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