Date Type: Finalista

PACE and Phyllis Wheatley YWCA rehabilitation

0

PACE and Phyllis Wheatley YWCA rehabilitation

Mismatches Financing Vulnerable groups
Policies and regulations National policies Public-private initiatives
Financing Financial actors Public funding

Main objectives of the project

Washington, D.C. is addressing the significant deferred maintenance requirements and the challenge of high utility bills faced by affordable housing properties and non-profits. Through the implementation of Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing in affordable housing projects, the city is making sustainable upgrades accessible to an underserved market. This initiative demonstrates that green retrofits and housing affordability can complement each other effectively.

Date

  • 2018: Finalista
  • 2016: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Dantes Partners
  • US Department of Housing
  • Washington DC Mayor
  • Architect: Miner Feinstein Architects

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: United States of America, Washington D.C.

Description

The property assessed clean energy (PACE) model represents an innovative approach to financing energy efficiency and renewable energy enhancements on private property. PACE financing, commonly established within a "land-secured financing district," akin to an assessment district or local improvement district, typically involves local government-issued bonds for projects like streetlights or sewer systems. Recently extended to encompass energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives, this model allows property owners to undertake improvements without substantial upfront costs. Participants in a PACE program, opting in voluntarily, repay improvement expenses over a defined period—typically 10 to 20 years—through property assessments, secured by the property itself and billed as an addition to property tax obligations.

Although PACE financing is accessible across much of the USA, the Phyllis Wheatley YWCA project stands out as the first instance where it has gained approval for a Department of Housing and Urban Development-assisted mixed finance public housing property. By synergizing with affordable housing subsidies, this pioneering mechanism facilitates the preservation of low rents, ensuring the property's sustained status as public affordable housing for a minimum of 40 years, all while reducing its environmental impact.

The Phyllis Wheatley YWCA, a nationally registered historic edifice, fulfills the needs of marginalized women by providing secure housing and counseling services. Originally erected in 1920 and significantly renovated in the early 1990s, the building is experiencing resident attrition. While only 30 units retain full amenities, thanks to the rehabilitation the rest now have shared shower rooms and kitchens on each floor, each unit now includes a toilet and sink. Additionally, the restoration of the first-floor common areas to their historic splendor entails the removal of current utilitarian finishes. Thanks to PACE financing, newly installed photovoltaic systems, sophisticated computerized control integration for mechanical and electrical systems, and stormwater management solutions optimize the building's technological efficiency.

Washington DC exemplifies how national programs can be used to maintain social housing and improve them. Benefiting from what was once thought for private owners can lead to useful results for the public administration, too. The result is the enhancement of a historic social housing building in a gentrified neighborhood, generating a more diverse and vivid environment also in the surrounding community.

This project was completed in December of 2016 and won 3rd place in the renovation category for the Affordable Housing Conference of Montgomery County Design Awards, 2018.

Links

Authors:

CSCAE Consejo Superior de los Colegios de Arquitectos de España

Quatre Camins

0

Quatre Camins

Mismatches Location Functional adequacy Diversity Vulnerable groups
Policies and regulations
Promotion and production Public promotion

Main objectives of the project

The objective of this initiative is to construct public rental accommodations tailored for elderly residents, featuring services specifically designed to enhance mobility and accessibility. Through adaptable rents depending on the tenant’s needs and high-quality architectural design, the building stands as a prominent model of social housing in populated urban areas like Barcelona.

Date

  • 2019: Finalista
  • 2017: Construction
  • 2015: En proceso

Stakeholders

  • Architect: Ravetllat Arquitectura
  • Promotor: Ajuntament de Barcelon

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Barcelona
Country/Region: Barcelona, Spain

Description

Located in a unique area near Collserola's range in Barcelona, Spain, the site plan for this project resides within an urban fabric characterized by low density. This fabric consists of a mix of small-scale isolated family housing alongside larger educational and sanitation facilities. Addressing the challenge of integrating with the existing urban and topographical context was a key consideration during the project's implementation. The overarching objective was to adhere to PassivHaus criteria, emphasizing proper ventilation strategies, thermal insulation, PassivHaus windows, airtightness, and reduced thermal bridging. These measures were designed with a focus on simplicity for the inhabitants' ease of use.

The proposed solution involved an L-shaped building aligned with the streets and oriented to maximize exposure to the best views and sunlight, particularly towards the south or southeast. Access to the 44 dwellings, including two adapted units, is provided via a main core with stairs and elevators, supplemented by a secondary evacuation stair. Leveraging the topography allowed for the creation of two significant communal spaces where elderly residents can engage in outdoor activities. The first space, situated on the first floor, comprises a terrace directly connected to the garden, while the other, on the third floor, links with the laundry facilities and roof area.

This housing complex aims to accommodate senior citizens from low-income social segments on a lifetime rent basis. The rent fee is tailored to the users' personal income and the services provided (e.g., healthcare, food), reflecting their individual situations and autonomy levels. This adaptable fee, coupled with housing made for a targeted vulnerable community, constitutes the primary innovation of the project. Given this context, the architectural design prioritizes economic sensitivity towards its residents and emphasizes easy maintenance and energy efficiency of the apartments. Passive energy control measures take precedence to ensure residents' comfort and minimize administrative complexities.

Furthermore, the project seeks to foster social interaction both within and outside the building, promoting recreational activities that enhance residents' physical and mental well-being while fostering social cohesion within the neighborhood. In summary, the final project optimizes the opportunities presented by the site plan and urban context, demonstrating both an active and passive environmental attitude throughout the building's lifespan, as well as a socially conscious approach.

A significant innovation of the project lies in the implementation of passive energy control measures that not only simplify usage and maintenance but also minimize the ecological footprint, rendering the building environmentally friendly. Additionally, successfully integrating senior citizens into an established residential area represents a significant achievement. Future endeavors include incorporating passive energy control measures into standard administrative practices and extending social initiatives to other neighborhoods, thereby enhancing the quality of life for elderly residents and promoting societal diversity.

The project has won several awards, such as the Ibero-American Passivhaus Competition 2011 or the European Responsible Housing Awards 2019.

Links

Authors:

CSCAE Consejo Superior de los Colegios de Arquitectos de España

Community Management of Urban Infrastructure and Housing Improvements in Greater Buenos Aires

0

Community Management of Urban Infrastructure and Housing Improvements in Greater Buenos Aires

Policies and regulations
Financing Progressive financing
Urban Design Liveability Regulación Técnica
Promotion and production Materials Self-management Cooperatives

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: Buenos Aires
Country/Region: Argentina, Buenos Aires

Description

Over the last 20 years, Fundación Pro Vivienda Social (Social Housing Foundation – FPVS) has worked to improve living conditions in Greater Buenos Aires, by promoting social inclusion, empowering communities, improving housing conditions and connecting them to basic services. Since 2010, FPVS has been implementing the Community Development Plan (CDP) in all the communities where it works, giving a holistic vision and an increasingly important role to residents in the development of their communities. Three strategies have been defined to carry out the CDP: community empowerment, design and implementation of innovative projects and promotion of pro-poor businesses, with five programmes running to date, namely the Integral Gasification Project, Housing Improvement and Young Builders Project, Community Education Centre (CEC), Neighbourhood Development Observatory and Inclusive Business Park.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The mission of FPVS is to provide long-term, community-led solutions to the habitat problems facing low-income neighbourhoods. This participatory model relies on the active collaboration of residents, companies, banks and governments, and its central objective is to promote community development. The model aims to stimulate community life and civic participation, social capital, affordable access to goods and services, household budgets and savings.

Context

Rapid, unplanned urbanisation has given rise to alarming inequalities and housing deficits across Latin America. In Argentina, more than five million families rely on government action to gain access to services, but public policy has failed to meet their needs, leaving the process of urbanisation in the hands of local residents. In Greater Buenos Aires, over six million people live in poverty with limited or no access to basic services or affordable adequate housing. This, combined with a culture of distrust and disinterest among banks and companies, has led to financial exclusion and social marginalisation of millions of people.

The municipality of Moreno is characterised by processes of self-construction, high levels of informality and unemployment, lack of infrastructure and little or no access to basic and financial services. Only 19 per cent of the population has access to drainage, 41 per cent to potable water, 32 per cent to the natural gas network, 45 per cent of families live in precarious housing conditions.

Key features

The Project is being implemented in 18 marginalised neighbourhoods in the municipality of Moreno, in Greater Buenos Aires. It promotes social inclusion by empowering communities, improving housing conditions and connecting them to basic services. FPVS acts as a facilitator, promoting a model in which residents and a range of actors work together to achieve a common goal. Links and partnerships have been formed with public and private entities at local, national and international levels, which include financers and donors, government (at various levels), international organisations, technical support intermediaries, and research and academic bodies.

Community empowerment: FPVS trains local community members as Community Developers to work in areas of promotion, conflict resolution, administration, communication and computer science, generating social capital. Additionally, the Young Builders’ Project trains students from local technical school in construction and provides practical experience through internships and professional experience.

Housing improvement and gas supply: The Neighbourhood Trust Funds (NTFs) are used as a platform that provides a collective guarantee, ensures transparency and reduces the risk involved for investors. The NTFs act as savings and credit schemes, with initial funds provided by donations, which the FPVS has sought specifically for this purpose, acting as a collective guarantee for lenders. The model requires more than 60 per cent of residents to sign up to participate in the programme to make viable, who start repaying the loan once the service is provided. As part of the Integral Gasification Project, five NTFs have been set up to date (one for housing improvement and four gasification funds), bringing together 16,000 families from which 4,500 have already been connected to the natural gas network. The NTF set up for housing improvement serves all families participating in the gasification projects, to facilitate housing improvements and make better use of the new gas connection. The beneficiaries typically use them to purchase gas appliances such as hot water systems, ovens and heaters.

The model consists of a series of steps:

  • Residents are trained to participate in the projects as Community Developers, who promote the programmes in their blocks. Community organisation is consolidated via the establishment of NTFs.
  • A financial and technical plan is created for each household based on individual family needs. Later, a single proposal is made to the bank on behalf of thousands of residents, taking into account their diverse financial capacities.
  • The financers accept the collective guarantee offered by the community – this includes an additional sum (18 per cent) paid by residents to the bank until the works are completed (a contingency fund), which is returned to the community via NTFs.
  • After the works are carried out, the residents repay their loans at the pace they can afford (over a maximum period of 72 months).
  • Once the lenders have been repaid, the residents determine how they would like to reinvest the contingency fund into the community to further improve neighbourhoods with e.g. drainage, pavements, street lighting, or community centres.

Promotion of pro-poor markets: FPVS acts as a mediator, connecting demand for services and credit in low-income communities with goods and services from companies (bank, gas providers, etc.) which are apprehensive about working with these sectors, aiming to stimulate fair, inclusive and responsible business practices.

Covering costs 

  • FPVS relies on operational and institutional revenue to carry out its work. Operational revenue is obtained from the fees attached to the services to the NTFs and the administration of funding for the ‘Mejor Vivir’ programme (from the national government). Institutional revenue is sourced from open donations and project funding provided by the IADB (Inter-American Development Bank) and IAF (Inter-American Foundation).
  • Collaboration is promoted between companies, governments, local suppliers and residents as well as with local and international banks. More than US$5 million has been sourced from diverse investors, including resident’s contributions (36 per cent), Multilateral Investment Fund – MIF – (22 per cent), service providers (5 per cent), commercial credits (19 per cent), public subsidies (11 per cent) and FPVS (7 per cent).
  • The NTFs are established with initial funds provided by donations through FPVS.
  • The current, standard price of a household natural gas network connection is US$1,680. The average home improvement loan is US$340.
  • The current loan interest rate is 39 per cent. Given the high inflation rate (25 per cent), the actual rate is 14 per cent per year. Given the long period given to repay the loans (up to 72 months) and the small size of the instalments, the majority of families are able to repay the loans with little or no impact on the household budget. On average, residents take approximately 40 months to repay loans. The monthly repayment is made via the gas bill, and despite the payment, families increase their disposable income by five per cent per month due to reduced energy costs.

Impact

  • As per 2013, 16,000 families participate in five NTFs, of which 4,500 have already been connected to the natural gas network, having a positive impact on the health, quality of life and comfort for approximately 20,000 people in 18 neighbourhoods.
  • 8,500 micro-credit loans and technical construction support have been given to improve housing conditions of families.
  • Alliances have been formed with local grassroots organisations and international bodies.
  • 300 Community Developers have gained new skills, and 30 Young Builders have been trained to date.
  • Households with natural gas increased their disposable incomes due to reduced energy costs (five per cent on average) and home values increased (between 15 and 20 per cent), as a result of the improvements undertaken.
  • Communities are empowered and organised, and continue to make improvements on their living environment once the initial works are finished.
  • By acting as a nexus between the communities and service providers, the FPVS has an impact on the access of these sectors, which changed from being considered ‘high risk’ to viable clients for the companies serving them.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Community trusts and innovative finance mechanisms are used to manage resources and deliver the project, using housing as a mobilising agent through which the community gets together to combine savings and resources, which it has pioneered in Argentina. The financial model offers a diverse range of plans, with high repayment rates.
  • Neighbourhood Committees and working groups are formed within and across neighbourhoods, and partnerships have been established with a number of actors. The project works on the basis of consensus and inclusion and all decisions are taken through a participatory process, with communities playing a leading role in managing every stage of the process.
  • Establishing an inclusive, pro-poor business model: FPVS acts as a mediator between the communities and service providers.

 

What is the environmental impact?

  • FPVS encourages the participation of local businesses, builders and gas fitters for the supply of materials and services needed for the different programmes, using a public tender process.
  • Home improvements made via the gas project encourage residents to consider changes in layout, insulation and the use of appliances in order to reduce energy consumption and promote new greener habits amongst residents.
  • Natural gas is a cleaner energy source than wood, charcoal, and kerosene, and its use for cooking and heating has a positive impact on people’s health and the environment.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • Although residents pay for the goods and services they receive, lines of finance have been made available to cover project costs. In the future, it is hoped that creditors and companies will participate in the NTFs making non-returnable contributions to finance part of the preoperational costs required to establish them, currently covered by donations through the FPVS.
  • Households participating in the gasification programmes have increased their assets by between 15 and 20 per cent, thanks to a rise in the value of their homes as a result of the improvements undertaken. On top of this, their disposable incomes have increased by an equivalent of five per cent, due to reduced energy costs.
  • The NTFs permit resources to be invested to address lack of infrastructure and in housing improvements. In addition to increasing home value and the savings generated by energy costs, residents can improve their houses incrementally, and use their proven credit performance to access other financial services from banks.

 

What is the social impact?

  • FPVS works to stimulate interaction between residents, banks and companies at a local level. The project helps to bring alive a spirit of community and solidarity amongst families, and a sense of trust and civic culture is cultivated through the participatory approach, resulting in neighbourhood development for the whole community.
  • Community Developers (mainly women) have been trained in areas that have not only improved their employment opportunities, but have also had a positive impact on their self-esteem and position in the community.
  • The Young Builders Programme trains students in local construction and provides practical experience in housing projects in their own neighbourhoods, generating local employment.
  • Families connected to the gas network suffer from a 50 per cent reduction in gastro-illnesses (as food is cooked more thoroughly for longer periods), 20 per cent less from respiratory illness and 40 per cent less from colds and flu thanks to improved heating and cooking methods (charcoal, wood and kerosene or gas bottles typically used otherwise).
  • FPVS is working with UNDP to allow residents to access legal titles to their homes and land. The planned activities include carrying out a study to understand different situations and types of land and home ownership problems in the area; producing a mechanism for residents to obtain property titles and normalising their situation within the existing legislation; undertaking training and awareness campaigns via the CEC; and providing legal support.
  • Social initiatives are being implemented to include the poorest families: the NTFs are open to all residents, and users begin to pay once they use the service. In order to make it available to all, the repayment plan is calculated according to each family’s needs and possibilities, including those in informal employment, unemployed and retired.
  • The model empowers residents to be agents for change. They are involved in every step of the process, and play a central role in the management and promotion of projects. The creation of NTFs requires between 60 and 70 per cent of residents to participate, and residents promote the project and are responsible for reaching this target level of engagement.
  • As well as their involvement as Community Developers, residents participate and benefit by acting as suppliers of materials and services needed to carry out the projects.

 

Barriers

  • Distrust and lack of coordination between stakeholders. This has been overcome by promoting collective social platforms, which increase collaboration and understanding. Public tenders provide a space to work together and overcome these problems.
  • Encouraging residents to invest in their neighbourhoods is a challenge. In order to overcome this, the creation of NTFs helps to promote investing in infrastructure and housing, instead of spending on consumer goods, helping to break the poverty cycle.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Experiences demonstrate the importance of including participants at all levels in the development of programmes to combat poverty. In fact, residents have the capacity to build their houses and invest their savings, with a high repayment rate (98 per cent).
  • Pilot programmes are used to identify successful strategies and create programmes with high success rates, specifically tailored to the needs of the community, providing important lessons on methodologies and timeframes for scaling up.
  • Working with governments is important to put ideas in the public sphere and help them to be heard by decision-makers. FPVS is collaborating with CIPPEC (‘Centro de Implementación de Políticas Públicas para la Equidad y el Crecimiento’ – Public Policy Implementation Centre for equity and Growth) on public policy implementation, in conjunction with central government programmes.

 

Evaluation

The Neighbourhood Development Observatory initiative, developed by FPVS with Torcuato di Tella University, aims to better understand the neighbourhoods and evaluate the impact of the other programmes. Additionally, FPVS will evaluate the results of the gas project in 2013, in conjunction with the MIF.

 

Transfer

The Integral Gasification Project, currently being implemented, is the direct result of the pilot experience acquired in two previous smaller scale gas projects: ‘Union por los Vecinos’ and ‘Redes Solidarias’ which connected 4,000 families in the same area.

In an informal manner, NGOs have taken the model and applied it to smaller scale projects.

A range of government and private sector organisations have requested technical assistance from FPVS to transfer the model to other parts of the country. In the context of the MIF initiatives in the country, the model will be transferred to a region outside the municipality of Moreno, where it will benefit approximately 3,000 families.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

The Struggle for Housing in Central Areas

0

The Struggle for Housing in Central Areas

Policies and regulations
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

The Associação Cortiços do Centro, Condomínio Vanguarda (Association of Tenements in Central Areas – ACC) is a grassroots organisation comprised of residents of cortiços, or tenement-style slums in collective buildings in central areas of the city of Santos. The ACC seeks to improve the living conditions of low-income residents of five neighbourhoods in Santos city centre, working to ensure the right of low-income families to have access to decent housing whilst remaining in central areas, close to jobs and making use of existing urban infrastructure. This community-initiated project involves the construction of 181 housing units for low-income families. The first 113 units are at the finishing stages and the final 68 units are due to be completed by the end of 2013.

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: Santos
Country/Region: Brazil, Santos

Description

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the project is to provide decent, affordable housing for low-income families living in inadequate, overcrowded conditions in the city centre of Santos, addressing the issues of gentrification and displacement and working towards ensuring the right to adequate housing and the right to the city for all. Its approach seeks to empower residents to be agents of change within the community, working together to regenerate the neighbourhood and transform the reality in which they live.

Context

In the city of Santos, south eastern Brazil, approximately 14,500 people – the majority of whom are women and young people on very low incomes – live in precarious conditions in cortiços in the historic city centre. Houses built in the late 19th and early 20th century for well-off families have fallen into disrepair and now house up to 24 families each in overcrowded conditions, lacking in privacy, adequate sanitation, lighting or ventilation. Residents must pay very high rents and are often under threat of eviction. The area is known as having the highest rate of tuberculosis in the country, as well as the highest proportion of people living with HIV in Latin America.

Over the years, many government initiatives have been announced to improve the living conditions of residents in the area. The majority of these have not come to fruition, causing residents to become despondent and lose hope. In addition, a process of gentrification has begun to take place in the historic central areas, with rising property values due to a regeneration initiative that has recently been announced. As a result, an increasing number of families are being evicted from their homes.

Key features

Within this context, the ACC has taken a proactive approach to addressing some of the key issues, working to mobilise the community, engage with government agencies at the local, state and federal levels and obtain the necessary resources and technical support to provide concrete solutions to the critical housing needs of cortiço residents in the city centre.

In 2007, after spending time learning from the successful experiences of other grassroots organisations and examining local, state and national legislation and potential funding streams for housing with the assistance of a group of volunteer architects, the ACC was able to obtain a 6,000m2 plot of land in the Santos city centre from the Federal Assets Secretariat of the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management and have it classified as a ‘Special Zone for Social Interest’ (ZEIS), enabling access to funding. The following year, funding was approved for the construction of the first 113 housing units and additional funding was secured in 2010 for the second phase of the project, involving the construction of an additional 68 units through a system of mutual aid and self-management of resources. Technical assistance has been provided by the Elos Brazil Institute, the Alliance of Housing Movements and local NGO Ambienta and a number of environmental features have been incorporated into the project, including rainwater harvesting and the use of solar energy. Following the key priorities established by the ACC, the project is characterised by high quality design and construction as well as a collective, participatory approach.

Participating families were selected based on housing need, family size and level of participation in collective activities and meetings. A conscious effort was made in the selection process to include residents from particularly marginalised groups, including older persons, persons without fixed income, young people and women-headed households. Fifteen per cent of the families had already been evicted from their homes as a result of the gentrification process currently taking place.

The project comprises a multi-use group of buildings that, in addition to the 181 one-, two- and three-bedroom housing units, includes a playground, communal areas (library, community bakery, training restaurant, internet room, multi-sport area, outdoor grill, etc) and commercial units on the ground floor. From the beginning, residents have been at the centre of the process, from the initial negotiations and mobilisation to collaborating with the architects through a participatory design and planning process, working in the construction through a system of mutual aid alongside skilled construction workers contracted by the ACC, and managing the project resources during the implementation phase.

Covering costs

Total project costs are US$5.66 million and funding has been obtained from two main funding streams of the CAIXA Federal Development Bank: ‘Crédito Solidario’ (phase 1) and ‘Minha Casa Minha Vida’ (phase 2), with counterpart funding received from local and state government agencies:

  • US$3.5 million in CAIXA federal funding (US$1.7 million for phase 1 and US$1.8 million for phase 2).
  • US$1.5 million counterpart funding from the São Paulo state housing agency (CDHU).
  • US$500,000 counterpart funding from the City of Santos.
  • US$150,000 in residents’ contributions in the form of labour.
  • US$12,700 was provided by the UNDP for the recreational areas for children.

In addition to contributing with their labour, self-management of the resources and construction process, residents make monthly repayments which are linked to income (ten per cent of income, or a minimum of US$25 per month, over a ten year period).

Impact

  • The experience has already had an important impact, both for the residents who have been actively involved throughout the process and for other grassroots groups around the country due to the enabling policies and legislation that have been created as a result of the experience. As a result of pressures mobilisation of these groups, national legislation has been approved that enables other community-based organisations and social movements to access federal land for housing construction. The ‘Concessão de Direito Real de Uso’ [Concession of full rights to the use of land / CDRU], now allows land to be handed over to the community for social housing purposes, giving it exclusive use of the land for a period of 99 years (renewable).
  • Residents have been trained in building construction and self-management of resources and have been able to access employment opportunities and set up their own small businesses. Two social enterprises, including a community bakery and jewellery-making business, are already running.
  • The project has succeeded in mobilising a diverse group of people who previously felt a sense of hopelessness. Community meetings went from having 15 persons in attendance to over 300 people currently participating.
  • The ACC has become a national example of struggle and victory for grassroots groups facing difficult situations and many other similar groups from around the country have learnt from the experience through direct exchanges and training carried out by the ACC.
  • The project is directly benefiting 800 cortiço residents (181 families) with the construction of new housing units.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Partnership between a community-based organisation and government agencies at local, state and national levels.
  • The ACC was the first community-based organisation in the country to secure federal land through the CDRU as well as funding for housing construction through the Minha Casa Minha Vida programme, paving the way for other similar organisations.
  • Fully self-managed process, with residents involved in all decision-making, planning, resource management, execution.
  • Incorporation of environmentally sustainable features in a community-led mutual help housing project.

 

What is the environmental impact?

  • This project represents a first step towards improving overall environmental conditions in the historic city centre.
  • Conventional building materials have been used in the project, most of which are locally sourced. Recycled materials have also been used in construction, including recycled timber and roofing tiles made of recycled Tetrapak and toothpaste tubes.
  • In addition to providing safe drinking water and energy to residents previously living in precarious housing conditions without access to adequate services, the project also incorporates a range of environmental features such as rainwater harvesting systems and the use of solar energy for lighting common areas. Exchanges carried out by the ACC with other community groups have led to other housing projects adopting a similar approach.
  • An individual metering system is used to increase awareness of energy use and encourage energy efficiency.
  • A mini recycling centre has been established and environmental education activities are carried out with residents to encourage sustainable living practices.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • Funding for both phases of the project has been secured and includes post-occupancy work. Residents are responsible for ongoing management and maintenance.
  • The ACC is in negotiations with local and federal government agencies to obtain land and funding for future projects.
  • Income generation is key element of the project, with three social enterprises established to date, including a community bakery, a jewellery-making enterprise using recycled materials and a training restaurant. Spaces for these and other small businesses are included on the ground floor of the buildings, which are open to the wider community.
  • ACC has obtained funding to support the above income-generating activities from a range of sources, including the state-run energy company Petrobrás, HSBC Institute, Libra Terminais, and CAIXA’s ‘Housing and Citizenship’ NGO.
  • The project is affordable even for those on the lowest incomes. Household income must be less than three times the minimum monthly wage (i.e. approximately US$945 per month maximum). Repayments are linked to income, with residents paying ten per cent of their income in monthly instalments, over a period of ten years.
  • The combination of contributing their labour in the construction process along with affordable repayments has enabled families who would never previously have had the means to do so to have access to decent housing.

 

What is the social impact?

  • One of the aims of the ACC is to reduce the extreme social and economic inequalities prevalent in Brazilian society and to ensure access to land, housing and employment for low-income groups.
  • The project approach and mutual help construction process promote the values of solidarity and cooperation, prioritising collective action and social integration. Social inclusion is a key priority of project and residents include traditionally excluded groups, promoting the participation of all with the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of any social, ethnic or cultural differences. Women are active in leadership roles within the ACC and 80 per cent of the property titles are in the names of women.
  • All decision-making is carried out in Assemblies and residents work together at all stages of the process. The experience has brought together residents from different backgrounds and helped to create strong social networks.
  • Residents have gained skills in construction, community organising, dealing with social and legal aspects, procurement and financial management through the self-managed mutual help housing process. The three social enterprises that have been created involve a strong training element, and training is also provided in areas such as non-violent communication and human values.
  • Residents are empowered to take a leading role in the process, acquiring knowledge and experience. They have successfully lobbied different branches of government.
  • The process of self-management and collective production confirms the sense of belonging, increases self-esteem, provides greater security and enables residents to subsequently address other problems they may be facing.
  • ACC members have attended international events and exchanges, and the skills and abilities of other grassroots groups have increased as a result of these.
  • The project provides decent, safe and sanitary living conditions, in contrast to living conditions in the tenements. Monthly workshops are carried out with residents and healthcare professionals, with a view to preventing some of the more prevalent diseases in the area including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, STDs, hepatitis and others.

 

Barriers

  • A company that was contracted to work with the residents in the first phase of the project did not fulfil its contract, leading to a one year delay until the matter could be resolved. Despite this setback, the first phase of the project is now nearing completion.
  • The counterpart funding from the municipal government was only received in late 2012. Given the fact that the project is located in an area where land speculation is high, the local government had limited interest in being a partner in the project. Through various demonstrations and negotiations, the ACC was finally able to obtain the promised funds.

 

Lessons Learned

  • The key lesson learned is that no matter how long it takes it is important to never give up on your dreams. The struggle has taken several years, people have come and gone, but the dream was kept alive until the goal was realised.
  • It is important to study all of tools that are available to help to secure funding and maximise the resources available.
  • Regarding the process itself, a key lesson is that working with people requires care and understanding – it is important to recognise that diversity enriches rather than divides.

 

Evaluation

Regular monitoring is carried out both by the ACC (on a monthly basis), as well as by the CAIXA Federal Development Bank.

 

Transfer

The project has received considerable local media coverage as well as featuring in two national TV programmes. Short films and documentaries have also been produced and many visitors have come to see the project, including grassroots groups, community leaders, international visitors and university students.

The project was extended to include a second phase, with the additional 68 units that are currently under construction.

The ACC is in negotiations with the Federal Assets Secretariat for more areas to be allocated both for new construction and the renovation of historic properties for social housing purposes, to help address the demand. Advanced talks are underway for the concession of an area of 100,000m2 to the ACC.

The ACC has carried out a number of workshops and exchanges with other communities to transfer knowledge and tools, and a blog has been created to share the experience more widely.

The ACC is currently advising two other community based organisations in the city who have secured land on which to build approximately 500 housing units.

The work of the ACC has led the Mayor of Santos to announce that further projects will be carried out in central areas to provide housing for low-income families. Funding is currently being sought for a comprehensive programme to transform historic buildings in the city centre into housing for low-income families currently living in cortiços.

Links

Authors:

Fundació Mies van der Rohe Barcelona
World Habitat

CCOC Beaver Barracks Development

0

CCOC Beaver Barracks Development

Mismatches Services
Urban Design Liveability Inclusion
Promotion and production Participatory processes Innovation Management and maintenance

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: Canada, Ottawa

Description

Beaver Barracks is a large affordable and environmentally sustainable housing development located in downtown Ottawa, on a brownfield site. It was commissioned in 2007 to the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC) by the City of Ottawa through the Action Ottawa programme – the City’s primary programme for increasing the supply of low-income affordable housing in Ottawa. The programme is designed to facilitate the development of mixed income communities that are appropriately designed and managed, and built on a scale that ensures integration within the neighbourhood. The Beaver Barracks innovatively integrates a mixed housing model with environmentally sustainable building design and operations. In fact, Beaver Barracks is one of the most sustainable rental housing developments in Ottawa from both a design and lifestyle perspective. The development is mixed in terms of incomes – with market, below-market and deeply subsidised rents – as well as access requirements, age and household composition.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

CCOC is a community-based, tenant and member directed, private non-profit housing organisation whose mission is to create, maintain and promote housing for those on low and moderate incomes. It is one of the largest private non-profit affordable housing providers in Canada. In 2007, CCOC won a competitive Request for Proposals from the City of Ottawa to develop the Beaver Barracks site,  which is the biggest and most sustainable single development CCOC has done to date. Beaver Barracks aims to increase the supply of long-term affordable rental housing in downtown Ottawa and show that high performance energy-efficient buildings can be attractive, accessible, and affordable.

Context

Key problems faced in downtown Ottawa before the redevelopment of Beaver Barracks were similar to those in many other North American cities – the vast majority of new residential construction is private condominiums, which are unaffordable to a growing low and moderate income population. Older privately owned rental housing stock is in disrepair, providing poor quality housing, and is at risk of conversion and redevelopment. Specifically, there is a lack of affordable housing stock for families, older people living alone and people with accessibility needs.

At the time of the commissioning of the Beaver Barracks redevelopment, there were approximately 10,000 households on the City of Ottawa Social Housing Registry waiting list for subsidised housing, and a need for all household unit sizes from bachelors to large family sized homes. There was a gap to fill in terms of developing affordable rental housing that would regenerate the existing site, improve the quality of life of its tenants and keep families in the downtown area. The area where the development is located had previously been in decline throughout the 80s and 90s as residential and commercial development stagnated and parking lots proliferated. The influx of condominium developments in the last 10 years has threatened the mixed-income nature of the area, eroding the existing social fabric through gentrification.

Key features

Beaver Barracks is a large affordable housing development located in downtown Ottawa, on a brownfield site that was formerly occupied by WWII military barracks and which was sold by the Federal Government to the City of Ottawa in the early 1990s. It was earmarked for controlled rental housing and was the first site to be developed when a jointly funded government affordable housing programme was re-established.

The development comprises 254 dwelling units in five buildings, offering a blend of market, below-market and deeply subsidised rents for people on a range of incomes. Units range in size from studio flats to three bedrooms, for single persons and families, including older persons and those with accessibility problems. There is also ground floor commercial space in two buildings and meeting space for community groups. Tenants on subsidised rents are drawn from the City’s pre-qualified waiting list. The market rental tenants are selected on a first-come first serve basis. Market rents are capped to be no higher than the average market rent for the neighbourhood. It is one of the few affordable rental buildings in Ottawa’s core because of the gentrification pressures to build more profitable condominium developments.

During the design phase, integrated design workshops, known as charettes, were found to be an effective way of encouraging communities and their building professionals to think in a positive, innovative and collaborative way about building design, construction, operations and lifestyles.

Built to a high environmental standard, the development includes geothermal heating and cooling, a green roof, tenant-run gardens and a high performance building envelope, including triple glazed windows. Beaver Barracks is also wheelchair accessible and smoke free, with residents committing through their lease not to smoke in their apartments or on the property. Responsible waste diversion (recycling and organics) is encouraged by not providing rubbish chutes and having all waste sorted in a common room. Tenants are actively involved and sign a Green Commitment Pledge to reduce their environmental impact through lifestyle and consumer choices (although these green commitments are not legally binding).

Fifteen per cent of all the apartments are reserved for tenants who benefit from additional daily living support, and CCOC partners with several organisations to deliver that support, including to tenants with intellectual and physical disabilities, mental illness, or who have recently experienced homelessness. At Beaver Barracks there are 25 wheelchair-accessible units, and over 90 per cent of remaining units as well as all building amenity spaces are ‘visitable’ to people in a wheelchair.

Covering costs

  • The total capital budget for the development of Beaver Barracks was US$64 million. CCOC used a combination of public and private financing, including CCOC equity (three per cent), government grants (35 per cent) and mortgage financing (62 per cent). Over 70 per cent of Beaver Barracks revenue comes from rent, either by tenants (42 per cent) or rent subsidies paid through the City (30 per cent). The remainder comes from a small mortgage subsidy from the Province of Ontario (16 per cent) and fees from various services (12 per cent).
  • Over 80 per cent of CCOC’s total operating revenue in its full portfolio comes from rent (either paid by the tenants themselves or with state assistance,) 13 per cent from state operating subsidies, with the remainder coming from miscellaneous revenue from parking, laundry and commercial rent. A surplus of US$10,000 is anticipated on the US$20 million budget in 2013.

Impact

Although only recently fully completed, there has been a noticeable change in the neighbourhood. For 15 years the site was unoccupied and had been an eyesore. With 254 households including over 100 children, the development has helped reinvigorate the immediate neighbourhood. Local schools and day care centres which used to struggle with declining populations now have a permanent new source of families and children to use the available services.

CCOC is working with the City of Ottawa to develop financial templates and projection tables that will help the city and other local housing providers plan new affordable housing developments.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Integration of a mixed housing model with environmental building design and operations.
  • Offering a blend of market, below market and deeply subsidised rents within one project.
  • The sites and buildings have a reduced environmental footprint, including the materials and technologies used but also the active engagement of the residents in the process.
  • Comprehensive waste recycling managed by residents is innovative in the Canadian context.

 

What is the environmental impact?

Beaver Barracks is one of the most sustainable rental housing developments in Ottawa from both a design and lifestyle perspective.

Resource efficient design features include:

  • A geothermal heating/cooling system, an energy recovery ventilator, tight building envelope; and triple glazed windows ensure that the buildings use 40 per cent less energy than comparable buildings.
  • Waste diversion is encouraged by not installing garbage chutes and using a common sorting room for waste, recycling and organics.
  • Energy efficient washing machines, low-flow plumbing fixtures and drought-resistant xeriscaping (water-wise landscaping) help save water.
  • The building envelope and floor include 40 per cent recycled material, and reclaimed wood was used for architectural details in the common areas.
  • Promoting a sustainable lifestyle: All tenants sign a pledge to commit to greening their lifestyles and reducing their environmental footprint. During their annual lease renewal, tenants will be provided with a summary of their past year’s pledges; a calculation of the reduction in their carbon footprint as a result of their green commitments. Each building has signs in common areas that promote the environmental design aspects of the building and reinforce green norms of behaviour.
  • CCOC facilitates a tenant-run Green Team to engage other tenants in green lifestyles, such as growing food in the on-site organic community gardens and providing workshops on harvesting fruit and nut trees.
  • CCOC sees gardening as a step toward food sovereignty. Summer 2013 will see the grand opening of Victory Gardens – a central tenant garden which will include a children’s garden, an accessible garden and a plot for donation to the Food Bank.
  • A variety of local food and food security programmes have been developed, including giving out ‘Buy Local’ food guides to all new tenants, with maps and lists of local farmers markets, helping start the Ottawa Good Food Box programme, providing free meeting space for gardening groups and working with local food security and gardening groups to increase participation.

In addition, the project also has wider environmental impacts:

  • Reuse of a brownfield site reduces the need for urban sprawl and the destruction of natural habitat.
  • The site’s central location enables tenants to walk to local shopping amenities, or use their bikes, take public transport or participate on a car-sharing programme which is located on site. Secure indoor bike parking and accommodation for e-bikes is provided. Car parking is available to less than 40 per cent of units.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The initial work relied upon grants being available from the government. However, an independent audit by the City of Ottawa found that Beaver Barracks may begin to generate a modest surplus after the first five to ten years of operations.
  • Although the project was not conceived as one of community economic development, having an affordable home helps residents to live within their means and opens doors to education, employment and training.
  • Beaver Barracks provides high quality rental housing to many households that would not otherwise be able to afford it. Over the full development, 45 per cent of tenants will pay ‘rent geared to income’ (30 per cent of their gross household income); 15 per cent of tenants will pay ‘below market rent’ (70 per cent of the full rent) and 40 per cent of tenants will pay no more than the average market rent for the neighbourhood, which in itself is significantly lower than typical rent for newer condominium apartments.

 

What is the social impact?

Community co-operation and social integration:

  • Adding outdoor amenity space on balconies, rooftops or decks increases the available living area and provides a natural meeting spot for neighbours.
  • Planter boxes and gardens provide a launch point for discussion, which CCOC facilitates by distributing free flower, vegetable and herb plants to tenants, and by setting up tenant-run gardens.
  • As tenants get to know each other, they have organised pot lucks, games nights and kids’ clubs. They have also worked together on community issues, for example, leading the fight to restore a neighbourhood park after it was turned into a parking lot.

Skills development and resident involvement:

  • CCOC has developed partnerships with a number of community groups to provide opportunities to tenants to increase their skills, two of which are Resilient Kitchen which provides workshops on cooking, canning and preserving and, more recently, knitting; and Just Food, which provides free workshops on seed saving, organic gardening and pest control.
  • In addition to participating in CCOC governance, tenants are encouraged to get involved in their building at a practical level, taking advantage of green education programmes, gardening, composting, and participating in waste diversion initiatives.
  • Further opportunities for social engagement have been facilitated, including Ottawa School of Art (provides bursaries to tenants for art classes), YMCA-YWCA (provides reduced membership fees for recreational programmes).

Combatting social inequality:

  • All apartments are of the same quality and design, regardless of whether they are for market or subsidised rent.
  • CCOC has always worked to meet the housing needs of those who struggle with issues that make their housing more difficult or precarious, such as mental health and addiction issues and physical disabilities.
  • An accessible community garden is being designed in conjunction with tenants from ‘The In Community’, the agency that provides attendant support to people with complex physical disabilities.

 

Barriers

  • As this project represented a 20 per cent growth in CCOC’s portfolio, it found itself absorbing a proportionate growth in staff, new tenants and new technologies in a short period, complicated by changes in the senior staff team. CCOC had to carefully manage transition and integration of new staff.
  • This was the first multi-residential unit building in Ottawa where the entire development (indoor and outdoor) is smoke free. CCOC had to provide notice of eviction to some tenants who violated this policy, but in all cases tenants changed their behaviour and no one was evicted.
  • There was a significant increase in construction material costs during the development that challenged the financial viability and affordability of the project. CCOC learned that a significant risk analysis when doing such an expensive project as well as redesign of the project is necessary in order to adjust the budget.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Accessible unit design had to be adjusted in order to address individual resident concerns. CCOC realised after the first stage that tenants with accessibility issues need to be accommodated to address their individual needs and revised the design of the accessible units for the second stage to accommodate individual tenant accessibility concerns.
  • CCOC invested a large amount of capital in the geothermal technology. Although this is innovative, it was expensive and complex, causing increased costs to operate. As a result, CCOC will put an emphasis on passive design in future development to decrease a building’s environmental footprint rather than active technology such as geothermal.

 

Evaluation

CCOC is monitoring several environmental and social performance indicators, including the utility consumption and waste diversion, as well as tenants’ fulfilment of their green commitments. Data is currently being collected on solid waste, energy use and electricity consumption to understand whether the designed energy savings can be achieved.

 

Transfer

Beaver Barracks serves as a model for future CCOC affordable housing developments, and has served as a pilot for many CCOC ‘green living’ tools: tenant working groups, environmental building signs, no smoking policy, waste diversion, community gardens, biking parking, and car sharing.

One of CCOC’s partners has used their experience of being involved in the Beaver Barracks development to go green in their other properties.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Renewable Energy for Farmers

0

Renewable Energy for Farmers

Policies and regulations

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
City: Jinma
Country/Region: China

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.

Links

Authors:

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.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

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

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

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.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

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

Links

Authors:

World Habitat