30 Years of Planning Continuity in Freiburg, Germany

0

30 Years of Planning Continuity in Freiburg, Germany

Mismatches New family structures
Policies and regulations Planning Participatory processes
Financing Public funding
Promotion and production Transformation and adaptation

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Vogtei
Country/Region: Germany

Description

Continuity of an integrated planning approach over the last 30 years has led to the development of Freiburg as a leading exemplar of sustainable living in a compact car-lite city. Two urban extensions – Vauban and Rieselfeld – provide homes for 17,500 people and have been developed using low carbon technologies, self-build, and with excellent mass transit systems. The intention was to develop these districts to high environmental standards as well as ensuring that they had strong social structures and communities. A key success factor in Freiburg’s approach has been its focus on citizen participation and active democracy, enabling it to engage a wide range of stakeholders in its radical urban planning approach.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

To create an environmentally and socially sustainable city through enlightened planning and pioneering use of renewable energy systems.

Context

Freiburg is an ancient university city with a population of 220,000 located in southern Germany near the Swiss and French borders. It is a rich city with a GDP per capita 11 per cent above the European average and has the highest concentration of sunshine in Germany, with more than 1,700 hours per year. Urban planning and development have always had a special impact on Freiburg. After the devastating destructions of the World War II and with 85 per cent of the inner city destroyed, the programmatic corner stones for Freiburg’s exemplary spatial and settlement development were laid out during the post-war years. The city was rebuilt from the 1950s onwards, taking note of traditional urban patterns and cultural heritage, but with a focus on sustainable development. In the 1960s, the crucial decision was made to hold on to the tram network as the backbone of urban development in Freiburg and consequently, to expand it accordingly. In addition to this, the “five fingers” concept was developed for the distribution of green spaces to clearly separate open zone from building zones. These elements – the tram as well as the division into green areas and building areas – are still the guiding aspects for Freiburg’s urban development today.

The Planning Department has long been a key department in the municipality and has always been progressive, introducing pedestrianisation, for example, in the city centre in 1949, and refusing to build shopping malls outside of the city. There is a stable political system, with the Green Party having dominance for the last decade. With up to 35 per cent of the overall city vote, the Green Party is the strongest in any major German city.

Key features

The process of sustainable city planning started in the 1970s when the citizens of Freiburg did not want to accept a planned nuclear power station. In 1986, with the nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl fresh in their minds, Freiburg’s municipal council decided to have a future-oriented energy policy based on renewable resources wherever possible. This led to the development of Freiburg as a global first-rank model of sustainable urban life. It is a compact city development with car-lite systems.

Freiburg has a strong orientation to walking, bicycling, and public transport, with car-free areas and high levels of accessibility for people of all ages. It seeks to be ‘a city of short distances’. This involves three major strategies: restricting the use of cars in the city, providing effective transport alternatives to the car and regulating land-use to prevent sprawl. Two-thirds of Freiburg’s land area is devoted to green uses. Just 32 per cent is used for urban development, including all transportation. Forests take up 42 per cent, while 27 per cent of land is used for agriculture, recreation, water protection, etc.

As a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, Freiburg made the saving of resources the most vital factor for all future planning which included the clear prioritisation of public transport over individual traffic and goals to reduce energy consumption of buildings and realise future planning areas through self-financing schemes. The two major urban extensions Vauban and Rieselfeld were developed under these guidelines. Both developments have been built on brownfield sites – Vauban was on the site of a former military barracks and Rieselfeld on a sewage farm. Vauban is a neighbourhood of 5,500 inhabitants, located four km south of Freiburg town centre and is estimated to be one of the largest solar districts in Europe. All houses in Vauban are built to a low-energy consumption standard – maximum 65 kWh/m2/year (the average energy standard for new-build German houses is about 100 kWh/m2/year, 200 kWh/m2/year for older houses). Low-carbon technologies include heating from a combined heat and power station, solar collectors and photovoltaics. Self-build is used extensively in Rieselfeld, an urban extension for 12,500 people started in 1992. Direct mass transit links were created to the city centre. The current land-use plan for the city focuses on developing within the current city limits to optimise the existing infrastructure. Although the new concentration is on interior development, Freiburg’s population figures are still climbing and the number of jobs (mainly in the field of universities and of high-ranking scientific facilities) is also constantly increasing.

Freiburg’s success owes much to its democratic strength. Three key factors are direct citizen participation, dynamic planning, and consensus. Active democracy was the first step when citizens worked to oppose the planned nuclear power plant. This early activism has evolved so that citizens are directly involved in land-use planning, the city budget, technical expertise committees, developing public information on sustainability, and as shareholders in local renewable energy providers (e.g. solar, wind). The broad base of involved citizens is credited for Freiburg’s development of a consensus on sustainable development across the major stakeholders. This has enabled goals to be pursued steadily over decades.

Covering costs

The usual sources of income available to the city authorities have been used to deliver this work. The Vauban and Rieselfeld developments were built without any contribution from the city budget. The income received from selling the serviced plots of land to co-operatives, individuals and small builders covered the costs of the land and all the necessary physical and social infrastructure that the city provided.

WHA2013_GERMANY4

Impact

  • The standard of living in Freiburg is recognised as one of the highest in Germany, not only due to the natural climate and landscape advantages, but also to the active engagement of the citizens in decision making and sustainable city living.
  • The citizens of Freiburg have a well-developed understanding of environmental issues, which affects their lifestyle choices.
  • As a national exemplar of sustainable urban planning, ideas developed here have been used in countries around the world.
  • The project itself involves the development of local government planning policies, which have also been used in other cities. Freiburg is very well known throughout Germany for its sustainable approaches, which have influenced both regional and national governments. Germany now has some of the strongest environmental protection policies in Europe.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Development of an integrated planning approach to develop an environmentally sustainable pattern of city living thirty years ago, before such approaches were widely recognised.
  • Encouragement of citizen engagement in the decision making for the city.
  • Recognition of the importance of an integrated mass transit system throughout the city in creating a ‘city of short distances’, enabling high levels of public transport use, cycling and walking.

 

What is the environmental impact?

Low-energy building is obligatory in the Vauban district; zero-energy and energy-plus building and the application of solar technology are standard. There are over 50 passive houses and at least 100 units with ‘plus energy’, which is estimated to be one of the largest ‘solar districts’ in Europe.

Freiburg is a centre for innovative sustainable energy generation – solar, wind, hydropower, co-generation and district energy. Extensive use of permeable ground surfaces, bio-swales (vegetated areas designed to attenuate and treat rainwater runoff) and green roofs helps save water. Property owners are charged a storm water fee according to the percentage of their land that is permeable.

The Freiburg Climate Protection Strategy 2030 provides a clear focus and wide-ranging framework for local action in key areas identified for effective GHG emissions reduction. The city’s focus is now on achieving the new target – a 40 per cent reduction by 2030 on the baseline year of 1992 – with the support of an action plan, a structure established to support the implementation process and engaging its citizens.

Vauban is virtually car-free with over 70 per cent of households not owning a car. Car owners have to purchase a parking space in a multi-storey car park on the outskirts of Vauban for US$23,350, plus a monthly service charge. Transportation planners make use of five mechanisms to encourage healthy and sustainable transportation modes – extension of the public transportation network; traffic restraint; channelling individual motorised vehicle traffic; parking space management; and promotion of cycling. Today there are 30km of tramway network, which is connected to 168km of city bus routes as well as to the regional railway system. Seventy per cent of the population lives within 500m of a tram stop.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The stable political system, with a strong Green Party, is likely to ensure the continuity of funding sustainability in the city. The city takes a hard-headed commercial approach to development. Loans have to be repaid, grants are limited and only five per cent of the housing in Rieselfeld is funded by the municipality. Expenditure on roads is minimised, most of the streets are only four metres wide and limited to car use only. There is a betterment levy, with the city authorities taking one third of the increase in value on the sale of open land. Land for building is sold off in small plots (190 to 210m2) with limits on the number of plots any one group can buy, thus favouring small builders and co-operative groups. In Vauban, less than 30 per cent of the land area was built up by large developers, 70 per cent of the plots were sold to small builders and co-operatives, resulting in 175 different building projects.

Homes are reasonably affordable in the city, reflecting partly the German housing market with its low rate of house-price inflation. There is a high proportion of affordable rental housing (80 per cent of stock). Co-operative building groups help to keep home ownership affordable with building costs much lower than buildings with similar quality bought ready from a development company.

The city is one of the wealthier cities in Germany and it has created a specialised service sector relating to renewable technologies. The university is a leading institution for renewable energy research, with many manufacturing off-shoots. A variety of small eco-focussed businesses and eco-tourism have emerged. For example, Genova, a private enterprise building co-operative is pursuing ecological concepts of solar installations for publicly co-financed housing.

 

What is the social impact?

WHA2013_GERMANY4Freiburg has long had an emphasis on citizen engagement. There are many opportunities for citizens to be engaged within their communities and in city-wide campaigns for environmental improvement. When the two new urban areas were developed local community forums were established which acted as joint place promoters, offering critical support to the city council and through its energy and activism, encouraging it to move forwards.

The new urban extensions in the city have a family friendly character, with the city’s emphasis on being a ‘city of short distances’. There are flourishing community centres where people can hold meetings, organise entertainment, have a meal etc. Community participation in the city’s Land Use Plan involved 19 working groups of technical officers and local communities.
In Vauban, the city used the principles of the community architecture movement, encouraging groups working together with their own architect to develop a block of buildings around a defined open space. In Rieselfeld there was a strong emphasis on self-build and the municipality provided serviced sites, enabling people to have homes costing up to 25 per cent less. Over 100 different builders were involved (20 per cent were co-operatives). Co-operative self-build improves the skills of those involved in a wide range of areas. Wide-scale development of eco-based industries has developed specialist skills in academia, services and manufacturing.

Emphasis on cycling and walking rather than car use, the availability of local produce and the development of close community networks all serve to improve the health and safety of local people. The car-lite living patterns, especially in Vauban and Rieselfeld, enable children to play safely outside of the home. The emphasis on social sustainability in all aspects of life has ensured a reduction in social inequalities. The housing development process has led to a wide range of designs and development and it is difficult to gauge people’s wealth from the outside of their house.

In 2008 the city of Freiburg used meetings as well as online discussions about participatory budgeting with the use of a budget simulator, enabling citizens to better assess the impacts of their choices. The results of this deliberative process were then collaboratively aggregated and edited by the participants of the process themselves.

 

Barriers

Initial resistance came in the early days from many of the city’s population, especially those who lived in the suburbs, who did not want to reduce their dependency on the car and wished to have out-of-town shopping facilities. There was also strong resistance coming from the developers who wished to have a free hand in the development of the city. Both were overcome by having a clear strategy for the development of the city and making this clear to developers and by convincing and inspiring the people that this was a good choice for the city through engagement in the discussion and decision-making process.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Implement controversial policies in stages, choosing projects that everyone agrees on first.
  • Keep plans flexible and adaptable over time to allow for changing conditions.
  • Policies should include both sticks and carrots to encourage people to change behaviour, i.e. making parking more expensive and difficult, but making public transport, cycling and walking much easier.
  • Organise land use and transportation on an integrated basis to ensure that travel distances can be kept short.
  • Involving the citizens should be an integral part of policy development and implementation.
  • Support from regional and national government is vital in helping local policies to work.
  • Long-term goals need to be pursued on a consistent basis.
  • City leaders have to be committed to long-term engagement, but always with the support and engagement of the people.
  • Be creative and tactical in working with a wide range of different investors and other actors.
  • Be proud of the achievements and celebrate them with the citizens.
  • Continuity is vital.

 

Evaluation

Active monitoring is carried out across a range of city activities to ensure that the Freiburg Climate Protection Strategy 2030 is on target to achieve the planned GHG emission reductions of 40 per cent by 2030 on the baseline year of 1992.

 

Transfer

Freiburg has long been an exemplar par excellence for urban planners wishing to look for models of sustainable urban development. There is widespread media coverage of the pioneering work being done in Freiburg, as well as citation in academic literature. The city and its planning system have received many plaudits and awards over the last 30 years. Some more recent ones include the European City of the Year 2010 (Academy of Urbanism), the European Green Capital (Finalist 2009) and the Federal Capital for Climate Protection 2010.

The city has established the Freiburg Charter with a set of 12 principles to guide planning and development if a sustainable city is to be achieved. This is being widely discussed and used by planning authorities around the world, with many presentations and international congresses on the approach, as well as academic and professional visitors coming to learn directly how to establish a similar charter in their own situations and learn from its numerous good practice examples, including energy, transport, buildings and waste management.

Local towns and cities have adopted many of the examples set by Freiburg. Other German cities continue to learn from the experience at Freiburg, with both the planning professionals as well as city leaders seeking to develop similar approaches. The Freiburg model has spread to cities in neighbouring countries, including Mulhouse in France and Basel in Switzerland, as well as further afield. Freiburg is twinned with nine cities around the world and it continues to have close connections with them, providing support and planning guidance.

Authors:

Alliances for building capacities and options for the urban poor: experiences from urban Odisha

0

Alliances for building capacities and options for the urban poor: experiences from urban Odisha

Policies and regulations Regulation
Urban Design Equity Participatory processes
Promotion and production Self-management Self-promotion Management and maintenance

Main objectives of the project

The Odisha Alliance is a partnership involving the NGO Urban Development Resource Centre (UDRC), the grassroots women’s organisation Mahila Milan, the Odisha/National Slum Dwellers’ Federation (O/NSDF) and the Society of Promotion of Area Resources Centre (Sparc) – in 225 settlements in five cities of the state of Odisha and in three cities in the state of West Bengal. The Alliance’s project benefits the bottom 30 per cent of the economic pyramid of city dwellers who live in informal settlements, focusing on the community-led development of model houses that are affordable and adapted to local needs, as a basis for negotiating with government actors. These models act as ‘precedents’, demonstrating that slum dwellers can be the agents of their own development, while providing solutions that can be scaled up. The initiative is ongoing with many schemes at different stages of development. Sixty model houses have been built and two government programmes are running, with 400 additional houses currently under construction.

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

City: Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation
Country/Region: Bhubaneshwar, India

Description

Authors:

Hebron Old City Rehabilitation Programme

1

Hebron Old City Rehabilitation Programme

Mismatches Functional adequacy
Policies and regulations Planning
Promotion and production Participatory processes Transformation and adaptation

Main objectives of the project

The Hebron Rehabilitation Committee (HRC) is a semi-governmental organisation dedicated to the revitalisation of the Old City of Hebron. The HRC offices are located within the Old City, in an area which is currently under Israeli military control. The main components of the project include the securing of decent housing, infrastructure and services, the stimulation of economic activity, and the provision of legal assistance to protect the residents’ rights. As a result of the programme, several thousand new residents have moved into the Old City. Economic conditions are improving and the social fabric of the area has been strengthened by social integration awareness and community participation.

Date

  • 2013: Ganador

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Africa
City: Tel Aviv-Yafo
Country/Region: Israel, Tel Aviv

Description

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The Hebron Rehabilitation Committee (HRC) was established as a semi-governmental organisation in 1996 by a presidential declaration from former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in order to rehabilitate the Old City of Hebron. The programme’s key objectives include the re-population of the deteriorated city centre, the preservation of cultural heritage, local economic development, the engagement of the population and the provision of affordable housing.

Context

Hebron is one of the oldest cities in the world, having been continuously inhabited for over 5,000 years. Its historic centre is characterised by the density of its architectural fabric, narrow, winding streets and stone masonry structures of significant heritage value. Following the Israeli occupation of the Old City in 1967, the area was progressively abandoned and over time the physical condition of the city’s old buildings had badly deteriorated. Curfews, closures, difficulties with Israeli settlers and tight restrictions on the movement of residents, together with increasing economic problems, caused most residents to leave the area, leaving only those who were socially marginalised and unable to afford to live elsewhere. By 1995, approximately 9,500 Palestinian residents had left, with less than 400 remaining. The economic life of the Old City was also severely affected, with the closure of 77 per cent of its shops and commercial activities.

Key features

The Hebron Old City Rehabilitation Programme involves the restoration and reuse of historic buildings in Hebron’s Old City for housing purposes, combined with improvements to public spaces, urban infrastructure and services, social and legal assistance and measures to stimulate job creation and develop the local economy. The programme comprises the following four key areas:

  • Housing: Through a sensitive rehabilitation and restoration process using traditional techniques and materials, over 1,000 housing units have been renovated and are now inhabited by approximately 6,000 people (78 per cent of whom are tenants and 22 per cent of whom are owner occupiers). Large residential properties originally built to accommodate extended families of 20 or more people have been converted into smaller apartments to adapt to current cultural and household requirements. Local residents are employed and locally produced materials are used wherever possible.
  • Infrastructure and services: Social assistance, education and health care is provided to low-income families free of charge and a community centre, children’s playgrounds and public gardens have been established. Infrastructure upgrading has included a new sewerage network, water and electricity supply, improvement of paved areas, sidewalks and stairs, planting of trees, handrail installation and street lighting. Public spaces, formerly used as dumping grounds, have been reclaimed.
  • Social development: The programme has increasingly focussed on the social development and enhanced the role of residents in the revitalisation process through the implementation of several awareness programs and activities.
  • Economic development: The programme has increasingly focussed its work on reviving local economic activity and creating jobs in and around the Old City in an effort to reduce poverty and unemployment. Shops have been restored and various activities have been organised to encourage tourism. A vocational training school was established in 2009 in partnership with the Spanish government.
  • Human rights: With funding from the Norwegian government, HRC has established a comprehensive programme aiming at the protection of Old City residents from human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests, physical abuse, damage to property, expropriation of houses and land, closing of streets and business to Palestinians and preventing rehabilitation of building in the Old City. By providing legal assistance, HRC hopes to create an environment of accountability that will contribute towards the safety of the community and prevent future depopulation.

Covering costs

  • Funding for the programme has been obtained from a range of sources, including the Palestinian National Authority, other government sources and international multi- and bilateral donors including many European governments. Since the beginning of the programme in 1996, more than US$32 million has been received from over 20 donors in 16 countries to cover the costs of housing rehabilitation, urban infrastructure provision, training, economic development and social and legal assistance for the residents of the Old City. The average cost per unit for housing rehabilitation is US$26,000.
  • On-going operating costs of the programme are met through a combination of grants from national and international donors, other revenues and in-kind donations, totalling approximately US$2.7 million per year.
  • Funding in the amount of US$600,000 was provided by AECID for the establishment of a vocational training school in 2009.

Impact

  • More than 6,000 people are now living in the Old City, ensuring the continuous use and maintenance of historical buildings and urban spaces that had previously been abandoned. The more than tenfold increase in the number of people living within the rehabilitation programme area has been the most important indicator of the success of the programme.
  • Rehabilitation of infrastructure, services and public spaces has significantly improved the living conditions in the Old City.
  • The legal unit of HRC has assisted shop owners and families in getting back properties that had been closed down or expropriated through a ruling in the Israeli Supreme Court. Rulings such as this have protected the rights of the Palestinians.
    Over 160 shop owners have reopened their shops and 207 permanent jobs have been created to date.

Why is it innovative?

  • Combining heritage preservation (carried out in accordance with international conservation standards) with job creation and the provision of high-quality affordable housing for low-income families in central areas, making use of existing infrastructure.
  • Adaptation of residential buildings originally built to accommodate extended families into separate, independent single-family apartments, addressing changing household needs and the transition from extended to nuclear family structures.
  • Broad partnership with a range of international organisations and donors as well as local and national government agencies.
  • Providing an example of how to address a difficult situation of military occupation and urban conflict in a peaceful manner.

What is the environmental impact?

  • Restoration and reuse of existing buildings with traditional, locally available materials with low embodied energy, such as stone masonry, handmade tiles and lime renders.
  • The original elements of old houses were preserved, such as the thickness of the stone masonry walls, minimising the loss of energy and allowing for both protection from the heat of the day and retaining warmth on cold nights. The programme also involves the installation of improved water and sewerage networks and a water-cooling system on the parapet roofs.
  • A drainage and rainwater collection system has been designed which separates rainwater from waste water and helps to prevent flooding. The improved sanitation system has had a positive effect on health as well as the environment.

Is it financially sustainable?

  • Whilst the programme relies on national and international grant funding for its operations, partnerships and funding arrangements with a wide range of organisations helps to reduce the reliance on a single funding stream.
  • The programme has been running successfully for 17 years and funding is in place for on-going activities in the coming years.
  • The programme promotes the use of labour-intensive methods as a means to create sustainable employment opportunities, provide specialised training on traditional methods of conservation and increase the level of income of the community. More than 1.7 million working days have been created from the beginning of the project. Graduates from the vocational training school for restoration established by HRC represent 20 per cent of the contracted workforce.
  • A job creation programme has been implemented to provide Palestinian refugees with short-term job opportunities in order to financially assist them with a monthly salary of up to US$420. Workers were placed in different positions according to their health capabilities and their specialisations.
  • HRC is implementing measures to revitalise the economy and encourage tourism. Forty-one shops have been restored in the old market to date.
  • Residents have access to extremely favourable rents (avg. US$200/month), including an initial five year rent-free period. Those on lowest incomes also have access to multiple free services (including electricity, water, health insurance) and tax reductions. These benefits are provided as an incentive to stimulate the repopulation of the Old City and have made housing of acceptable quality affordable for those on very low incomes.

What is the social impact?

  • A range of social development initiatives have been established to facilitate greater community cooperation, including setting up a community centre, outreach activities, school trips to the Old City and special activities for young people.
  • An overall achievement of the programme has been the reintegration of the Old City into the social fabric of Hebron as previously decayed areas separating the two parts of the city have been restored, fostering movement between them.
  • The improvements to basic infrastructure and services, particularly in terms of the availability of safe drinking water and sanitation, in the area have a positive effect on residents’ health. Sixty per cent of residents receive free health insurance.
  • The legal assistance provided by HRC helps to protect residents against human rights violations and seeks to create an environment of greater accountability by the military forces and settler groups within the Old City.
  • HRC works to address the urgent housing needs of the most marginalised in Hebron, seeking to reduce existing social inequalities. The rehabilitation programme has a number of initiatives that target specific groups including, for example, vocational training activities for women, activities with disabled persons and income-generating activities for refugees.
  • Residents are involved in the planning stages of the programme and in wider decisions affecting the community.
  • Awareness-raising activities and the work of the human rights unit encourage residents to take a more active role in society.

Barriers

  • A key barrier is the presence of Israeli settlements in the Old City, where it is difficult to get permission to work and where Israeli military forces on many occasions have prevented tasks from being carried out. The closure of access roads to the Old City has made it difficult to bring in building materials. Despite the extended curfews, closures and restrictions on movement, HRC has managed to achieve a great deal under difficult circumstances. In order to bypass a ban on motorised vehicles in the Old City, HRC uses horse-drawn carts.
  • There was a lack of comprehensive maps of the Old City, its historic areas and buildings and its relationship to the city of Hebron as a whole. HRC engaged in gathering of information and mapping of the area.
  • The integration of the community with the rest of the city has been a key challenge. The vast majority of residents are poor since those that had the means to live elsewhere left. HRC has undertaken a comprehensive approach, from restoration and service provision to addressing broader issues of fragmentation, social erosion and unemployment.
  • A key barrier encountered was the restoration of the extended family homes of multiple occupancy and ownership. A house may have a large number of different owners, most of who live outside the Old City or even outside the country. The solution has been a double-lease system: HRC negotiates a contract with the owners according to which the organisation leases a building for free for a period of five years. Once renovation is complete, the owners can either return to the home or HRC lets the apartments for free for another five years. When those five years are up, the tenant is entitled to keep the apartment by signing a new rent-controlled contract with the owners.

Lessons Learned

  • In addition to housing, it was essential to provide public facilities, services and parks within the Old City. This has led to positive effects in terms of raising cultural and environmental awareness and providing much needed recreational facilities. A focus on wider social and economic issues is key to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the approach.
  • Lessons were derived from the adaptation of the extended family houses into smaller, more modern housing units that better fit the current needs of residents. HRC has documented these adapted buildings and trained a team to ensure the accessibility of this information to future researchers and renovators for their future work.
  • Citizens are the ones playing the most important role in the preservation and revitalisation process, the involvement of local community is essential to guarantee its sustainability.

Evaluation

Regular monitoring and evaluation of the programme is carried out by HRC. Donor agencies also commission and/or carry out periodic studies to assess the impact of the programme and inform the allocation of funds. This has led, for example, to an expansion of activities and an increased focus on measures to address issues of social cohesion and economic development.

Transfer

From the initial restorations in 1996, the work of HRC has since grown, reaching two-thirds of the historic buildings in the Old City by 2013, and plans are in place to rehabilitate the remaining buildings and public spaces.

HRC has also expanded the scope of its activities to address wider social and environmental issues.

HRC has been invited by a number of government agencies and private institutions to advise them on service provision and how to build positive relationships with residents.

Solutions have been developed along with the Hebron Municipality for the rehabilitation of streets and infrastructure across the rest of the city.

Nationally, the renovation standards set by the HRC have been used as a technical basis for other similar projects, including the Bethlehem 2000 project.

HRC regularly organises workshops, training sessions and study trips to share its experience in heritage preservation and housing provision to students, institutions and international visitors.

Authors:

The 100,000 Homes Campaign

0

The 100,000 Homes Campaign

Mismatches Services
Policies and regulations Regulation
Promotion and production Self-promotion
Ownership and tenure Shared ownership

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Ganador

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: New York, United States of America

Description

The 100,000 Homes Campaign is part of the strategy of the NGO Community Solutions (CS) to end homelessness in the USA, advocating and transferring the proven ‘Street to Home’ method pioneered in New York to communities elsewhere. A network of almost 100 organisations is committed to this work at the local or national level in addition to implementation teams in 190 participating communities. The Campaign started in July 2010 and ended in July 2014.

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The Campaign intends to build a national grassroots movement with the purpose of finding and permanently housing 100,000 of the most long-term and vulnerable people experiencing homelessness by 2014. The objective is to change the way that communities respond to homelessness and to shift efforts away from emergency responses to long-term solutions.

Context

Around 650,000 people are homeless in the USA on any given night, and from 1.5 to 2 million over the course of the year. For most, homelessness is short-term, but for roughly 100,000 it becomes chronic. They have complex needs that prolong homelessness and make them dependent on costly government services that fail to deliver lasting or cost effective results. The 17 per cent chronically homeless consume over half of the resources dedicated to homelessness. Long-term homelessness seriously affects health; the average lifespan of a chronically homeless person is 25 years less than that of the average American. Previously, communities often provided housing on a first-come first-serve basis, rather than targeting those most in need.

Key features

The Campaign employs an innovative process of movement building and quality improvement methods to create two significant changes at the community level: a registry of all homeless persons and a plan to move 2.5 per cent of the chronic and vulnerable homeless population into permanent housing each month. In this context, a community is a multi-faceted term defined locally, encompassing a definition of space, but also of participating organisations and resources. This involves the following process:

  • CS recruits prioritised communities into the movement; 190 communities have now enrolled and this number is still growing.
  • A team is built from as many local sectors as possible. Free training is provided in Registry Week Boot Camps for a two-day orientation to the tools of the Campaign and the variety of resources available. Additionally, Veteran specific Boot Camps, hosted with the Rapid Results Institute, have trained 20 communities during three days and further coached during 100 days to rehouse veterans more quickly.
  • A Registry Week in which hundreds of volunteers canvas the streets between 04.00am and 06.00am for three consecutive mornings to survey each person sleeping outside using the Vulnerability Index, a tool created by Community Solutions. This creates a by-name and by-photograph registry of all homeless persons, ranked by risk of premature mortality. This information enables data-driven negotiations about housing and support systems. So far, over 100 communities have completed a registry of homeless persons.
  • The needs of individual homeless people are matched with housing options, necessary health and employment support, as well as Critical Time Intervention support to enable them to maintain their independence in their own home. Enrolled communities across the USA have found innovative ways to line up housing and services, and of discovering resources they had so far not tapped into. The Campaign has a national network of like-minded communities and mentors to find new ways to secure units, funding and support.
  • Each community receives a monthly progress report that compares their progress against standard benchmarks.

The Campaign has a full-time director of strategic partnerships based in Washington D.C. who connects the grassroots work with high level officials and organisations. This person works closely with several central government departments and over two dozen strategic partners with whom CS synchronises efforts to move vulnerable homeless persons into permanent housing.

Covering costs

  • The cost of the Campaign is US$1.5 million per year, funded mostly by foundations (12 in 2012) and corporations (KNO Clothing). In 2013, CS will receive more significant funding from the federal government and from a national veterans’ advocacy project, but much of the Campaign’s costs will still be funded from philanthropic contributions. No capital investment was required to launch or operate the Campaign.

There currently is no cost to the participating communities. At the conclusion of the Campaign, CS plans to continue many of the consultancy services to communities for a fee. Sixty per cent of income in 2015 is projected to come from fees for turning real estate into housing for homeless persons with donations and government grants contributing 20 per cent each.

Impact

Over 44,000 long-term and medically vulnerable homeless people have been permanently housed to date. Twenty-eight communities are currently meeting their 2.5 per cent monthly placement targets, up from 13 half a year ago. The Campaign advocates strategies that have a proven retention rate of 85 per cent; a survey showed an actual retention of 90 per cent after one year in housing. Hospital costs were vastly reduced, as was return to jail. Levels of income and employment increased. Some of the innovative tools are effective, e.g. the ‘Rapid Results Housing Placement Boot Camp’ has already helped four (out of 20) communities double their placement rate. Nine communities reduced the time it takes to move veterans into housing, some by 75 per cent. Three communities improved their targeting of chronically homeless veterans; e.g. from 26 to 93 per cent in Atlanta. Such boot camps will be rolled out to 40 communities focusing on non-veterans in 2013. Rapid-results teams also report changes in mindset, behaviours and processes that carry the effect beyond their lifespan, e.g.

  • Unprecedented levels of collaboration between and across agencies and not-for-profit organisations active in the community.
  • Various versions of ‘one-stop shops’ for housing solutions have been implemented to streamline housing placement efforts.
  • More staff has been involved in going directly to homeless persons, with more delegation to these frontline staff.
  • Heightened awareness about the need to focus on chronically homeless individuals.
  • Deeper engagement of the local mayor’s office in the process and resulting support.

Beyond that, it has enabled data-based dialogue between national leaders and grassroots leaders, partnering to identify solutions to chronic homelessness based on what actually works at local level. In over 189 communities there has been a transformation of their response to homelessness resulting in a wider ‘can-do’ attitude to tackle complex social problems. Some communities have gone on to address other issues as well.

Additionally, there have been many policy changes that have taken place as a result of the project; some of the most important include:

  • Dozens of public housing authorities have created ‘local limited preferences’ which enable homeless people who meet the criteria for chronic or vulnerable homeless to effectively move to the front of the waiting list for housing.
  • Multiple government agencies created a ‘one stop’ model where veterans could be issued with a voucher for permanent housing on the same day they applied.
  • Local Public Housing Authorities’ Administrative Plans were amended to prioritise chronically homeless persons.
  • Local agencies have condensed administrative paperwork, creating a Unified Application between agencies.

Why is it innovative?

  • An overarching goal that helps mobilise groups into action and quickly captures attention and support. It also changes the focus from providing housing on a first-come, first-serve basis to medically fragile and chronically homeless persons.
  • The Continuous Quality Improvement approach uses data collected on a large scale to feed into the entire human services and housing sector.
  • A unique set of simple replicable tools to gather and assess data, monitor progress and quality, and help communities transform their response to housing vulnerable people, overcome barriers and improve their housing placement.

What is the environmental impact?

  • The Campaign does not undertake building work itself. In most cases, existing buildings have been used by participating organisations to provide housing for homeless persons. The Campaign is respectful of environmental principles. For example, communities are trained on how to use existing resources efficiently, and that ending homelessness needs resource coordination, not building new facilities.
  • Taking people off the streets into secure accommodation has positive public health impacts.

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The Campaign is funded from public and private sources. It is now building relationships with federal government partners to establish a fee for service arrangement that could expand its reach. When it ends, CS intends to continue to provide improvement and data management services at a modest fee. The Campaign is already demonstrating a series of cost-efficient solutions that could be suggested as alternatives to government.
  • The Campaign believes that the best way of ending homelessness permanently is to provide an integrated but tailored package of housing + health + employment support.
  • Where relevant, homeless people receive employment support, which has increased income and employment. Having a permanent address is important in being able to access employment.
  • Housing is made much more accessible to chronically homeless persons.
  • The involvement of communities and a wide range of partners has enabled the development of innovative solutions and the pooling of resources that have made the provision of housing to homeless persons more cost-effective.

What is the social impact?

  • There is more engagement and collaboration, both within and between communities (e.g. by over 7,000 people volunteering) and with external support agencies on the issue of homelessness, of the ‘can-do’ attitude this generates. Communities are able to apply the methods for collective problem solving used to tackle homelessness to other problems in society.
  • The Campaign provides capacity building and support to enrolled communities, and has developed various tools to help communities tackle homelessness, e.g. boot camps, self-assessment tool, barrier-jumping toolkits, and provided more intensive support to the low-performers. As a result, communities have performed much better in dealing with homeless persons.
  • Moving people from the streets, where their health and safety are at great risk, to stable housing almost always has a positive impact. Over half of homeless adults struggle with mental illness. Data of 2011 put the average annual cost of providing supportive housing to an adult at US$24,190, as against a cost of US$56,350 for emergency, inpatient and crisis services to a homeless individual with mental illness. Philadelphia now has a programme that targets Medicaid funds to support housing for homeless people and there is a growing effort to make that happen at national level.
  • The Campaign is ensuring that the needs of medically vulnerable and chronically homeless persons receive greater priority. As these are the most marginalised of homeless persons, and arguably of society, this has the effect of reducing social inequality.
  • There is some evidence of individual people, who were previously homeless, reducing or eliminating their dependency on drugs or alcohol, becoming employed, staying in schools, etc. with the effect of them becoming less isolated and taking a more active role in society.

Barriers

A study of community performance in 2012 identified the following barriers and challenges:

  • Local laws, culture and customs, geography and climate, and politics and feelings regarding race and class, often present a unique set of barriers in each community. Such differences make comparisons difficult and can make a one-size-fits-all approach to reducing barriers fail. Tools that can be customised in the unique context of each community are needed.
  • While all communities could provide examples of ‘Housing First’ (the practice of helping homeless persons from the street directly into housing, without conditions), no community has yet been able to adopt Housing First as a uniform standard. Similarly, while most communities were able to offer examples of programmes that use a harm reduction approach (the practice of gradually weaning a person off drug or alcohol abuse), no community is close to using it consistently.
  • While each community was able to demonstrate high-performing programmes, only one showed evidence of a truly unified homeless and housing placement system. For the most part local ‘systems’ consist of many semi-autonomous efforts.

Lessons Learned

In addition to the above points, the following lessons were noted:

  • The vulnerability registries provide communities with actionable data and a practical method for targeting their efforts.
  • The power of data and regular sharing helps leaders understand their system and provide targets for improvement.
  • Higher performing communities appeared to have ‘champions’, who are placed at a sufficiently high level to affect systems or programmes. Lower-performing communities still had champions, but less powerful, or had lost their leading advocates.
  • It was critical to ensure that all key players attended the Boot Camp Launch, participated in setting local goals and building the 100-day local work plan. National and regional partners were also needed, to clarify policies and enable local success.
  • The Campaign aims to move chronically homeless people to the top of waiting lists, thus moving short-term homeless people down. But the housing sector has evolved and they now have access to less expensive and equally effective interventions that were previously unavailable, such as rapid rehousing support.

Evaluation

  • The Campaign currently provides enrolled communities with monthly feedback reports against the 2.5 per cent homelessness reduction target and in comparison with four similar communities.
  • The Centre for Urban Community Services is retained as Quality Assurance provider for the Campaign, providing third party monitoring of data. It also conducted a qualitative study in 2012 of three high and three low performing communities that identified 19 factors associated with successful placement performance. A self-assessment tool by which communities can identify performance gaps against 19 indicators is being tested and will then be shared with enrolled communities. Barrier-jumping toolkits have been developed to help communities implement improvements in each of the 19 factors.
  • Funding has been received for an evaluation in the final year of the Campaign (2014).

Transfer

The Campaign is a scaling-up process in itself, taking a proven approach in New York, to the USA as a whole and beyond. The Campaign team itself attempts to accept as many invitations as possible to visit external organisations in the USA and abroad to discuss and advocate the Campaign’s methodology.

The Campaign now works on a regular basis with 190 local coalitions across the USA.

The approach has been discussed with political and community leaders in Canada, Australia, Ireland and Belgium. In the first two, this has now led to similar campaigns; support has been provided to five cities or regions. In Brisbane, the Vulnerability Index and Registry Weeks methodologies were applied to triage flood victims and rehouse them very rapidly. Take up in Ireland and Belgium is imminent.

Authors:

Milton Park Community

0

Milton Park Community

Policies and regulations Local policies Building capacity Governance
Urban Design Services and infrastructure Regulación Técnica
Promotion and production Self-promotion
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
City: Montreal
Country/Region: Canada, Montreal

Description

Milton Park is one of the oldest and most characteristic neighbourhoods in Montreal. Located just outside the Downtown area, Milton Park was known as a vibrant neighbourhood, but the lack of maintenance caused buildings to fall into disrepair. In the 1970s, the whole neighbourhood was targeted for regeneration which would gentrify it and make it unaffordable for original residents. In response, the community mobilised to find a long-term solution and avoid evictions, resulting in the creation of the Communauté Milton Parc (Milton Park Community – CMP). With time and support, the buildings and land were bought and organised into a condominium structure governed by a Declaration of Co-Ownership involving 25 members made up of cooperatives and non-profit housing corporations. These regulations secured the tenancy for all residents, and created the largest renovated cooperative housing structure in North America.

The aim of the CMP is to collectively own, renovate and manage the buildings of the Milton Park area that were under the threat of being bought and demolished through a cooperative approach, in order to:

  • preserve the architectural value and local identity;
  • prevent speculation and safeguard affordability in the long-term; and
  • build a cohesive and mixed community.

Context

Milton Park is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in Montreal, and is located on prime land in the city centre. It is made up of approximately 150 old buildings, mostly erected at the turn of the 20th century and converted throughout the years into 600 dwellings let to a few thousand low- and middle- income residents. Milton Park was known as a vibrant neighbourhood, despite the increasingly run-down physical conditions. In the 1970s, a private developer bought 90 per cent of the area and planned to demolish the buildings and replace them with the creation of a ‘modern city’, with high-rise structures, offices and commercial buildings. Housing in the area would have become unaffordable for the original residents. In response, the community mobilised to find a long-term solution and avoid evictions. This led to the creation of the CMP that, with the help of public authorities, bought the buildings and land destined to be held in trust through a condominium structure governed by a Declaration of Co-Ownership. These regulations secured the tenancy for all those living in the housing – every tenant was handed back their home after renovations.

Key features

The CMP was created through various stages:

  • Initial social mobilisation to save the area through non-violent social activism (demonstrations, marches and building occupations) and through negotiations with the developer when faced with the threat of neighbourhood destruction.
  • Feasibility study, with the help of experts, on the possibility of buying the buildings, the legal requirements to create housing cooperatives and the evaluation of political support for the project at local, regional, and national levels.
  • Acquisition of the buildings and land by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in 1979, along with a commitment by the CMHC to sell the properties to the Société du Patrmoine Urbain de Montreal (SPUM). The buildings were previously all owned by the same developer and buying them en bloc safeguarded them from speculators.
  • Elaboration of an Action Plan designed to preserve the area and guarantee the right for the residents to remain.
  • Transfer of the properties in the 1980s to the Société d’Amelioration de Milton Parc (Society for the Improvement of Milton Park – SAMP) who became the temporary owner of the properties with the goal of overseeing refurbishment works and eventually transferring properties to the cooperatives.
  • Signing of the Declaration of Co-ownership. By law, the content and mission of the declaration are protected from modifications.

The structure that resulted presents the following characteristics:

  • The residents of Milton Park are organised into 15 cooperatives which comprise the members of CMP, along with six non-profit housing corporations, two community organisations, one commercial entity and a community development corporation. These residents, characterised by mixed socio-economic backgrounds and with a high proportion of low- and very low-income families, are the main beneficiaries of the project.
  • Land and buildings are held in trust, and are therefore communally owned by the members (cooperatives and non-profit housing corporations) and their overarching syndicate. All residents are tenants – not owners but ‘guardians of a common good’. The individual dwellings therefore cannot be resold. This system prevents prices and rents from being driven up, thus ensuring long-term affordability.
  • Under Quebec law, the CMP is classified as a condominium whereby the syndicate owns common spaces (such as lanes), and individual cooperatives own land beneath their buildings and semi-private spaces (e.g. gardens).
  • If a member is facing financial difficulties, the property can only be sold to another co-owner.
  • CMP is comparable to a Community Land Trust (CLT), although it differs in that in the CLT model all of the land is generally owned by the trust only, instead of being subdivided under the ownership of different members bound by an agreement. It can also be considered a very large cooperative, where the members are the housing cooperatives and non-profits rather than the individual residents.
  • Each of the 25 co-owners is responsible for the maintenance of its buildings and its internal functioning, but shares certain common services and responsibilities (e.g. information, training, insurance).
  • As members of the syndicate, each group must ensure that its activities comply with the principles of the agreement and do not infringe upon or cause damage to other members.

Covering costs

The total cost of the development was US$30 million, which was met primarily through public funds made available at all three levels of government. For the original acquisition, the total costs amounted to US$7.5 million, of which US$ 5.4million were obtained from a cross-Canada program to help tenants form cooperatives. Subsequently, the CMHC, the City of Montreal, and the Quebec Government contributed US$ 5.8 million in capital subsidy for renovation. The remaining amount (US$2.2 million for acquisition, US$10.8 million for renovation and US$4.1 million for development) was borrowed on mortgage loans. Each co-owner held a 35 year mortgage guaranteed by the CMHC, with 10-15 year renewals. The CMHC subsidised the difference between the market interest rate at the time and two per cent. Rents were therefore kept low, based on the original rent with a small increase calculated to cover the mortgage at two per cent, property taxes, maintenance, insurance and utilities.

Impact

Residents have been able to remain in the homes they occupied, which has promoted financial and social stability and continuity. Evictions for non-payment of rent have been extremely rare. The protection of the demographic mix against gentrifying forces, and the safeguarding of quality of life have all had a positive effect on Downtown Montreal, making the city centre a safe and liveable space for people, which is not the case in many North American cities.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Community-initiated and community-driven innovation, management and governance processes, born out of mobilisation to save the neighbourhood.
  • CMP is the first project of this scale involving co-ownership by cooperatives and non-profits with land held in trust, governed by a Declaration of Co-ownership. It remains the largest cooperative housing project in North America.
  • Housing and land use are prioritised for living rather than for profit through a system that ensures long-term affordability and prevents gentrification, with the safeguarding of local heritage and inclusiveness as a common good.

 

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.
  • Improved insulation and piping has had an impact on the amount of energy and water used. Some cooperatives have initiated their own projects to reduce energy consumption, including installing solar panels, green roofs and cool roofs.
  • The Urban Ecology Centre was created in 1996 as an ‘ecological laboratory’ aiming to turn Milton Park into a catalyst for the experimentation of innovative urban ecological solutions such as green-roofing, recycling and organic composting.
  • Individual cooperatives have agreed to maintain and create green spaces.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The CMP structure allows the cooperatives and non-profit housing corporations to have a stable source of income deriving from the rents of the housing units, which go towards paying the mortgage, the repairs and community investments.
  • The end of the mortgage repayment period for all cooperatives is drawing near (2017-2018), placing CMP in a position of reinforced financial security. In the future, this disposable income will be dedicated to a new cycle of refurbishment or to offer supplemental aid to certain families who currently depend on government support to cover housing costs.
  • The guarantee of long-term affordable rents decreases financial insecurity, and allows residents to allocate resources to fulfil other pressing needs as well as allowing for savings and investments.
  • Rents at CMP are significantly more affordable than in surrounding areas (on average twice as low). Access is facilitated for very low-income people that wish to move into Milton Park, as only disadvantaged socio-economic groups are eligible to take up freed or new apartments.
  • The community development corporation Société de Développement Communautaire (Society for Community Development – SDC) was created to manage the commercial spaces in the community and control the type of businesses so that they reflect resident needs. Surpluses are either reinvested or given as subsidies for projects that benefit the whole community.

    What is the social impact?
    The CMP prides itself in having maintained a demographically mixed community that facilitates integration between diverse groups. Long-term social sustainability was ensured to residents, as the risk of eviction or relocation to areas that offer fewer social, economic and educational opportunities was eliminated. Furthermore, training and education workshops offer families with limited means the possibility of acquiring new skills.
    The setting up of the CMP has built the capacity of residents to develop solutions, to organise, and to manage the neighbourhood. The cooperative structure itself becomes a place for capacity-building, where members learn how to chair meetings, draft minutes, keep books, maintain properties and understand renovation and urban planning processes. In fact, the residents are responsible for managing all of their affairs according to the Declaration and the specific constitution of each member.

    In addition, volunteers are engaged in contributing to the running of the CMP, and individual or group initiatives by residents are encouraged and supported. By providing a space for dialogue and action, a strong sense of solidarity has developed around housing, green spaces and democracy, resulting in community cooperation through social events, and regular community activities (street markets, community meals, workshops).

    The project has also provided a healthier environment for the residents of Milton Park. The houses are no longer in a state of disrepair, and strong incentives were created to ensure long-term maintenance, as cooperatives received the CMHC;s financial support conditional upon buildings being in a good state of repair and meeting health and safety requirements. Additionally, the Urban Ecology Centre focuses on promoting healthy lifestyles through training and seminars, neighbourhood greening and increased pedestrian and cyclist activity.

    Initially CMHC would not guarantee that rents would remain affordable in the long-term or that residents would not have to leave their homes. In response, the community mobilised against this decision and the federal government agreed to the community’s terms to avoid unpopularity.
    CMP and other housing organisations in Canada are confronted with the possibility of losing financial assistance for tenants on very low incomes. CMP is involved in a coalition to put pressure on the government and search for alternatives.

  • Occasionally there has been significant disagreement between residents, though these were resolved through democratic processes.
  • Maintaining a level of active interest and involvement of the community is challenging when not faced with immediate threats. The origins of the CMP might be taken for granted with time, and redefining a new type of leadership to bring the project forward is essential. Tours and talks are organised to keep the story of Milton Park alive, and residents are kept informed of the regulations governing the project to enable a better democratic functioning and understanding of the Declaration of Co-ownership.
    Strong market forces can be countered if there is significant social mobilisation by residents and sympathisers, supported by professionals such as architects, urban planners, social workers, lawyers, accountants, etc.
    In order to ensure the perpetuity of the project the process will tend to be comprehensive and elaborate, which will necessarily require a significant amount of time and commitment there are no easy ways.
    For the underpinning social and political value to remain, there must be a constant process of renewal and education.
    No formal monitoring or evaluation process has been carried out on the project.

    The project has not expanded physically, as the focus has been geared towards keeping the existing project robust. The establishment of the Urban Ecology Centre has enabled the project to develop further, as well as ensuring that the ideas of building a sustainable, cohesive and democratic environment are spread to other areas of the city.
    CMP has been consulted on their cooperative model with restricted resale, which has been adapted and transferred to the Benny Farm project and the Chambreclerc rooming housing for homeless and mentally ill persons in Montreal.
    CMP is recognised as a positive example of cooperative housing and has influenced the expansion of cooperatives in Quebec and Canada. In Quebec alone there are currently 1,200 housing cooperatives, which are organised in networks and federations involved in constant exchange and communication.

Authors:

Cooperative Programme for the Development of Urban Neighbourhoods

0

Cooperative Programme for the Development of Urban Neighbourhoods

Mismatches Diversity Vulnerable groups
Policies and regulations Regulation Participatory processes
Urban Design Urban fabrics
Promotion and production Self-management

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Africa
Country/Region: Cameroon, Yaounde

Description

Authors:

ㅤ Encouraging the residential mobility of social housing tenants: England’s Right to Move policy (United Kingdom)

0

ㅤ Encouraging the residential mobility of social housing tenants: England’s Right to Move policy (United Kingdom)

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: UK government

Location

Country/Region: United Kingdom

Description

In 2015 the UK government passed the Right to Move statutory guidance under the new Allocation of Housing Regulations for England. This guarantee removed residency or queuing requirements for social housing units if prospective tenants move to take up employment or an apprenticeship. For this, the previous ‘hardship’ criteria have been extended to those moving for work. Local authorities are since required to offer a minimum of 1% of their housing stock under the Right to Move scheme.  

Previously, prospective council or housing association tenants often needed to sacrifice their rent-controlled tenancy in order to take up work elsewhere, effectively disincentivising employment as waiting lists were often long and private rental options too expensive for these households. The new regulations thus remove rent-benefit and housing affordability related barriers from employment related moves and encourage residential mobility within the social housing sector and across districts. It is not clear whether the Right to Move programme has catalysed moves between districts and lowered some of the mobility barriers.  

Authors:

Workshops for Construction and Training of a Municipal Housing Diagnosis Instrument based on Community Health Agents

0

Workshops for Construction and Training of a Municipal Housing Diagnosis Instrument based on Community Health Agents

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2022:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Institute of Architects of Brazil (IAB)

Location

City: Marcelândia
Country/Region: Brazil

Description

The case presented is the creation of a local policy for housing diagnosis based on the action of Community Health Agents (ACS – Community Health Agents) that can be a model for Brazilian cities. The relationship between public health, quality of life and housing conditions was even more evident with the economic and sanitary crisis caused by the Sars-COV 2 pandemic. In Brazil, the housing scenario is experiencing one of the most critical moments in history, with cuts in federal resources and environmental disasters, which mainly affect the population of greater social vulnerability. Thus, the municipal government must promote policies that guarantee the right to decent housing. One of these strategies is the implementation of Technical Assistance in Social Interest Housing (ATHIS – Assistência Técnica em Habitação de Interesse Social). This policy is regulated in Brazil by Federal Law 11.888/2008.   There is a direct relationship of hospitalizations in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS – Sistema Único de Saúde) caused by lack of basic sanitation, poor housing and urban quality – lack of infrastructure, clean water and insalubrity problems. This panorama increases the costs of Public Health and could be prevented with access to healthy housing. Therefore, it is necessary to bring the architects closer to the population in housing vulnerability. This close relationship between health and living conditions is essential in the intersectoral policy agenda, especially at the local level.   Given this perspective, the Maringá core of the Paraná Department of the Institute of Architects of Brazil (IAB/PR – Núcleo Maringá do Departamento Paraná do Instituto de Arquitetos do Brasil), sponsored by the Council of Architecture and Urbanism of Brazil (CAU/BR – Conselho de Arquitetura e Urbanismo do Brasil), in partnership with the João Pinheiro Foundation (FJP – Fundação João Pinheiro), is creating a Municipal Housing Diagnosis Instrument (IDHM – Instrumento de Diagnóstico Habitacional Municipal) based on the action of Community Health Agents. These professionals will be trained to apply and, later, act as multipliers. This instrument is being designed from the methodology of the João Pinheiro Foundation, an institution that calculates the quantitative and qualitative housing deficits since 1995 in Brazil. The first case of application of the instrument is being carried out in the city of Maringá, Paraná state.

The main objective of the proposal is to obtain territorialized data on housing inadequacies in the municipalities and to integrate health and housing information systems. From the case of Maringá, the instrument can be incorporated into the SUS, covering 63,62% of the Brazilian population that is served by the Family Health Strategy (Estratégia Saúde da Família), according to data from the Ministry of Health of Brazil for 2021. The information collected by Community Health Agents in the monthly visits and registrations of the families’ houses is not sufficient to guide specific housing policies. There is a lack of information such as identification of cohabitation, improper water storage, inadequate coverage, lack of exclusive sanitary units, excessive rent burden, and lack of accessibility for people with disabilities and the elderly, among others.

Data collected by the Health Agents will be automatically integrated with the local housing information system. This information will support the application of resources in promoting intersectoral public policies between Health and Housing, recognizing the role and social function of the Architect and Urbanist. Diagnoses will also assist in the development of Local Plans for Housing of Social Interest (PLHIS – Plano Local de Habitação de Interesse Social) and the distribution of public resources according to intervention needs contributing to the reduction of urban inequalities and the right to health, well-being and decent housing.

The project is part of the forum theme as a case of mobilizing public and private agents from various disciplinary fields to create an innovative intersectoral policy to diagnose the housing situation at the local level.   Housing diagnoses carried out in Brazil are developed based on statistical data, mainly with information collected by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia Estatística) in the Demographic Censuses. These censuses are conducted at a periodicity of 10 years. The project, developed by the core Maringá of IAB, proposed a territorialization of housing data, identifying the needs for housing improvements, with continuous monitoring of the housing situation of the population through the monthly visits of Community Health Agents.   One of the impacts, in addition to the integration of health and housing systems in the city of Maringá, is the creation of a methodological and the design of training material, capable of becoming a model for Brazilian cities. Actions like this, which seeks to integrate housing issues into the public health system in Brazil, could be a way to popularize the architect’s profession.   The creation of the Municipal Housing Diagnosis Instrument aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals elaborated by the United Nations (UN) – mainly SDG 3 “Good Health and Well-Being”, SDG 6 “Clean Water and Sanitation” and SDG 11 “Cities Sustainable and Communities” – stimulating and contributing to the promotion of Public Health and Housing Policies for the Brazilian population.

Authors:

PUBLIC SPACES BEFORE AND AFTER PANDEMIC

0

PUBLIC SPACES BEFORE AND AFTER PANDEMIC

Main objectives of the project

This project explores the adaptations of public spaces in a post-pandemic context. Below is a streaming link with a series of videos and power points showing how countries in the 5 regions found solutions to the life of public spaces after the pandemic.

The project comes thanks to Maria José Gomes Feitosa, director of the UIA work program on public spaces.

Date

  • 2022:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: UIA

Location

Country/Region:

Description

Authors:

‘Swedish Tenants’ Union – advocacy in negotiating tenant and landlord agreements

0

‘Swedish Tenants’ Union – advocacy in negotiating tenant and landlord agreements

Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

All tenants of rented housing in Sweden, including for-profit and non-profit provision, have the right to be involved in negotiating rents and tenancy conditions. This builds on a distinctive history of rented housing regulation which treats all forms of rented housing the same.

Date

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Hyresgästföreningen – Swedish Tenants’ Union

Location

Continent: Europe
Country/Region: Sweden

Description

This is reinforced by tenant mobilization and active campaigns for rights. Representative organizations of tenants and landlords negotiate tenancy agreements. If landlords refuse to negotiate with tenants, a statutory Rent Tribunal has the power to impose an arrangement regarding rent levels and tenancy conditions.[1]

Authors: