Country/Region: Chile

Quinta Monroy, Chile

0

Quinta Monroy, Chile

Mismatches Location Price Vulnerable groups Demographic/Urban growth
Policies and regulations Building capacity Planning
Urban Design Modelos De Ciudad Urban fabrics Environments Quality Liveability Inclusion Equity
Promotion and production Public promotion Innovation Favelas/Slums

Main objectives of the project

Quinta Monroy, a social housing project in Iquique, Chile, defied convention by retaining an expensive site in the city rather than displacing families to the periphery. With a limited subsidy of $7,500 per family, the team took an innovative approach by designing a two-story building that allowed for vertical and horizontal expansion of housing. Thus, one half of the building structure was delivered. The other half and the development of the first half was left to the community. This made it possible to maximize the use of the land and offer medium quality housing with the possibility of growth, fostering social integration and avoiding the marginality associated with peripheral developments.

Date

  • 2004: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Architect: ELEMENTAL
  • Architect: Alejandro Aravena

Location

Continent: South America
Country/Region: Chile, Iquique

Description

Quinta Monroy was initially the last informal camp in the center of Iquique, a city in the Chilean desert, located 1,500 kilometers north of Santiago. The site's poor living conditions led to its inclusion in a state program to replace the camp with a set of 93 decent housing units for the families that occupied it. The project's primary decision was to preserve the land, which had a cost three times higher than that usually assigned for social housing developments, thus avoiding displacing those affected to the periphery, where the land is cheaper but entails problems of marginality and does not favor the revaluation of the construction. Moreover, the subsidy of US$7,500 per family made it possible to build, in the best case scenario, a house of 36 m², half the area of a standard middle-class home.

If each house was considered equivalent to one lot, even using the small social housing lots, only 30 families could fit on the land. This was because, with the typology of detached houses, land use was extremely inefficient. The tendency was then to look for land that was very economical, which was generally located in the peripheries, marginalized and far from urban opportunity networks. Reducing the lot size to match that of the house led to overcrowding, while building in height did not allow the houses to expand, which was necessary in this case, where each house was required to expand to at least double its original area.

Thus, in order to build this social and affordable housing development, this problem had to be overcome: land was expensive and not all the families could fit following what had been done so far. The initial strategy was to change the perspective of the problem: instead of designing the best possible unit with $7,500 and multiplying it 100 times, the question was posed as to what would be the best building with a budget of $750,000 capable of housing 100 families and allowing for their respective expansions. It was observed that a building blocked the growth of housing except on the first and top floors, where horizontal and vertical expansion was possible, respectively.

The solution was to design a building with only the first and top floors. The better half of the house was provided, almost rough but with quality installations, and technical support was offered to the families to carry out the expansions. Since 50% of the square footage of the assemblies would be self-built, the building had to be porous enough to allow expansions to occur within its structure. The aim was to frame rather than control spontaneous construction to avoid deterioration of the urban environment over time and to facilitate the expansion process for each family. Instead of building small houses, it was decided to design middle-class housing, of which, for the time being, only a part would be delivered.

It was decided to introduce a collective space between the public space (streets and passages) and the private space (each house), a common property with restricted access that would allow the development of social networks, a key mechanism for the success of fragile environments. By regrouping the 100 families into 4 smaller groups of 20 families each, an urban scale was achieved that was small enough to allow neighbors to agree, but not so small as to eliminate existing social networks.

The resulting buildings have three main advantages: they revalue self-building, they generate community, and they use an innovative design that allows families to be housed on non-peripheral land, generating a unique heterogeneity. This project has been referred to by the prestigious sociologist Richard Sennett as an example of open urbanism.

Links

Authors:

CSCAE Consejo Superior de los Colegios de Arquitectos de España

Resilient Social Housing

0

Resilient Social Housing

Mismatches Functional adequacy New family structures Climate change
Policies and regulations Local policies Governance
Urban Design Urban fabrics Liveability Inclusion
Promotion and production Participatory processes Self-management Self-promotion

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: Concepcion
Country/Region: Chile, Concepción

Description

Project 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

TECHO – Development of Habitat

0

TECHO – Development of Habitat

Policies and regulations National policies Governance
Urban Design Inclusion Participatory processes
Promotion and production Materials Self-construction

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: San Joaquín
Country/Region: Chile, Santiago

Description

TECHO is an NGO working with residents and young volunteers to overcome the poverty in which thousands of people live in informal settlements across Latin America and the Caribbean. TECHO’s ‘Development of Habitat’ projects aim to implement permanent solutions in the settlements in the different countries in which it operates. ‘Development of Habitat’ projects are currently in place in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Colombia.

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

TECHO focuses on overcoming poverty in informal settlements.  The organisation was started in 1997 by a group of students and soon became a Latin American institution with hundreds of employees and thousands of young volunteers. It works with the families living in informal settlements to develop shared strategies for the improvement and transformation of their communities based on their needs. The programme aims to improve their access to basic services, regularise land use and improvements to their housing wherever the families are.  TECHO works to integrate families into the ‘formal city’ so that everyone has the change to develop new skills and exercise their full rights in society.

TECHO operates in 19 countries across Latin America and the Caribbean.  The ‘Development of Habitat’ programme focuses on Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Colombia, having started in Chile in 2006.

Context

UN Habitat estimates that 80 per cent of the population of Latin America lives in cities. Most informal settlements don’t have access to basic services, such as water, sewerage and electricity. Most informal housing is substandard in quality and much of the land where the houses are built is not regularised (i.e. the use of the land has not been agreed with the land owner).

Key Features

To date, the Chile, Argentina and Uruguay programme has reached and helped 23,000 people. Five thousand, nine hundred permanent homes have either been built or redeveloped, land use has been regularised and access to basic services and the urban infrastructure have been improved.

They have achieved this by setting up local design workshops composed of local families, community leaders and volunteers. They work together to identify the needs of the community, to devise practical solutions and plan the improvements.

The programme brings together young volunteers from different disciplines such as architects, lawyers and engineers to evaluate and work on the land in the informal settlements. This enables the groups of volunteers to practise their skills and understand the challenges related to rapid urbanisation. It also helps create crucial social connections between the ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ city.

The programme is supported by a series of partnerships with local government, utility providers, architecture firms, law firms and other institutions. These partnerships are tasked with effectively solving the needs of the communities by obtaining legal land security, accessing basic services and designing improved infrastructure and housing.

WHA2015_CHILE3

What impact has it had?

TECHO’s projects have had a direct impact on the lives of the participating families: besides improved living conditions, people are also trained in management which allows them to lead their own projects and deal with issues.
The project also provides direct experience to the volunteers involved.  Young qualified volunteers are recruited and can practise their technical knowledge and improve their skills.

How is it funded?

The programme is funded by a mix of partners from public, private and international development institutions, as well as individual donors. This diversification of funding sources makes the project more sustainable in the long term.

The costs vary by country and type of project. On average the cost per household is US$24,000 (£15,500).

The largest share (60 per cent of income) of the organization’s funding comes from corporate donations while the specific ‘Development of Habitat’ projects are financed at a local level, including with the support of government subsidies.

Why is it innovative?

  • TECHO provides a long-term, large-scale answer to improving living conditions in informal settlements.
  • TECHO’s approach maintains a long-term relationship with the communities it works in. It aims to fully transform informal settlements into socially and territorially integrated communities.
  • TECHO’s approach is far greater than simply improving buildings. It brings together all the key stakeholders who can play a role in upgrading: the families, community organisations, local governments, utility providers, architecture firms, law firms and government.

What is the environmental impact?

  • Families are trained on housing maintenance resulting in a more efficient use of energy and water.
  • The community has better access to basic services.
  • Families in some of the communities in Chile have participated in large scale planting of grass and trees. As the families themselves were involved in planting, these new green areas are looked after and kept clean and tidy by the families themselves.

Is it financially sustainable?

The organisation is financed by a combination of corporate donations (60 per cent), international cooperation funds (20 per cent), individual donors (5 per cent) and conducting various campaigns and fundraising events (15 per cent).

TECHO also has two fundraising offices in the United States (Miami and New York) and two in Europe (UK and Germany).

What is the social impact?

  • Apart from helping to deliver high-quality housing and security of tenure, TECHO encourages communities to form relationships between the settlement and external stakeholders. The aim of this is to help transform the settlement into a fully functional neighbourhood.
  • TECHO helps to strengthen community leadership to become validated and representative, encouraging self-management and the participation of thousands of residents to generate collective solutions to shared problems.
  • TECHO works with young volunteers who work with the families on a daily basis. Thanks to this, strong and long-lasting social connections between the volunteers and the families and communities develop.

TECHO’s Development of Habitat projects address six issues:

  1. Regularisation of property for the legal security of the land;
  2. Formalised access to basic services;
  3. Access to city infrastructure, such as paved streets, public lighting, proximity to public transport, schools and hospitals;
  4. Living spaces, dimensions and materials, ensuring high technical standards and appropriate common spaces;
  5. Ensure that the solution is supported with public investment with additional added-value;
  6. Communities organised based on their collective needs, able to find sustainable solutions to their problems.

Barriers

Time: Projects have an average duration of three to five years. Keeping communities active in a process that does not provide immediate results is not straightforward. This is overcome by letting communities lead the entire process from designing to managing the housing solutions.

Access to land: There has been a shortage of vacant land with the right conditions for the development of the projects. Given this, some projects had difficulties in regularising land.

Lessons Learned

  • TECHO found that it is important to accept that regeneration processes are long-term and need constant adaptation.
  • The active participation of families in the project, was an essential part of its success.
  • TECHO found that efficient implementation depends on many specific requirements that make the project technically feasible, economically viable and socially desirable. Working with all stakeholders to meet these requirements is crucial.
  • TECHO found that projects need to be adapted to meet the specific needs of each community.
  • The transfer of information and coordination with other actors has been crucial at all stages of the projects.
  • A real understanding of the urban and land issues in the areas where the settlements are is essential, as is an understanding of the legal issues relating to the land and a knowledge of the community.

Evaluation

  • The technical aspects of the projects delivered by TECHO have been compared with projects from other institutions.
  • All the ‘Development of Habitat’ projects are undertaken by a multidisciplinary team from TECHO (architects, lawyers etc.) who plan and deliver all the processes and stages in the projects.

Transfer

TECHO’s model, first established in Chile, has been replicated and improved through ongoing learning across Latin America.  The transfer of the ‘Development of Habitat’ programme involves the experience and learning from the development work in the originating country. To implement it in another country it’s vital to adapt the project to the local situation and within the opportunities provided by the political and social context.

It is now being replicated in three other countries:

  • Argentina (in Buenos Aires and Córdoba since 2012 and Salta and Río Cuarto since 2014)
  • Uruguay (in Montevideo) since 2012
  • Colombia (in Bogota) since 2015

Two professionals working in Chile for the last three years moved to live in Argentina and Uruguay in 2012. This was the first time transfer of the programme occurred to other countries and cities in Latin America.

Initially they formed teams with local volunteers to gather information within informal settlements with the aim of planning the local work. Currently this work of transferring the experience to the other countries in which TECHO works continues.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat