LIFE REUSING POSIDONIA/ 14 social dwellings in Sant Ferran, Formentera

0

LIFE REUSING POSIDONIA/ 14 social dwellings in Sant Ferran, Formentera

Mismatches Climate change
Urban Design Quality

Main objectives of the project

Life Reusing Posidonia is a Climate Change Adaptation Project funded by the European LIFE + program. It integrates Heritage, Architecture, and Climate Change to explore sustainable solutions using local resources. The project focuses on reusing Posidonia, a type of seaweed, as a key material throughout the building.

Date

  • 2017: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Architect: Joaquín Torrebella Nadal
  • Architect:  Alberto Rubido Piñón
  • Promotor: Institut Balear de l’Habitatge (IBAVI)

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Formentera
Country/Region:

Description

Life Reusing Posidonia is a Climate Change Adaptation Project financed by the European LIFE + program for nature conservation projects. The project links Heritage, Architecture and Climate Change with the aim to recover the local resources as a cultural approach in the contemporary research for sustainable solutions.

Traditional architecture has been a constant reference, not for its forms, but as a way of working. By doing so, we look for the available local resources: the juniper trees are now fortunately protected and the sandstone quarries (marès) have been depleted. Therefore, we only have what arrives by sea: Posidonia. So we propose a shift in approach which has been applied to every single part of the building:

“Instead of investing in a chemical plant located 1,500 km away, we could invest the same amount in local labor, who should lay out the Posidonia to dry under the sun and compact it by hand. Sea salt acts as natural biocide and is completely environmentally friendly.” The use of dry Posidonia as thermal insulation reminds us that we do not live in a house but an ecosystem.
1. TO DEMONSTRATE:

The viability of constructing the prototype with an additional cost of 5% over the usual price of the IBAVI social housing buildings.

2. TO REDUCE:

63% of CO2 emissions during the construction of the building.
775,354.6 kg/CO2 have been saved. Calculation performed through the TCQ program of ITEC.
75% of useful energy during the lifetime of the building.
Nearly Zero Energy Building (nZEB), with maximum consumption of 15 kWh/m²/year (17,226.30 kWh/year).
The average thermal comfort measured in situ is 21ºC in winter and 26ºC in summer.
60% water consumption.
Maximum limit 88 l/person and day. Average consumption based on the tenants’ bills.
50% waste production during the construction phase
36.98 tones have been saved due to in-site reusing measures.

3. ORGANIZATION & PROGRAM

The two street facades facing main sea breezes (North & East) to cool in summer allow dividing the volume into two separate blocks with different orientations.
The entrance to all homes is directly on to the street.
All the dwellings face two directions and cross ventilation thanks to the layout of the living room in a Z shape and a bedroom at each corner.

All the materials have been selected through a market study based on their embodied energy and the transport cost to Formentera.

We tested solutions based on the recovery of eco-friendly local artisan industries with KM 0 raw materials, which are in danger of extinction. Usually these are small family companies that do not have eco-labels, but they can easily be inspected in person. The combined use of these available local materials with those imported that do have environmental labels is a replicable model that makes it possible to reduce more than 60% of CO2 emissions during the works. For instance, load-bearing walls with non-reinforced lime foundations, laminated wood slabs, white lime plaster on facades, sandstone cistern vaults, handmade glazed tiles, bricks baked in biomass mortar kilns, etc.

All indoor carpentry and the shutters on the ground floor were made of reused second hand doors and wood from the ‘Deixalles’ waste-management plant in Mallorca.

The organization of spaces and formal decisions have been the result of knowing the advantages and limitations of natural materials, which are more fragile. This fragility has become a design opportunity.

Authors:

Affordable Housing Supply Programme of Scotland

0

Affordable Housing Supply Programme of Scotland

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Promotion and production
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2021: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Department of Social Justice, Housing and Local Government
  • Promotor: Government of Scotland

Location

Country/Region: United Kingdom

Description

The Scottish Government in the United Kingdom has developed strong capabilities in needs-based strategic planning for housing grant allocation and delivery. It has established an Affordable Housing Supply Programme to deliver 50,000 affordable homes, including 35,000 for social rent, between 2016 and 2021. It recently published an updated “Housing to 2040” policy statement, which aims to deliver an additional 100,000 affordable homes, including 70,00 social rental homes, by the first half of 2032. By working with local authorities, the Scottish Government has channelled increased capital investment to address well-evidenced and locally established housing needs. It has also created a dedicated Housing Infrastructure Fund to address development blockages. Furthermore, the Government continued to employ funds to renovate vacant dwellings and established a new fund to increase affordable housing in rural and remote island areas.

Authors:

Cooperation through the “Urban Agenda for the EU” Housing Partnership Action Plan

0

Cooperation through the “Urban Agenda for the EU” Housing Partnership Action Plan

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Financing
Urban Design
Promotion and production
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2018:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: City of Vienna
  • Promotor: City of Lisbon
  • Promotor: City of Riga
  • Promotor: Scottish Cities Alliance
  • Promotor: City of Poznan
  • Promotor: Government of Slovakia
  • Promotor: EUROCITIES
  • Promotor: Government of Latvia
  • Promotor: Government of Luxembourg
  • Promotor: Government of the Netherlands
  • Promotor: Government of Slovenia
  • Promotor: European Commission (DG REGIO and contributions from DG NEAR and DG EMPL)
  • Promotor: International Union of Tenants
  • Promotor: European Investment Bank
  • Promotor: Faculty for Urban Studies, Science Po – Paris Institute of Political Sciences
  • Promotor: Housing Europe

Location

Continent: Europe
Country/Region:

Description

The Housing Partnership of the Urban Agenda for the EU used an evidence-based and consultative process, enhancing knowledge and promoting action to improve legal and financial conditions for EU cities to invest in new or renovated affordable housing.

The Partnership involved representatives of EU Member States, cities, housing providers and tenants, as well as EU institutions and programmes. The partners prepared papers on ten selected themes and consulted extensively with the public, as well as with the European Commission and Parliament.

The EU Housing Partnership Action Plan proposed several key actions. These included improving support and policy guidance to develop European affordable housing, EU-level dialogue on housing matters, reformed funding structures or state aid rules, and improved housing issue monitoring through the European Semester process.

Authors:

Soft urban renewal in Vienna, Austria

0

Soft urban renewal in Vienna, Austria

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2010: Rehabilitación

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Vienna Housing Rehabilitation

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Vienna
Country/Region: Austria, Vienna

Description

Soft urban renewal, implemented under the 1984 Vienna Housing Rehabilitation Act, is a non-disruptive approach that avoids demolishing historic buildings or displacing residents. It focuses on financial incentives for private homeowners and follows a decentralized and participatory method for building and neighborhood improvements. The emphasis is on improving housing standards without causing social segregation or gentrification. The scheme has successfully reduced substandard housing from 320,000 to less than 125,000 units through rehabilitation efforts. It has created affordable rehabilitated housing without changing ownership, resulting in over 715,000 fully equipped apartments. The approach prioritizes affordability, social inclusion, and the needs of vulnerable households. Redevelopment is managed by district offices, supported by private architects or non-profit building associations and funded by the city. These offices collaborate with tenants and owners to enhance housing stock, including green courtyards and communal facilities, while promoting connections to public transport. There are currently 13 district offices that actively involve vulnerable and socially marginalized households with the support of city funds. It is considered “soft” or ”gentle” as it does not involve the demolition of historic buildings or the construction of entirely new urban areas, nor does it displace and compulsorily rehouse residents living in renewal areas.

Legislated under the 1984 Vienna Housing Rehabilitation Act, the soft urban renewal created financial renovation incentives for private homeowners and was implemented through a decentralized and participatory approach to building and neighbourhood improvement.

Much effort has since gone towards improving housing standards, while avoiding social segregation and gentrification. The urban renewal has involved strategic subsidization of private housing rehabilitation, rather than the demolition of historic buildings. Public authorities first look at bringing empty flats into use and developing communal areas and then later address whole blocks of flats and creating new urban areas.[3] An evaluation of this scheme in 2010 found that soft renewal had made substantial improvements to living conditions in Vienna. From 1984 to 2001, through rehabilitation, houses that were categorised as substandard were substantially reduced – from approximately 320,000 (39 per cent of the total stock) to less than 125,000.

The renewal activities produced a large stock of affordable rehabilitated housing with avoiding a forced change of ownership or occupancy. One important result was the avoidance of social segregation and gentrification. A total of 2,160 buildings with 142,000 apartments were improved as part of the process of soft renewal and the number of fully equipped apartments rose from about 328,000 to more than 715,000.[1]

Notably, limited profit affordable housing is in relatively good condition, in part due to the business model which funds it that requires regular maintenance and periodic renovation. Chapter II on funding and financing affordable and inclusive housing has extensively elaborated on this matter. The soft renewal approach, which is both decentralized and interdisciplinary, prioritises affordability and social inclusion objectives, avoids forced change of ownership and enables rehabilitated housing to remain affordable to existing occupants. Particular attention is given to the needs of vulnerable households (the elderly and new migrants).

The redevelopment is managed by offices in each city district. These are run by either private architects or non-profit building associations and are financed by the city. They work with both tenants and owners to improve the housing stock; for example, by enhancing green courtyards, and making proposals for communal facilities and connections to public transport. There are now 13 district offices (Gebietsbetreuungen) which can also apply for city funds to involve vulnerable or socially marginalised households more actively.

Authors:

Housing Fund of the Republic of Slovenia

0

Housing Fund of the Republic of Slovenia

Mismatches New family structures
Financing
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 1991:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Housing Fund of Republic of Slovenia (SSRS)

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Cerknica
Country/Region: Slovenia

Description

The objectives and specific targets of the Fund have evolved, but remain focused on the construction, renovation and maintenance of apartments and residential buildings, targeted at groups with particular needs such as families, young people, the elderly, and Roma populations. The main instruments used to achieve this have involved co-financing with long-term favourable loans and interest rate subsidies, and investments in new innovations and international research. The Housing Fund is a public authority and actively invests directly in housing and also co-invests in local community housing programmes, complementing the efforts of municipalities and non-government organizations. It also purchases land and houses directly on the market. Since 2006, non-profit dwellings regulated under the Housing Act have been let at relatively regulated low rents. Consequently, they are in high demand among prospective tenants, but have proven less attractive to investors. With its own construction and purchase projects on the market, the Fund provides an additional quota of publicly available rental housing, tying rent calculation to the real estate investment or purchase value. It offers eligible tenants a stable rental relationship under pre-known conditions for an indefinite period. In 2019 CEIB (also discussed in this chapter) provided the Fund with a long-term loan of EUR 50 million.

Issues tackled

Currently the Fund directly owns 3,042 non-profit rental-housing units and a further 787 dwellings which are let at cost-based rents. Two companies owned by the fund own another 2,056 apartments, which they rent out at non-profit rent. These dwellings are located throughout Slovenia. The Fund is intensively building affordable rental apartments throughout Slovenia, and by 2023 it will provide 2,194 new public rental apartments.

The Fund is now focusing on effective administration for public rental dwellings. Thus, between 2017 and 2020, its activities have included:

Co-investment in new public rental housing units, including residential units, under a co-financing programme
Establishment and operation of the Public Service for Rental Management and Records system
Management of mixed portfolio of formerly non-profit, commercial, and sheltered housing
Providing new public rental housing units for young people, young families and the elderly, the utilization of rental buying-in and shared ownership instruments
Development of new projects on land owned by the Fund
Financial incentives for housing in the form of soft loans
Sustainable construction and complete renovation of the housing stock for all products and programmes of the Fund
Technical standards for the home-building industry
Cooperation in development projects in housing construction
Strengthening and implementing the Fund’s development role in housing
Efforts to obtain funding from EU funds
Acquiring assets for and in the framework of partner projects.

Authors:

Mikrofond EAD and Habitat for Humanity in Bulgaria

0

Mikrofond EAD and Habitat for Humanity in Bulgaria

Mismatches
Financing
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2008: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Mikrofond EAD
  • Promotor: Habitat for Humanity

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Bulgaria
Country/Region: Bulgaria

Description

In 2008, the Habitat for Humanity International established a partnership with Mikrofond EAD, a microfinance organization in Bulgaria that focuses on underserved regions and communities.

They have run a project together to deliver housing microfinance services to clients in housing poverty throughout Bulgaria.[1]

Before the partnership, Mikrofond offered only business loans, but it saw an opportunity to introduce consumer loans for home improvements. The size of the loans provided was EUR 1,750 (USD 2,365) and the average payment duration is 31 months.

Habitat for Humanity Bulgaria (http://hfh.bg/bg/) and Mikrofond also jointly provide financial education programmes to their clients. These cover budgeting, saving, debt management and financial planning, along with raising clients’ awareness about the benefits and risks of using credit.

[1] Habitat for Humanity, “Shelter Report 2014” (see sect. Microfinance for self-building and modernising housing, footnote 175).

Authors:

Badajoz, Spain

0

Badajoz, Spain

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Financing
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2023: En proceso

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Department of Housing and Architecture, Junta de Extremadura

Location

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

Description

This project is an open negotiation between the different parties involved in the development of the city.

The development of the project began with the the commissioning of the first detailed diagnostic study of the whole area which identified the restoration of the Santa Engracia UVA as a priority intervention, so much for its urgency as its viability.

Plan Especial de Reforma Interior (P.E.R.I) establishing the framework for planning the restoration of the district and process of regeneration.

The PERI proporsals for the programme, public, space and building the neighbourhood were organized around eight strategically prioritized lines, which sought to restructure the neighbourhood and recover its relationships.

Strategic lines that link neighbourhood-inhabitants: identity, generational change and accessibility.
Strategic lines in relation to the cultural environment: visibility, recuperation and connection with the city and territory.
Strategic lines in relation to the natural environment: sustainability and landscape.
The project is included in a life fund programme and is currently in development.

Authors:

From silos to systemic reform – The National Housing System strategy of Malta

0

From silos to systemic reform – The National Housing System strategy of Malta

Policies and regulations
Financing
Promotion and production
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2020:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Housing Authority of Malta

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Santa Venera
Country/Region: Malta, Valletta

Description

Malta has recently pursued a new vision for housing policy development. Taking a culturally sensitive approach has been central to this, reflecting on new realities brought about by economic progress, migration, and new household formation trends. This perspective stresses the value of social relationships in homes and neighbourhoods, as well as the importance of participatory governance to accommodate a multi-ethnic and heterogeneous population.

In August 2020, the Ministry for Social Accommodation launched its first National Housing System strategy. This followed the 2018 work of the Parliamentary Secretariat for Social Accommodation, which sought to diversify the housing market by using short, medium and long-term goals. These included private rented sector regulation, affordable housing development, and specialized housing programmes regenerating abandoned or dilapidated properties.

Authors:

Inclusionary zoning law in the United Kingdom

0

Inclusionary zoning law in the United Kingdom

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Financing
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2007:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: United Kingdom Government

Location

Continent: Europe
Country/Region: United Kingdom

Description

The two main sources of investment in new social housing in the United Kingdom are central government funding and planning agreements between private developers and local authorities, under which the developer contributes land, housing or cash as a condition of planning permission.Planning obligations to support the provision of social housing are known as Section 75 Agreements in Scotland and Section 106 Agreements in England and Wales[1]. Agreements must be directly relevant to the proposed development, prescribe a given portion of housing that is affordable and compensate for loss or damage created by a development (for example, loss of open space), or mitigate a development’s impact (for example, through increased public transport provision). Around a third of all affordable housing delivered in Scotland between 2007 and 2012 involved some form of development contribution.[1] In England, section 106 supported the development of 28,000 affordable homes in 2019, almost half of all such units.[2] Despite their significance, the United Kingdom Government planning reform has proposed the abolition of section 106 agreements in the future.[3] Scottish land policy continues to support affordable housing development through securing land for such development. Any land gained through development contributions is transferred to registered not-for-profit social landlords. Only landlords operating on a not-for-profit basis can receive land development contributions and provide social housing. The usual arrangement between a local authority and a private developer is that, before 30 per cent of the market units have been completed, land for 25 per cent of the residential units will be passed on to a registered social landlord at nil value.[1] The registered social landlord will normally then develop the affordable housing land.[2]

Since 2016 the Scottish government has increased investment in affordable housing alongside pro-social land policies, producing more than 50,000 additional units in just three years. This has taken place in combination with needs assessment and social housing investment plans, which are discussed in subsequent chapters on governance and finance.

Authors:

Individual rent assistance in the Netherlands

0

Individual rent assistance in the Netherlands

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Financing
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Tax and Customs Administration of the Netherlands

Location

Continent: Europe
Country/Region: Netherlands

Description

The well-established Dutch scheme of individual rent assistance is based on a quality point system for rent-setting and is provided directly to tenants.
Unlike the United States system, the Dutch tax department assesses household incomes and makes direct payments to eligible households – being households with low to moderate income or reliant on social assistance. Unlike the United States, the scheme is not capped, but it is limited in other ways.

Importantly, rent assistance is conditional on households occupying moderately priced dwellings and it only pays part of the rental costs. As mentioned above, dwellings are assessed by an annually indexed government point system based on quality and space, and assistance is only provided to dwellings under a cost limit. Nevertheless, most modest rental dwellings fall below this and 33 per cent of households in the social sector can receive allowances.

Authors: