Introduction Counting in the serious situation of rapidly growing cities in the third world a great amount of the world`s population live in, the topic of architecture for the poorest neighborhoods is becoming more and more relevant. Although being important, architectural and urban designs produced according to the requirements and resources of users barely make it to the covers of magazines. Presumably, polished floors and fancy rooftop cafĂŠs published daily in architectural websites make a neglible part of design production truly needed nowadays. The real desire for clever architectural solutions comes from developing countries. However, architecture for those in need is often marginalized both by governments and architecture practitioners. The majority of architects and developers focused on a profit find commissions for impecunious rather unattractive. What is more, not only regions of Africa, South America or Asia have difficulties with housing production for non-wealthy. Increased number of natural disasters, influx of migrants, living conditions of minorities and unemployed make socially oriented architecture a substantial matter for authorities all over the world. Even though the commercial building production pushes investors into profitable solutions, bottom-up initiatives willing to improve the situation are progressively active. The members of the third sector are trying to help the poorest to incorporate into society by numerous projects. A promising phenomenon of increased interest among volunteers and non-governmental organizations in architecture in poorest neighborhoods sets a question about how the help would be obtained. Substituting the state, the organizations experiment with effective approaches whilst working with those in need: one of them is participative planning.
2
Method To provide a better insight into attributes of participation of the poorest communities in architecture, the specific approach to participative planning in these neighborhoods should be examined. An explanation of the term of participation in architecture would be given and general origins of participation in architecture would be discussed according to articles selected during the EKA course by Paul Davidoff, Giancarlo di Carlo and Margit Mayer. Several community projects using participation would be overviewed and compared. In this paper, the effects of participative planning and actors` specific measures would be discussed. Also, it would be evaluated what the role of participants really is and how do they accept a method of participative planning. Finally, based on field research and personal experience one case study would be investigated into detail.
Term “participatory planning“ As a result of failures of Modern Movement that became apparent in the 1970s numerous archiects were trying to redress the balance of power between architect and 1
user . The pursuit persists until now. Many different approaches how to deal with relicts of modernism came out including those which involved future users` participation in actual design process. The method of participatory planning includes workshops, consultations and neighborhood offices to communicate with potential dwellers. A design is then created together with planners. In many cases the users themselves are brought in for the construction process. There are also projects that were designed in a flexible way so that future users can adapt the layout and thus participate on its look. A common feature of all of these methods is the weakened role of an architect and enhanced power of users to take control of their dwelling. In a particular case of architecture within the poorest neighborhoods, planning with people is a form of bottom-up solution that results in low cost user oriented design. The aspect of collaboration motivates people living on the edge of society to appreciate guidance and to have a chance to decide about their lives which they usually lack. Moreover, already a contact with an architect that listens to poor people`s needs is a grand step for them to develop their self-esteem. Except of design and building itself, the information and skills gained in this procedure might be valuable for future too. The popularity of the participatory turn in urban planning also among architecture in third world can be explained as a desire for direct democracy fuelled by technical innovations, 2
social networks and the rise of active citizenship.
1 2
http://www.spatialagency.net/database/participation.1970s KrivĂ˝, M., Kaminer, T. 2013. The participatory turn in urbanism. Footprint 13/2013
3
The request for participative method in architecture in poorest nighborhoods has developed due to the previous experience with designing such housing. Architects and authorities often omitted the crucial point of participation, erected generic dwellings and forcibly moved in poverty struggling inhabitants. As such process did not demand citizens` involvement, the poor ones were not willing to find solutions by themselves. Being provided a bad role model, they kept relying on somebody else`s help. It was proven that when the low-class inhabitants lack relationship with house they repeatedly destroy it. In brief, need-receive system did not teach them anything. Recent practice in poverty oriented architecture declares that client`s involvment is of high importance.
Reviewed articles
A planning theorist Paul Davidoff in his text outlines a need for a greater plurality in urban design too. In his opinion a practice that has discouraged citizens in plan making was based on what might be called „unitary plan“
3
introduced uncompromisingly by the
authorities. Such top-down designing without listening to users` desires has had to be, according to him, replaced with alternative approach concerning different interest groups – including the poorest ones. With the help of an architect as a legal advocate, clients should be informed about possible ways how to affect the decision making. He suggests that the extent to which community is interested in participation depends on the quality of public information agency work. The issues of enlightenment in plan making become more relevant as far as the poorest neighborhoods are concerned. Currently, the guidance in the field of participatory planning is mostly sponsored and done by NGOs. Likewise, an architect Giancarlo de Carlo claims that the enlighteners of participative planning should be architects themselves. They should seek a way to make 4
design more of process than an authoritarian act . Brick-layer Gods of modernism distanced from the real context of society have to be replaced with specially trained designers concerned in architecture`s public. To make architecture more credible, the process might consist of creating actual place than potential space. “Architecture is simply too important to be left to architects”, he declares. The idea of planning with instead of planning for introduced in de Carlo`s text will also prevent public rejection of so-called wise plans. These overall top-down solutions often fail because the collectivity has no reason to defend them. If communities did not previously participate in their creation, they are not supposed to consider the plans as wise.
3
Davidoff, Paul. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31/ 4
4
Carlo de, G. 1971. Architecture`s Public. (article)
4
In spite of the previous thoughts, a professor of political studies Margit Mayer reminds of ambiguity of participative planning In the example of implementation of German Social City program she explains what activating neighborhood in neoliberal cities is about. In these cities social inequalities occur and participation is not improving the situation. Contradictory, it is contributing to new processes of exclusion as actors tend to prioritize particular target groups rather than making use of integrative 5
measures . Also she claims that non-profit organisations are feeding and inserting their clients instead of representing them. In other words, participation is introduced when weak local authorities are not capable to do major decisions and want to get rid of their resposibilities. Adding to this, Mayer stresses out that participation has to occur on a scale where investment might get controlled and their spatial effects monitored.
After nearly 40 years from the introduction of the ideas of participatory planning, it becomes clear that even though citizens` participation is perhaps not the most efficient method for planning, it surely is the most democratic way to decide about designs. The issue of being equal, to have a possibility to express opinions, be involved in decision making is even more important when speaking about architecture for the poorest ones. As these future users often belong to marginalized groups, their participation as of equal members of the society becomes a political question also. Using the method of participation in the poorest neighborhoods might be demanding for time, finance, patience and education both for organizers and groups involved. Facilitating processes of participation with people in need is tricky, unless the right gentle methods are not used.
Examples One of the ways how to deal with the question of participation in the poorest neighborhoods was provided by ETH Zurich. Their successful initiative Urban Think-Tank 6
is practicing all over the world. Their project Empower Shack is attempted to improve 7
the quality of housing after apartheid in South Africa townships . In collaboration with African NGOs and local community they have worked on a design of family housing prototype. Urban Think-Tank points out the importance of designing exactly on the spot Picture 1 with locals involved: “It is frequent that products for low income areas tend to be
A house prototype designed by Urban Think Tank /left/
designed in a way the West thinks something for poor people should look.� The initiative wanted to prevent implementing such solutions and came up with site-specific design. After discussing with locals they utilize cheap materials that inhabitants had a plenty of to reduce the costs. The houses were then erected by a community. A two-storey building prevent family from flooding damage. Also, by adding second floor, family homes` 5
6 7
Picture2
Mayer, M. 2011. The ambiguity of participating the social city. Journalment 1/2011
Community participating on construction process of the house
http://www.empowershack.com/ 2014. SLUM Lab 9. ETH Zurich
5
8
footprint can be shrunk, freeing up more exterior space . By more rational street layout, access can be provided for emergency vehicles, and the space between homes can take on a more functional role within the community. Herzog&Meuron recent big-scale intervention in favela Di Mãe in Brasil is of different kind. The brighter future of this poor neighborhood with high crime rate is, 9
according to the proposal, secured by a large covered multifunctional space . A place for idealistic play and dance for everyone should become a landmark of favela`s community. The local community is also mentioned as a main stakeholder in the report about the project together with state government, local municipality and social centre and Picture 3 Aerial view of favela with a new
foundations. The way how the community really collaborated is not explained. Reading structure by Herzog&Meuron the description by the authors of this simple and open structure as reflecting and 10
responding to the local and available materials and construction methods , one can trace a profound misunderstanding of what a public building can do for community. Apparently, locals lack the means of maintaining such building and their true issues do not lie in lack of gathering spaces. A comment on the website summarizes the worries: 10 “To say that steel frame and aluminium roofing is local is a sarcastic joke“ . However, Picture 4
A place for “dance and play”
the project is about to continue, wider urban proposal of creating a new public axis in the neighborhood containing for instance a panoramic plaza, cinema, theatre and a coastal park. The design was generously done free of charge, presumably pretending humanity. A similar case of misunderstanding the participatory role of the local community is visible in another project of Urban Think-Tank in world`s largest favela in Caracas. As the neighborhood is located on a steep hill, the architects came with a solution to ease the life of locals by increasing accesibility. According to the idea, the intervention should also provide a better connection with the city underneath. Introducing the Metro Cable system into a poor neighborhood was meant to supply a safe transportation for inhabitants. The project gained both publicity and controversy (for the price and house demolishing). Even though the proposal is said to be discussed with local community 11
leaders , by inhabitants it was rejected as rather useless. In a documentary about this topic
12
the locals claimed, all they asked for was an improved paving. Some of them see
8
http://www.archdaily.com/487675/urban-think-tank-takes-on-housing-in-south-africa-stownships/ 9 Herzog&De Meuron – Nella favela Di Mãe Luiza uno spazio per giocare e ballare. Casabella 10/2014 10 http://www.archdaily.com/509030/arena-do-morro-herzog-and-de-meuron/ 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrocable_(Caracas) 12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv0_ELupyxs Al Jazeera series Rebel Architecture: Pedreiro the Master Planner
6
the cableway as a mean attract more tourists as the favela of San Agustin became one of the major landmarks in Venezuela. A more accepted approach was applied by architectural studio Elemental in Quinta Monroy, Chile. They were asked to design a replacement dwellings for people from slum communities. To provide both low-cost housing and a possibility for future owners to participate, the architects designed a repeating unit with individual apartments, each containing a basic sanitation and open interior residents were free to divide. Apartments had access to a defined portion of empty space, which they may occupy 13
when they could afford to do so . Providing only a part of the house somehow forced
Picture5
Houses right after finishing
dwellers to participate but still allowed them to postpone the extension of the house untill their financial situation improves. Architects knew that forcing ‘top-down’ design upon a community which is used to building their own living environment from the ground upwards is often counter-productive, no matter how well intended. These schemes are based on grassroots approach and community involvement; when a family commits its time and intelligence to improving its surroundings, they usually take more pride in the end result – and pride has the result of increasing happiness and fostering successful
Picture6
Houses after inhabitants` interventions
14
communities . The Case Study As it was previously mentioned, the participative planning method used during designing architecture in the poorest neighborhoods is often organized by NGOs. This is also the case of the Housing Program in Kojatice. Led by the Slovak branch of international humanitarian organization People in Need from 2011, the project was targeted to a community of a poor village in eastern part of Slovakia. Trying to improve living conditions of the most excluded part of society, the organization focused on Roma settlements. The project, although managed by an architect, included much more than a design assistance. Rather than architecture planners, the activists operated as researchers, legal advocates and participation facilitators. As activists comment: „The preparation phase took a year of regular visits and discussions with people from the settlement, Kojatice municipality and sponsors.“
15
. In 2012 volunteers found a financial
support in electricity provider Slovenské elektrárne and Pontis foundation. The settlement of poor (even compared to average Roma communities) Romas consisting of shanty houses of clay was ready to be changed.
13
http://www.archdaily.com/329356/non-design-architectures-counter-intuitive-future/ http://www.elementalchile.cl/proyectos/ 15 People in Need: Komentár k výpočtu oprávnených nákladov 14
7
Picture7
The condition of living in Kojatice
Nevertheless, not only the physical environment was about to be altered. The project was meant to help the Romas to implement into society too. It included comprehensive support in financing and loans, legal framework, dwelling construction and as a result a form of education too. The housing program was opened to everybody in the settlement to participate. In the case of quite irresponsible Roma people, strict rules were followed and the collaboration required strong involvement of families. Each of
Picture8
them needed to save a requested amount of money in their own bank accounts, was
A student collaborating with an inhabitant
obliged to participate on every meeting and had to seek workers before erection of planned building. In return, the organization provided plans, consultation and legal documents for the construction free of charge. As the major issue with Roma dwellings was shacks` illegality, the municipality of Kojatice offered inhabitants a chance to legalize their houses by buying the land underneath for low cost.
In autumn 2012 People in Need organized a workshop collaborating with Faculty of Architecture of Slovak University of Technology. In previous discussions with students they defined a major problem in usual social housing in Slovakia. Uniform settlements of repetitive housing units so distinctively differ from ordinary houses that instead of helping the community, their look excludes dwellers from society even more. The volunteers wanted to prevent this by keeping the individuality of each inhabitant. Gypsies want their houses to seem “normally”, as the other ones in the village look. “If we design a clay house so common in the Gypsy settlement, no progress would be achieved. The people
Picture9
One of the drafts for a new house
do not desire this either. Due to this we plan a house rather small but bricked with plastic windows and a shape similar to the ones seen in villages nearby. The appearance 19
represent a status that brings Romas closer to conventional standards of living. “ , claims the main organizator, architect Michal Sládek. Based on this idea, young students and Roma families co-designed the houses according to each family`s resources and expectations during the two weeks long workshop. The task was to design small building 2
/< 25m of floor area/ that could be erected in easy as well as cheap way. Thirteen drafts
Picture10
were presented in the end during a public event.
An architecture student measuring the site
Later in 2013 when all the documents and resources were prepared the real 16
construction started. To achieve full participation with a gentle strictness , the building process only progressed when a member of involved family was on the site. The volunteers say that usually families helped each other. On the other hand, during the summer period - time of seasonal work - most of the men use these opportunities of 18
informal income. Therefore the construction was suspended sometimes . Working force on the site was also secured by students of architecture. By voluntarily helping with the construction they also passed the compulsory summer practice required by university 16
http://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/297527-studenti-nakreslili-romom-domy-zadarmonebudu/
8
and got credit points. Workshop actually attracted many students because of its „exotic“ location and was regarded as successful. The proposals created during the workshop 17
are now open-source materials .
In addition the project was surprisingly popular among media. In a country where coexistence with Romas is the second major issue after corruption
18
is unusual to read
positive articles about a marginalized group. This can be considered as another great success of The Housing Program.
The knowledge gained by involved students is
valuable too. As Elena, a participating student of architecture, declared in one of the interviews: “Gypsy settlements are problematic and inspiring at the same time. I 11
appreciated the experience to work with minimal space and limited resources.”
In other
words, they learned that non-qualified people can build a good house by themselves with
Picture11
Family of Vlado with their shed
19
elaborated plan and professional assistance . What is more, the regular presence of „western people“ in a village in the middle of nowhere enhanced cultural life in the area. For instance, the students spontaneously established a reading club for Gypsy children. In Moldava, another village where such participative planning was introduced, a music festival and regular football matches between locals and volunteers take place. Opposing to positive aspects of participatory planning in architecture of the poorest neighborhoods, there are also limits one has to be aware of. Planning for the future might be demanding both for architects and needy. Poor people are not always quite able to think in advance neither consider their resources properly. As my friend Matúš who collaborated in Kojatice hyperbolized his experience: „We asked Roma people: Do you want this to be black? They said yes. Do you want it to be white? They agreed. I suppose Gypsies were surprised somebody questions them, treats them like 20
valuable human beings. What is more, they were simply afraid to say no to any offer. “ Maybe according to previous experience, Romas were discouraged to tell their suggestions. Or perhaps they were simply not able. There is a doubt what exactly is then the inhabitants` input to participative design procedure. It appears that in the case study of Kojatice the major contribution of users is the money saving process and actual building than design procedure itself.
Besides this a question arises: to what extent do poor people in general understand their role in participation? Romas in Slovakia, under-educated, simpleminded, growing and dying in shanty towns without a real role-model seem not able to
17
http://www.peopleinneed.sk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=304%3Avkojaticiach-je-u-na-stavbe-material-opae-staviame-z-ytongu-&catid=1%3Alatest-news&lang=sk 18 http://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/297527-studenti-nakreslili-romom-domy-zadarmonebudu/ 19 www.slamahlina.blogspot.com 20 http://okocasopis.sk/2013_01/workshop-participativnej-architektury-v-kojaticiach
9
Picture12
A new house built by Vlado`s family
formulate their requirements. Other poor communities are not different. It is difficult for an architect to assume what they are together looking for. My friend describes the process of participation in Kojatice: “We needed to guess the opinions from clients` gestures, face expressions and mutual glances.“
20
The situation is rather precarious, architects do not
want to force somebody to follow their opinions, clients were not able formulate theirs either. Hopefully, collaborating with a special social worker may be helpful. The participative planning in the poorest neighborhoods is doubtly about „listening to one`s needs“ when the only need is to save finances. In other words, plans for Kojatice were designed mostly according to Romas` resources and necessities, architecture and its look plays secondary role as well as actual wishes. Though, housing visions of people 2
surviving on 2m floor area per person in miserable huts can be described as “everything is better than nothing”.
Legend existing buildings new buildings entrances emergency living individual living tenant housing housing space borders community center hygiene hub space for water sewage asphalt roads drinking water pipes rain water pipes drinking water resource public space playground
Picture13
Proposal of spatial development of the Roma settlement in Kojatice made by volunteers from People in Need organization after a series of researches.
10
Conclusion Participative approach in planning for the poorest neighborhoods is an ambiguous practice. On one hand, it provides people a unique chance to decide about their lives and allows them to live in dignity, on the other hand, uneven division of design responsibilities somehow excuses architects if failure happens. Leaving the decisions to often uneducated and marginalized persons, inexperienced in communication, planning and thinking for the future, is arguably a proper way how to deal with their living obstacles. When participation is used in the poorest neighborhoods, included groups have to be aware of risks. One could be rational ignorance. According to its theory (Buchanan and Gordon 1962) an issue is said to be rational when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time 21
doing so . People in need struggling to survive refuse the mater if it seems to difficult for them to understand. On the contrary, if they overcome this impression, they gain valuable experience. Preventing failures in the process has to be of great importance. If something goes wrong, once dissappointed shanty town dweller might be affected for the rest of his life and would hardy gain his lost trust back. To avoid their feeling of being deceived when treating with impecunious, one has to be extremely careful about the words and promises he uses.
The use of participative planning in designing the architecture for the poorest ones might be a successful way to solve issues of people living in miserable conditions. As far as the poorest neighborhoods are concerned, the role of community might be more relevant in providing the construction or personalization than in creating elaborated visions which most of the people are not capable to do. In contrast to endless debates about the form, erecting a self-supported house can be more beneficial for poorest ones in experience and knowledge gained.
21
Krek, A. 2012. Rational ignorance of the citizens in participatory planning. Salzburg research FG
11
Picture resources Picture1: www.empowershack.com Picture2: www.empowershack.com Picture3: www.designboom.com Picture4: www.archdaily.com Picture5: www.archdaily.com Picture6: www.archdaily.com Picture7: www.jaroslavmachacek.com Picture8: www.stuba.sk Picture9: www.fb.com/architektivosade Picture10: www.energiaprekajinu.seas.sk Picture11: www.fb.com/architektivosade Picture 12: www.fb.com/architektivosade Picture 13: Study of housing development in Kojatice, People in Need Slovakia, august 2012
12