Utopia of Normality

P5 presentation - 24 June 2015

UTOPIA OF NORMALITY TACKLING HOUSING EMERGENCY THROUGH URBAN REGENERATION. THE CASE OF PORTA DI ROMA.

Martina Gentili 4316541 - Mentors: Marta Relats, Leo van den Burg, Joris Hoekstra - MSC Urbanism - Design as Politics - 2014/2015

the problem

MARCHINI CALTAGIRONE

TOTI - LAMARO PARNASI - PARSITALIA

PORTA DI ROMA - BUFALOTTA

50.000 families in waiting list for public housing

100.000 empty apartments Istat census, 2011

Comune di Roma, 2013

300.000 people struggling for housing

240.000 empty dwellings Legambiente, 2013

Sunia, 2012

90.000 non resident students

600 public student dwellings

Adisu, 2011

Adisu, 2011

2000 families are squatting Unione Inquilini, 2013

7000 new eviction requests per year since 2009 Provincia di Roma, 2014

2500 families actually evicted in 2013

Provincia di Roma, 2014

HOUSING EMERGENCY

Risk of poverty or social exclusion

33,4%

Severe material deprivation

14,7%

Very low work intensity

15,4% public housing

32,2%

13,3%

20,5%

8,6%

15,5%

43,7%

19,8%

9,9%

38,3%

16,6%

21,7%

31,7%

16,3%

16,9%

limbo

market prices

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Neither the State nor the market are able to provide enough affordable housing. The lack of housing policies and the deregulation of market forces have created a paradox in which thousands of vacant dwellings in anonymous middle class housing developments – such as Porta di Roma - are the only response to the great numbers of people demanding an affordable dwelling. There is an urgent need for new solutions for the housing emergency.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How to tackle the housing shortage in Rome by regenerating the vacant housing development of Porta di Roma through the social capital of the right to housing movements?

the research

ANALYSIS OF LOCATION

Porta di Roma Bufalotta III Municipio

osteria security systems ice cream

pizza al taglio real estate agency

medical center

tobacconist

bookmaker cafè

bakery cafè

vet beauty center

school building with commercial plinth commercial activity, shop informal selling, illegal parking

neighbourhood activities map

? public space

ideological manifesto

living shopping enjoying open space sitting with friends

shopping

eating and drinking creating working playing learning sharing

enjoying open space sitting with friends eating and drinking working

Neo liberal production and use of space

Real estate speculation Space to be consumed Individual use of common spaces Consumerism Nonplace (Augè)

“Counter culture” use of space

Sharing economy Space to be produced Collective use of common spaces Reuse Anthropological place (Augè)

UTOPIA OF NORMALITY

urban regenera

?

socia housin

the policy

TACKLE VACANCY

progressive taxation on vacant property tax benefits to turn vacant dwellings into social housing expropriation if dwellings are kept vacant

PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING

public housing

social housing

public agencies for housing

IACP

public agencies for housing

community management

regular management

mixed agents - institutions (IACP, Municipality) - right to housing movements - community associations - grantees

“community management� community branch� mixed agents - institutions (IACP, Municipality) - right to housing movements - community associations - grantees

PROMOTE SOCIO-FUNCTIONAL MIX ABITARE SOCIALE

EMPOWER COMMUNITY ALLOW FOR BOTTOM UP APPROACH

the design

vacant apartments

vacant & blind plinths

no activity

generic spatial characteristics

social housing

activate ground floors

functional mix, diffused activities

specific & recognizable spatial characteristics

car oriented neighbourhood: oversized transit and parking space, no public space

pedestrian & bike friendly neighbourhood with cozy public space for staying and gathering

car oriented mobility

public transport oriented mobility

dependent & subordinate to the shopping mall

autonomous & independent urban element

unclear relations between elements

system of relations between elements

isolated urban units

increase accessibility

one social & income group

mix of social & income groups

individual use of space

collective use of space

anonimity, powerlessness

people in charge participation, appropriation, community

consumer economy

sharing economy

<30% social housing parking lot at ground floor independent living units no common space

30%> <50% social and public housing active ground floor independent living units common space in plinth

co-housing active ground floor private life can be collective common space at every floor

bonus system

Social housing

Existing residents

Extra room for existing residents

Extra balcony space for existing residents Extra space for social and commercial activities Transitional space

material connection between facade and public space

Extra storage space for existing residents Parking spot for existing residents

social rent of ground floor spaces

some activities are managed by the â&#x20AC;&#x153;community branchâ&#x20AC;? of ex-IACP

social rent of vacant dwellings

activation of public space through social, cultural and economical activities

professional workshops for practical education

mixed use ofďŹ ce buildings

social rent for start ups, coworking, young ďŹ rms, handicraft companies

the wall: secret garden, border with shopping mall

stakeholders and scenarios

Porta di Roma residents

developers

limbo people

urban planners, designers, facilitators

shopping mall

Municipality

right to housing movements

low income people

FIA ex-IACP

other companies and investors

Stakeholder power

++ + 0

---

-

0

+

Stakeholder engagement

++

result

stake holders choice

key issue

Social housing

yes, public management

yes, private management

no, public expropriation

cooperation of stakeholders

cooperation of stakeholders

hostile takeover no cooperation

+ social integration + spatial improvements balanced income mix

0 social integration 0 spatial improvements > higher income

- social integration - spatial improvements > lower income

UTOPIA

COMPROMISE

NIGHTMARE

SCENARIO

SCENARIO

SCENARIO

result

stake holders choice

key issue

The Wall yes, built top down by the shopping mall

no, unbuilt

cooperation of stakeholders

advantage of one stakeholder

advantage of one stakeholder

opportunity for empowerment of civil society

opportunity for commercial and economic activities

no opportunity

UTOPIA

COMPROMISE

NIGHTMARE

SCENARIO

SCENARIO

SCENARIO

yes, built bottom up in cooperation

Porta di Roma residents

Municipality

developers

â&#x201A;Ź

right to housing movements

Current situation

Nightmare 2040

nightmare

nightmare

Utopia 2040

utopia

utopia

H

'limbo' people

associations

S

proximity to services and people

alleviate housing emergency with minimum expense

sure rent, even if lower

!

alleviate housing emergency with minimum expense

S

choice of activities

M

?

municipality

proximity to services and people

chance to manage housing stock and services in a fairer way

no need to manage, coops are in charge

increased power and leverage in public private negotiation on urban development_achieve more equality

improved public transport

choice of activities

public

H

more institutional power

developers

privat e

inhabitants

chance of proving themselves and achieving concrete objectives

temporary arrangements

improved safety_eyes on the street

increased control over real estate speculation increased value for other properties due to increased activities and urban life

increased value of apartments

opportunities for community life

chance to finish the development project better usability of public space

opportunities for community life

nightmare

achieve urban regeneration of a failed centrality project

who wins?

H

'limbo' people

associations

S

proximity to services and people

alleviate housing emergency with minimum expense

sure rent, even if lower

!

alleviate housing emergency with minimum expense

S

choice of activities

M

?

municipality

proximity to services and people

chance to manage housing stock and services in a fairer way

no need to manage, coops are in charge

increased power and leverage in public private negotiation on urban development_achieve more equality

improved public transport

choice of activities

public

H

more institutional power

developers

privat e

inhabitants

chance of proving themselves and achieving concrete objectives

temporary arrangements

improved safety_eyes on the street

increased control over real estate speculation increased value for other properties due to increased activities and urban life

increased value of apartments

opportunities for community life

chance to finish the development project better usability of public space

opportunities for community life

utopia

achieve urban regeneration of a failed centrality project

everybody wins!

H

'limbo' people

associations

S

proximity to services and people

alleviate housing emergency with minimum expense

sure rent, even if lower

!

alleviate housing emergency with minimum expense

S

choice of activities

M

?

municipality

proximity to services and people

chance to manage housing stock and services in a fairer way

no need to manage, coops are in charge

increased power and leverage in public private negotiation on urban development_achieve more equality

improved public transport

choice of activities

public

H

more institutional power

developers

privat e

inhabitants

chance of proving themselves and achieving concrete objectives

temporary arrangements

improved safety_eyes on the street

increased control over real estate speculation increased value for other properties due to increased activities and urban life

increased value of apartments

opportunities for community life

chance to finish the development project better usability of public space

opportunities for community life

compromise

achieve urban regeneration of a failed centrality project

let's start playing!

compromise

compromise

Compromise 2040

P5 presentation - 24 June 2015

Thank you

Martina Gentili 4316541 - Mentors: Marta Relats, Leo van den Burg, Joris Hoekstra - MSC Urbanism - Design as Politics - 2014/2015