or retail tenants (e.g. bakery employees). Residents do not own cars but use the national car sharing scheme or choose between two electric cars and a bike sharing pool owned and managed by the cooperative. Native trees and bushes improve biodiversity and one house has a vertical garden. Two communal, urban gardens and spaces for herbs are cultivated by residents.

Is it financially sustainable?

The development is financially sustainable. It is on schedule to repay its development loans ahead of schedule. Repayment and operational costs are met by rental income. Every resident becomes a cooperative member and purchases shares. Through this, equity increases over time and the capital stock can be decreased. The development has created 150 jobs, which increases the community’s wealth. Rent is charged at 20% to 30% below market levels creating a saving for those moving from market priced housing.

What is the social impact?

An aim of the development is to create a lively neighbourhood where people like to live, work and spend their leisure time. The development is designed for people from all social strata and of all ages. By exploring the housing needs of the future, ‘More than Housing’ offers space for all kinds of households, from single units, family apartments to large cluster apartments with up to 15 rooms.

The project actively approached excluded groups and supported them through activities to facilitate integration. Although the rents are already low compared to the free market, 80 of 370 apartments are additionally subsidised by 20% by public authorities. Ten per cent of all apartments are reserved for charities and non-profit foundations that work with people with disabilities, families with immigrant backgrounds and restricted budgets or children in care.

The cooperative structure provides a framework where individuals are empowered to actively participate in and shape their community, which not only creates strong social networks but also provides a safe and appropriate environment. About 65% of the inhabitants haven’t lived in cooperative housing before and have been supported in learning and participating in the democratic structures of the cooperative. With over 300 children under the age of seventeen, a large community of young adults will grow over the next decade with a deeper understanding of ecological and social sustainability and an understanding of shared housing principles. Living in a community promotes social and intercultural integration. Exchanges with your neighbours also include having to learn how to deal with conflicts.

Barriers

One main barrier encountered was the complexity of the development, which was initially underestimated. To develop such a large project with five architectural practices, hundreds of specialist planners, who were asked to be innovative and a contractor under considerable cost-efficiency pressure (to keep the rents low), was a big challenge.

As a newly founded cooperative, another barrier was gathering initial funding. The help of the large and long-established cooperatives in Zurich proved to be crucial. They gave credibility to the reliability of the concept and provided the funding for the project development and their long relationships with the financial institutions and the City of Zurich helped secure low interest loans and guarantees.

Lessons Learned

Regarding the social diversity of the inhabitants, the development has a wide spread in backgrounds, income and ages but people older than 70 are underrepresented.

The development found that older people needed more time to decide and plan to move into a new community but there was financial pressure to rent all the apartments as fast as possible. They recognise now that they should have reserved more small units for older people to ensure they would have a greater chance of being part of the project. ‘More than Housing’ reserved a part of the site’s four hectares for future developments. This can be an opportunity to adjust the design and allocation of space based on existing and future feedback.

Evaluation

Three separate evaluations are underway but have yet to report:

  1. A three-year research programme is currently evaluating the development’s contribution to the 2000 Watt society concept.
  2. A three-year research programme in cooperation with the Age Foundation of Zurich is evaluating the demographic make-up of the cooperative.
  3. A financial evaluation is being conducted with the main contractor Steiner AG.

Recognition

  • Winner of an Urbamonde “European Community-led Housing Award” 2016 .
  • Best Architects Gold Award for “Mehr als Wohnen, Haus G” .
  • Winner of the Special Price Brick Award 2016 for Duplex Architects Haus A .
  • Shortlisted for “Auszeichnung für gute Bauten 2011 – 2015“ City of Zurich  (winners yet to be announced).

There is a series of publications on the Mehr als Wohnen website (go to Medienspiegel) in German, and the project has also been captured on TV and in films .

The cooperative offers guided tours for groups and individuals. Since May 2015, more than 3,300 people have visited the site. Most of them are from Switzerland but they have had visitors from all over the world.

Transfer

The establishment of ‘More than Housing’ was an important trigger and had a large impact on the development of the north of Zurich into a sustainable, lively new part of the city. Several construction projects started in the area, which was previously just an unattractive waste land, with similar aims and run by cooperatives or public authorities e.g. “Leutschenbach Mitte” by the City of Zurich or “Thurgauerstrasse West”, a cooperation between the City and cooperatives.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

A Roof, A Skill, A Market

0

A Roof, A Skill, A Market

Mismatches Cultural suitability
Policies and regulations Participatory processes
Urban Design Quality
Promotion and production Participatory processes Materials Self-construction

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2016:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Africa
Country/Region: Burkina Faso

Description

Project Description

The project revives an ancient architectural approach to overcome the problem of unsuitable materials being used for roofs in houses in the Sahel. Traditionally house roofs were timber framed, but deforestation and the increasingly arid environment led to a scarcity of timber. In its place metal girders, concrete and sheet metal were used. These provide poor heat insulation, have to be imported at great expense and have high embodied energy.

The Nubian Vault Association’s programme “A Roof, a Skill, a Market” promotes a sustainable and affordable alternative: the vaulted earth roof. This approach uses sun dried mud bricks to create a vaulted roof that supports itself and so doesn’t need supporting beams or joists. The design borrows building techniques and materials used in ancient Egypt. A house built using this technique is more comfortable, healthy and robust than one with a sheet metal roof. It is also cheaper and can be made from freely available local materials. The project started in Burkina Faso but has spread to other parts of Western Africa including Mali, Senegal, Benin, and Ghana.

A previous submission to the World Habitat Awards from the Nubian Vault Association for ‘Earth Roofs for the Sahel’ – which was a finalist in 2009 – focused on the initial stages of this work in Burkina Faso, Mali and Senegal. This submission describes how the Nubian Vaults programme has developed and achieved greater impact though the process of scaling up and the transfer of the programme to two other West African countries via training, capacity building and network development.

This market -based programme aims to generate, grow and sustain the local supply and demand for the Nubian Vaults via three interconnected concepts:

  • a Roof (referring to the development of appropriate housing within a local housing market),
  • a Skill (i.e. supporting the training of masons and entrepreneurs),
  • a Market (creating economic opportunities by encouraging those involved in the housing market to take up this solution).

The Nubian Vault Association works through pan-African collaborations and knowledge exchanges between a wide range of actors (masons, project leaders and key stakeholders) in order to progress the work at a regional level and learn from different experiences.

Since its inception, the association has constructed 2,000 buildings, and housed 24,000 beneficiaries in five countries, trained 440 masons and 400 apprentices, contributed 2.4 million euros (USD $2.6 million) to local economies and saved an estimate of 65,000 tons of CO2 equivalent (calculated over a 30-year lifespan of the building).The core target group for the programme are rural populations of West Africa, living on less than USD $2 per day and outside formal economies. But, the concept is flexible and appropriate for various uses and types of clients: urban and rural, private and community, low and high income. The association adapts the technical research undertaken in order to adjust their offer and techniques to these differing variety of needs.

There are several groups who benefit from the Nubian Vault Association programme:

  • Local populations with access to affordable and suitable alternative housing and improved livelihoods.
  • Women and children, in particular, are the primary users of houses and courtyards.
  • Local young people have access to vocational training, helping them to find a place in the workplace regardless of their previous level of education. Most of the apprentices and masons are seasonal farmers, with little income security. The jobs within the programme provide them with and additional income during the off-season; masons also learn from other masons from different west-African countries, enriching their experience and knowledge.
  • Local artisans and building companies benefit from a new product which enhances their competitiveness in a green growth context. The Nubian Vaults are low-tech and cost-effective, an ideal business solution.
  • Community members are trained as ‘key people’ – in charge of liaising with other members of the community, and through the programme they learn new skills of community organising and awareness-raising.
  • Local stakeholders using offices, shops, agricultural facilities, classrooms, health centres etc. gain access to adequate and appropriate infrastructure and increased levels of comfort.

Aims and Objectives

The main purpose of the programme is to help as many people as possible across the Sahel region of Africa access appropriate (affordable, decent and durable) housing. The programme also aims to boost the local economy, create jobs through the training of masons and reduce the impact of climate change. Ultimately the association’s goal is to significantly scale up the programme so that it delivers 300,000 homes and trains 60,000 masons by 2030.

Context

Housing is precarious for the majority of the population of the Sahel Region. Incomes are low and the local economy is weak. Urban growth and deforestation have led to the disappearance of the natural timber resources used in traditional architecture. Alternatives to traditional housing construction such as the materials used (cement, steel, corrugated iron roofing) and the monetary systems involved (imports, use of cash), have failed to deliver sustainable housing to the majority.

Sahelian societies are characterised as predominantly rural (80%) and are mainly subsistence farmers. These populations struggle to meet their daily basic needs and have a significant need for income-generating opportunities. Political involvement is usually weak, yet the interest in better housing solutions using local materials has recently grown, given the challenges posed by climate change. The National carbon reduction policies in Burkina Faso and Senegal specifically mention the Nubian Vault as an appropriate solution for sustainable development.

Key Features

The roofs are affordable because they use widely available material, and communities participate in the construction. For example a 25 m2 Nubian Vault in Burkina Faso would cost about 450 euros (USD $500), of which 300 euros (USD $332) is provided by the client in materials and sweat equity. By comparison, a cement and iron roof in the same area would cost about 1,000 euros (USD $1,107).

They are environmentally sustainable. Materials have low embodied carbon because they are locally available reducing the need for transport.  They reduce the local demand for timber which helps reduce the threat of felling trees. The techniques are embedded in local traditions as a revised version of a vernacular form of architecture. These offer a great degree of energy-efficiency and thermal stability. The strategic approach taken by the association is to create and sustain an affordable local market for the Nubian Vaults solution, both in formal and informal ways, in order to make it accessible to as many people as possible.

The initial dissemination methodology is focused on pilot villages, in which agents of the Nubian Vault Association supported by a ‘community stakeholder’ (a key member of the community) conduct awareness-raising activities in order to generate an initial demand amongst potential clients. The community stakeholder is a person with a certain degree of influence in the area, who believes in the value of the vaults as a solution for housing, employment and economic development and who has the capacity to convince others within their own communities. Typically, this person is a farmers’ group leader, or someone already involved in a similar organisation. Many of these key people are women. Their role is central to creating more opportunities to disseminate the concept. Similarly, local Civil Society Organisations play a key role in the dissemination of the concept and growth of a local market for the vaults. This dissemination also happens in parallel to the training of masons through apprenticeships and in some cases this training is delivered by masons from other countries where the project is at a more advanced stage. From these villages the Nubian Vault concept is spread to surrounding communities in order to stimulate a local market for the solution. The masons themselves participate in this dissemination by promoting it through their networks and activities.

In terms of spreading across the region: in the early stages of the programme, new countries (Mali, Senegal) came on board in an ad hoc way at the invitation of local NGOs. But as the project has reached maturity, it has made more strategic choices regarding which countries to work in. Representatives of the programme have undertaken exploratory missions to find out about that the quality of the earth, rainfall levels, types of beneficiaries and the interest levels of potential partners.

For each new country, an international volunteer is trained to lead the implementation by staff from the Burkina Faso office. As trainees participate directly in the daily activities of that office, overheads and training costs are kept low. A strategy for regional duplication is established from the start, to maximise dissemination opportunities, according to resources and relevance. A national team is put together to conduct awareness-raising activities among the local population generating a demand for the vaults and interest in training masons and other building professionals and among local civil society as well as local, regional and national institutions and private sector organisations.

One of the first actions when starting in a new country is building a new office. This itself is an important part of the programme, as the construction of this office serves as an opportunity to train local apprentices in the technique. The finished building becomes a demonstration model of the concept. The land on which the offices are built is not bought by the Nubian Vault Association but granted rent-free to the organisation by local landowners, in exchange for the transfer of the building ownership after an agreed term (around 10 years).

In recent years, building upon its success, the programme has developed new strategies to stimulate the market and reach as many people as possible:

  • They have developed more extensive technical and entrepreneurial training for masons enabling them to increase production every season and to successfully embed their work into their local market.
  • The programme also encourages other organisations to include the vaults into their construction projects.
  • The programme has introduced microcredits and subsidies to improve access to housing for those for whom the low cost of a vault is still too high.
  • Regular meetings of masons and organisations are held across the Sahel region so people can exchange experiences and increase their collective knowledge and to provide a platform for people to report back on progress and share achievements.

A key aspect of the programme is that it supports the relationship between masons and clients. It does this by marketing the concept of the vaults to the public in order to stimulate demand. It also mediates between masons and clients where there are misunderstandings and disputes. This helps reduce the risk of the mason leaving the work unfinished or the client leaving the mason unpaid. The programme also has a vocational training scheme. To date, 440 masons have been trained, there are currently 400 apprentices.

The seasonal nature of the programme complements subsistence farming. Vaults can only be built during the dry season, whereas subsistence agriculture (which is the major source of work) is only possible in the rainy season. Without this scheme there is little work in the dry season, this situation has led to an exodus of young men seeking work. The scheme helps stem this exodus. The Nubian Vaults Association works in an open source manner. This enables it to focus its activities on setting up the programme in new areas and then withdraw leaving the implementation and running of the programme to local people.

What impact has it had?

The programme has played an important role in helping countries of the Sahel region meet their climate change commitments. All United Nations member states were asked to produce commitments for climate change alleviation for the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (called “Nationally Determined Contributions” by the UN). These commitments were expected to show how the countries were going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transform practices to adapt to climate change. The Nubian Vault technique was identified by the governments of Burkina Faso and Senegal in their commitments to this conference.

The Government of Mali also chose to identify Nubian Vaults as an appropriate tool for development in its 2016-2018 Strategic Framework for Economic Stimulus and Sustainable Development. This is a public policy framework connecting economic growth and better living conditions for people. In Benin and Ghana the association has led sustained advocacy work throughout 2015 and although the Nubian Vault is not specifically mentioned in the Nationally Determined Contributions of these countries, there is recognition of the importance of the construction and housing sectors in climate change alleviation and adaptation. This represents a step forward in transforming the construction and housing sectors, by recognising that there needs to be a change. Although it is difficult to attribute the impact of this, in Ghana, interest within public sector organisations in the Nubian Vault increased after the Paris Climate Conference.

How is it funded?

The costs of running the programme have increased yearly with the growth of the programme.

  • In 2005, the annual budget was of 11,700 euros (USD $13,000), all staff were volunteers.
  • In 2012, with three countries in operation, the budget had grown to 366,000 euros (USD $405,000) and the programme had 20 salaried employees.
  • In 2016, the budget of 1.4 million euros (USD $1.5 million) covers five countries and a wider range of activities is supporting the work of 70 employees.

The Nubian Vaults Association itself is funded by grants.

  • The first major funding received was a grant from the French Foreign Affairs Ministry of 30,000 euros (USD $33,500) in 2003-2004. Prior to that, activities were funded through individual donations and the personal investment of the co-founders.
  • In 2015-2016, the association received half its support from public sources (French Development Agency, French Facility for the Global Environment) and half from private and corporate foundations.

Why is it innovative?

The innovation lies firstly in the technology itself, simple, replicable, modular and affordable. The mud bricks are sun-dried, requiring no machinery, and assembled with an earth mortar following a simple technique. The social entrepreneurship approach taken by the Nubian Vaults Association is innovative.  Rather than building houses directly, the programme creates and supports a local market in which local masons, apprentices, businesses and clients can operate.

The pan-African nature and cross-country collaboration of the programme is unusual. All country and regional teams meet every season for regular steering committee meeting. Masons in training also have the chance to meet annually at the Masons Congress organised in early June. In 2016, Malian masons were invited to the Burkina Faso congress, with the aim of enhancing skills, capitalising on knowledge and sharing experience from mason to mason across the sub-region. The programme also mobilises the most experienced masons – from Burkina Faso and Mali – to train the first generations of masons in the new countries (Senegal, Benin and Ghana).

What is the environmental impact?

The Nubian Vaults technique facilitates the construction of sustainable, low-carbon buildings and represents a real solution for climate change mitigation and adaptation for the housing sector in West Africa. The main building materials are sun-dried mud bricks, made from locally available earth and the vaults do not require iron roofing sheets, most commonly used in the Sahel despite their environmental inappropriateness (imported, heavy carbon footprint for production and transport).

Earth bricks have very low embodied energy: they are produced without any machinery or fuel wood, on or close to the construction-site and their use is sustainable given the geological nature of these territories. The thickness of the walls and roof and the natural isolation qualities of the earth bricks, provide improved thermal comfort compared to all other construction solutions available in the region. Comparative thermal measurement studies in Burkina Faso and Senegal have confirmed the advantage of the Nubian Vault solution in this respect.

This thermal stability also improves community buildings, such as health centres, schools (longer school hours are possible, in particular in the afternoons, and students and teachers alike benefit of better studying and working conditions), or agricultural facilities (better productivity, longer storage of perishable products). For a 25 m2 building and over a 30-year life cycle, carbon emissions are estimated at 20.5 tons. Nubian Vault constructions also safeguard natural resources, using neither wood nor straw. Traditional houses used both of these materials for the roofs.

Is it financially sustainable?

Costs are expected to grow in line with the growth of the work of the organisation and with the increased demand for its presence in new regions or countries. Expectations for forthcoming budgets are: 2 million euros (USD $2.2 million) in 2016-2017, 2.5 million euros (USD $2.7 million) in 2017-2018 and 3.3 million euros (USD $3.6 million) in 2018-2019.

The Nubian Vault Association maintains its fundraising activities in line with this projected growth. It is preparing to adjust its economic model in the near future to leverage more support from social investors. In keeping with its determination to work with others in an open market, the association aims to create a hybrid for/non-profit model to make it financially viable. This would transfer ownership of the development of a sustainable housing market to local actors (states, training centres, businesses etc.).

The association’s financial partners are not just philanthropists, they are social investors who expect social returns: houses built, masons trained, improved economies and climate change adaptation strategies. Results-Based Financing is a perspective on social investment that focuses on real impact rather than specific projects or processes. This approach allows the Nubian Vaults Association to build a comprehensive, integrated programme aiming to deliver its overarching mission, anticipating its results while providing it with the capacity to adapt its strategy to the context.

What is the social impact?

The Nubian Vault programme has already provided better housing for 2,000 households, with the associated health benefits of improved room temperatures etc., improved living standards and cash savings, especially in very low-income communities and rural areas. Women and children are key beneficiaries of given that they spend more time at home than men.

The nature of the architecture (using raw local materials) encourages the clients and their close circles to participate directly in construction. This helps reduce the costs of the building but also generates a greater sense of control, ownership and achievement, encouraging the custom of community participation and reinforcing traditions of cooperation. The programme has the potential to operate throughout the Sahelo-Sudanian strip, from Senegal to Djibouti, the Nubian Vault has the potential to transform the housing situation of millions of people.

As in most parts of the world, construction in the Sahel is traditionally a male profession. However, Sahelian women are responsible for domestic expenses, including the costs of building the homes. The participation of women in the programme is very important as women have a key role in choosing the type of house the household buys or builds. This does not imply that all decision-making is done by women, but that they often have a key role in household finances. The savings involved in Nubian roofs can help money be redirected to other domestic expenses such as health, education, food, and fuel.

Barriers

A first barrier encountered was the prejudice against earth construction, seen as too poor, too fragile, not modern enough. The Nubian Vault Association’s strongest argument to counter this prejudice has been the vaults themselves, which demonstrate the versatility and modernity of earth architecture. Today, demand is stronger than the supply of masons, proving this challenge has been successfully overcome.

A second barrier is the lack of organisations involved that support the growth of a sustainable housing market. From the start the programme has had a sustained advocacy strategy but the response was initially slow. With environmental challenges and climate constraints, there has been recently a positive change, indicating the early stages of adoption of the Nubian Vaults by organisations and market stakeholders who are looking for sustainable and low-carbon solutions for human settlements. The Nubian Vaults Association continues to capitalise on this progress in order to boost and accelerate replication.

Lessons Learned

The Nubian Vault Association’s experience initially demonstrated that its exclusive focus on rural communities was not sufficiently efficient: for macro-level impacts they realised they needed to reach to all layers of society and include all possible actors (rural, urban, private, institutional etc.).

The strategy is therefore now much broader and the inclusion of beneficiary communities in the activities (key people in communities, masons, training apprentices, local partners replicating the method), is also a key to long-term success, to enable better knowledge transfer and dissemination.

Evaluation

The programme is evaluated annually, through a bottom-up data collection process in which information is incrementally transmitted from field agents to the international coordination, to create a country-level report. External evaluations also take place regularly to provide non-biased analysis. The results demonstrate the programme’s significant success, with a 30% average growth in the Nubian Vault market.

Analysis has shown that demand is now higher than the level of supply achievable with the number of trained masons, indicating potential for further growth. Consequently, the association has established activities aimed at accelerating production (training units, entrepreneurial support and financial incentives for masons) and the adoption of the vaults solution.

Recognition

The work of the Nubian Vaults Association has received considerable international recognition and over 15 awards for its work for better building in Africa.

Nubian Vaults are frequently visited by neighbours and people who have heard of the concept (in the country or abroad, including other continents).

All built Nubian Vaults serve as ‘model homes’ for the programme and act as key dissemination tools by showing the benefits directly (temperature, comfort, solidity, aesthetics etc.).

Transfer

Initiated in Boromo, Burkina Faso, the programme has since spread to other regions of Burkina Faso (2006) and to neighbouring countries: Mali (2007), Senegal (2010), Benin and Ghana (2014). A few pilot construction projects were also led in other countries, Zambia (2010), Mauritania (2014), operated by local or international NGOs.

Its change of scale began in 2007 with the opening of a second country programme and has accelerated since 2014 and the approach has considerable potential for growth (300,000 houses, three million beneficiaries, 60,000 masons and apprentices by 2030). The association hopes to deploy its programme to other countries of the Western Sahelian region, adjacent to its present territories of action. These would include: Togo, Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea and is also looking to expand to other African sub-regions: Sudan, at the Eastern tip of the Sahel-Sudanian strip, and Rwanda, a key location for expansion both towards Eastern and Austral Africa.

The Nubian Vault construction technique is potentially transferrable to any area where there is low rainfall and timber is in short supply. The association is constantly working to disseminate the concept to local community-based organisations.

Imagery credits: C. Lamontagne Cosmos

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Rent to Buy Scheme

0

Rent to Buy Scheme

Mismatches Services Diversity
Policies and regulations Regulation Building capacity
Urban Design Liveability Regulación Técnica
Promotion and production Self-management

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

City: Inverness
Country/Region: United Kingdom

Description

The Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust (HSCHT) ‘Rent to Buy Scheme’ helps people on low income living in the remote highlands of Scotland to find an affordable home. At the heart of the scheme is a financial mechanism which enables low income families to save up to buy a home whilst they are renting it.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

  • The main aim of this programme is to provide local people in some of the remotest communities of the UK with access to affordable housing and to ensure that the houses that are built remain affordable into the future.
  • The benefits of the scheme extend beyond those who buy the homes. Local contractors benefit from the construction work when the houses are built. Indeed the scheme specifically targets small local building firms. HSCHT also supports training and development and provides a route into apprenticeships for local young people in rural communities. This support is provided in partnership with the University of Highlands and Islands and the contractors employed to deliver Rent to Buy properties.
  • Rural communities retain a greater mix of people, helping local employers retain staff.
  • The affordability of the homes is protected over the long term through a legal mechanism.
  • Local authorities also benefit from reduced pressure on the housing waiting list.

The Rent to Buy Scheme is one of a number of approaches used by the Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust to help small rural communities access affordable housing. The model was designed by HSCHT and is being delivered in partnership with the Scottish Government and the Highlands Council.

The scheme builds new houses and lets them to families at below market rents. Part of the rent is retained by HSCHT and is available as a lump sum that is used as a deposit to buy the house. The scheme is self-financing and does not require a government grant but is supported with development loans from the Scottish Government.

Context

The Scottish Highlands is a huge area covering much of the North of Scotland. As its name suggests it is a mountainous, remote and undeniably beautiful area. It is one of the most sparsely populated parts of Europe, comparable in population density only with Northern Sweden and Finland. The area has become increasingly depopulated over many years.

The Highlands has a thriving tourist industry, which provides employment but does create distortions in the housing market. A large amount of the housing stock is used as second homes and holiday lets. This limits the amount that is available for the local population to rent or buy. The problem is particularly acute in the summer when tourists and seasonal workers in the tourist industry occupy much of the available housing. The effect of this is many local people are forced into inadequate or inconvenient alternatives (for example using caravans or ‘sofa surfing’). Many families unable to find decent housing choose to leave the area altogether.

Since the economic crash of 2008, the availability of mortgages has become much more restricted in the UK. In particular lenders require large deposits (often 25 per cent of the house value) before they will offer a mortgage. House prices in the Highlands vary, but because incomes in rural areas trend to be lower than in urban areas, the ratio of incomes to prices makes renting and buying expensive. For families, repayments on a mortgage remain comparable to the price of renting. This means that many families who could afford to buy a house are unable to do so because of they do not have enough savings to pay the deposit.

Key features

Rent to Buy is a financial model which provides affordable access to home ownership. Tenants rent a property through the scheme with the option to buy it after five years. If they take this option they get a cash-back sum to help them with their mortgage deposit. The selling price is fixed, based on its value at the beginning of the five year term. This provides certainty for tenants and a potential benefit for them if the house goes up in value.

The scheme uses loan finance so the funds can be recycled. Interest on the original loan is repaid on the sale of the home making the scheme cost neutral. Rent levels are set so they can be covered by state benefits if the household has a low income. This means that tenants have a safety net if their income drops or they become unemployed during the scheme.

Affordability is protected using a legal mechanism (called the Rural Housing Burden); this gives HSCHT the right to purchase the property back from the owner if the owner decides to sell it. It means that HSCHT can allocate the house to another family who fits the criteria at the same equity share. This mechanism protects the future affordability of the property.

What impact has it had?

The scheme has provided 30 new affordable homes, with another 34 under development. In 34 small communities, housing 143 people and helping to sustain rural communities. Twenty-two local construction firms have been involved in delivering the schemes. Many have strengthened their links with local communities and have been able to protect their employees and retain their workforce. Young people have also had the opportunity to access training with contractors.
Funding has been agreed for a further phase. HSCHT are identifying sites and carrying out feasibility and financial viability studies.

The project has helped to raise awareness and increase the focus on rural affordable housing delivery both locally and nationally. The cost neutral nature of the scheme has drawn considerable interest as reductions in government subsidy on housing have been introduced in Scotland and other parts of the UK.

The Scottish Government is keen to see the scheme made available across Scotland.

The affordability of the housing has been protected by the ‘Rural Housing Burden’, ensuring that the new properties remain available to local people and aren’t sold on the open market.

HSCHT uses small local contractors and supports local business wherever possible. The houses are modern in design, and use large amounts of timber in their construction. This reduces embodied carbon and allows the houses to be highly energy efficient. Although designed locally, many of the houses look very different from traditional local houses which tend to be built from rendered stone or brick.

HSCHT supports local employment and training by working with the University of Highlands and Islands allowing contractors to set up apprenticeships for local young people.

Community engagement sits alongside the process of delivering Rent to Buy homes. In particular communities are able to feed into allocations policies so that they are able to take account of specific issues (such as a need for key workers like teachers or carers).

How is it funded?

The Scottish Government provides a development loan to cover the house building costs for the scheme. They have so far provided three loans to cover three building phases. For each phase the loan is due to be repaid after six years. The rental income covers the interest on the loan, maintenance, insurance and provides the cash back reserve paid to the tenants when they purchase the homes. HSCHT retains any surplus to contribute to its overheads.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • The project achieves the remarkable feat of providing high quality housing at a below market price without the need for government grant.
  • The model is transferable and can be used by others, for example communities or local businesses. The approach also supports the rural economy. Building contracts allow and encourage the use of local contractors.
  • For households in need of affordable housing with limited access to finance, the cashback element of the scheme gives them a deposit. This accumulates from rental payments over the five year rental period, meaning households don’t have to stretch themselves financially. A fixed price at the outset gives certainty to households using the scheme.

 

What is the environmental impact?

In the Scottish Highlands the weather can be particularly challenging and a focus on high levels of insulation, air tightness, suitable heating systems and the use of renewable technologies where needed (for example photo voltaic panels) have been encouraged on all builds, all of which reduce the running costs of a home.

The first phase of the Rent to Buy Scheme includes seven different developments. Each contractor chose their own house design as appropriate for the site conditions and location. Features include careful design and siting to reduce wind cooling and to increase passive solar gain; high levels of insulation; elimination of fabric thermal bridging and high levels of air-tightness; wood fuel stoves with back up electric heating; low dual flush WC’s; and flow reduced/aerating taps and showers rated at no more than 6 litres of water per minute.

The use of local contractors and local materials also reduces the overall carbon footprint of building activity.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The Rent to Buy Scheme is self-financing. It creates an income through rent payments and the sale of the houses. The income pays for the cost of running the scheme and allows funds to be reinvested into building new houses.

The scheme generates a predictable income for HSCHT. This has enabled them to retain a skilled staff team. The scheme has helped to raise HSCHT’s profile within communities and with local and national government; providing greater funding opportunities for other projects and schemes.
The use of local contractors ensures as much of the investment as possible remains and circulates within the community and supports other local businesses, shops and services.

 

What is the social impact?

HSCHT works with a network of councils and other bodies such as local development companies – these partnerships have helped to identify a hidden housing need within rural areas. Building more affordable homes in hard to reach rural areas reduces the pressure on more highly populated areas. It also strengthens informal care networks and helps to retain key workers locally (key workers provide essential services, for example health workers, fire fighters, teachers or police). Not only do these benefits reduce costs for central and local government, they also ensure an improved quality of life for people living in rural communities.

Affordable homes help communities retain families with a range of incomes and skills. Training and development provided through the scheme also improves opportunities for young people in rural communities.

 

Barriers

Land needs to be purchased at well below market value. This limits the scheme to places where either public land can be transferred or where there are legal obligations, or where a local landowner is prepared to sell land at a greatly reduced price.

The scheme relies on low interest rates on the loan capital; this was provided by the Scottish government. The scheme also relies on mortgages being affordable for families taking part in the scheme. The UK has benefited from low interest rates in recent years. A rise in the future may affect the attractiveness and viability of the scheme in future.

Some mortgage lenders do not lend on properties with the Rural Housing Burden. This narrows the range of lenders for purchasers.

For Phase 1, there was a short window of opportunity to use “underspend” funding provided by the Scottish Government, so the final project had to be drafted over just four months. This included land purchases, providing a certificate of title for each of the landholdings, assessing total project costs, potential cashbacks and selling prices, agreeing loan drawdown schedules and creating the draft offer for each tenant/purchaser.

The topography of the Highlands creates challenges for building, for example where there is a steep slope. On one site this was addressed by building into the hillside and on another by building a house on stilts. This added to the building costs.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Talk to as many local partner organisations and involve them wherever is feasible. They could have land, expertise and/or access to finance that may be useful.
  • Carry out extensive feasibility work to make sure sites are viable and identify any development issues prior to starting construction activity. Some sites will be rejected but budget overspends will be prevented. Build in a realistic contingency in the financial assessment – there is always something unexpected.
  • A clear design brief should be provided to contractors at the beginning. Smaller firms can be encouraged to tender for contracts through flexible procurement processes.
  • In working with local contractors allow flexibility in the contract. Delaying the start of a build by a month or two may allow the contractor to meet the contract terms more easily. Maintaining open communication channels is important.
  • Working with local contractors is worthwhile in challenging build environments – they are more aware of local issues and can come up with inventive solutions.
  • Continuously look out for potential future building sites. Always have a few back up sites in case additional funds become available.

 

Evaluation

In 2015, the Scottish Government carried out an evaluation of the project to explore the possibility of rolling the model out across Scotland. This has yet to be published.

Follow up surveys with tenants will be carried out after around 18 – 24 months of moving in to their homes when they will be asked to quantify (as far as possible) the impact of access to an affordable home on them and their family.

 

Transfer

A second and third phase have been agreed by the Scottish Government and this will extend the scheme to more areas of the Highlands. The Scottish Government are keen to use the model across all areas of Scotland. Other organisations have also been keen to find out more, for example, communities looking to invest community benefit funds, community landowners and other housing providers, such as Housing Associations.

So far (in 2015), no other organisation has adopted the scheme but the Scottish Government is supportive of the housing model and may use it in other areas in the future.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Lilac (Low Impact Living Affordable Community)

0

Lilac (Low Impact Living Affordable Community)

Mismatches Services Demographic/Urban growth New family structures
Policies and regulations Building capacity Global frameworks
Urban Design Environments Equity
Promotion and production Site&services

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Leeds
Country/Region: Leeds, United Kingdom

Description

Lilac is a self-planned and managed co-housing community in Leeds, England. It embraces the concept of living sustainably and communally. Members of Lilac have their own individual homes but share financial responsibility, the land, the development and day to day management of the project. This supports greater resilience and provides permanently affordable housing.