PHILLIP PENDER by RMIT Architecture

DWELLINGS: DETERMINISM & AGENCY Major Project Phillip Pender M.Arch 2020

Contents Introduction

Determinism & Architecture

Indeterminism & Architecture

Dwelling

The Contemporary Dwelling

The Commodification of the Public Dwelling: A History Contemporary Public Housing

16 20

Privatisation & The Public Housing Renewal Program

Propositions Liberating Public Land for Public Good Decommodifying the Dwelling Architectural Strategies

24 24 24 26

References

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency

Introduction Dwellings: Determinism & Agency examines the power and powerlessness of the architect to determine the usage and meaning of buildings. Through challenging the privatisation of public housing and land, it questions the agency of the architect and the agency of the dweller, exploring the interplay of economics, conceived design and lived experience. It considers architecture’s role within the nexus of powers that pre-determine the socio-spatial homogeneity of the contemporary dwelling. It critiques our servitude to an economy predicated on property finance and challenges the prescriptive and assumptive methods in which architects design. It considers the act of dwelling; the public and private processes that give character and ontological meaning to the home and neighbourhood. The public housing sector is hindered by complex processes serving purposes of political and commercial expediency. Public housing estates become dilapidated due to neglect, deterministic design and unsustainable financing. They are then stigmatised as enclaves of poverty, ‘social exclusion’, criminality and welfare dependence in increasingly wealthy neighbourhoods. They thus form a soft target for ‘urban renewal’ through privatisation. However, this routinely leads to displacement of disadvantaged, culturally and socially diverse yet tight-knit communities and the spatial stratification of class, creed and race. This project considers the Victorian State Government’s current Public Housing Renewal Program, which consists of the sale of public land, demolition of low-rise public housing estates, and infill of private market housing in Melbourne’s inner suburbs. This book presents a body of research and precedents that informed the thesis of Dwellings: Determinism & Agency. It is intended to make connections between architectural history, theory, the contemporary nature of low-income housing and the current predicament in which the architect is positioned. It aims to highlight the idea of determinism as a central concern for the architect. It then speculates on how the design of dwellings through a lens indeterminacy m ight better accommodate the needs of today’s diverse society, in an era defined by inequality of wealth and power. The first two chapters unpack the concepts of architectural determinism and indeterminism respectively. Through an examination of the spatial theories of Henri Lefebvre, Michel De Certeau and Amos Rapoport, the chapter highlights the oppositional yet inseparable nature of the two concepts. The third chapter links the concept of indeterminism and spatial practice with the concept of dwelling. The chapter The Contemporary Dwelling showcases the changing nature of housing from pre-modernism to our current era. This chapter highlights a number of architectural precedents, their relationship to social paradigms and theory and the way in which they showcase a changing relationship to the idea of determinism in architecture. The chapter unpacks the deterministic, commodified nature of contemporary housing and the current state of public housing. It explains the social issues and moves toward privatisation that this has informed. The issue of privatisation is then highlighted through a critical analysis of the Public Housing Renewal Program. Finally, propositions for a design response are presented.

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency

Determinism & Architecture The urban environment is filled with options and choices. Determinacy can be referred to as the spectrum or ‘measure of freedom’ of these choices, which the built environment influences. The determinacy of a built environment is, in part, influenced by architecture. Architecture can be defined as a practice of determination. Architecture ‘divides, organises and manages’, designates use and users and as such constitutes a form of control and power.1 Consciously or not, the architect ultimately makes a decision on how ‘deterministic’ their design is. The architect either knowingly or unknowingly assumes sociological needs, passing judgement on the lives of others and influences their lives. More often than not, the architect ignores or limits contingency, instilling a particular conception of functional order, cultural meaning or a personal aesthetic.2 This highlights the inherently political nature of architecture. ‘the typically modern practice…is the effort to exterminate ambivalence...’ 3

Architecture is influenced by not only values that are personal, but also those that are institutional or handed down. Architects condense an array of intellectual and ideological influences, giving form to a particular habitus. The determinacy of the built environment is also influenced by ‘higher’ external factors such as social, political or economic trends, the housing market, planning policy, building codes and financial restrictions. The architect is largely at the whim of these larger forces; increasingly so in the field of housing, where the commodification of the dwelling has relegated architecture to a position where it primarily serves only those who can afford the extra expense. This suggests that the agency of architecture is restricted, that is to say, the built environment is heavily pre-determined before the architect may have their own deterministic influence. “The architect becomes aware that in his design he cannot give a new impulse to housing because he conceives the dwelling as the result of technical and economic forces, and he can do little more than invent yet another variation on the theme.” 4

Diagram of Deterministic Forces

Kahn, 1991 Till, 2007 p.120 3 Bauman, 2013 p.7 4 Habracken, 1972 p.4 2

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency

Indeterminism & Architecture Determinism is not by necessity a virtue or vice. Determinism is a spectrum: the built environment can therefore be ‘overly-determinant’, restrictive and oppressive or ‘under-determinant’, incoherent and vague. There therefore lies a balance whereby deliberate, designed structure and indeterminate spontaneity achieve relativity that defines urban quality. This presents the paradox that spontaneity and diversity only thrive in a balance of necessary structure and relative ambivalence; that they are inseparable and dialectical. They are not inherently oppositional. “In their pursuit of an idea (and an ideal) of order, architects have to operate in a state of permanent denial of the residual power of the other of order.”5 While ‘higher forces’ determine built form, the dweller lives with the outcome. They decode architecture through a subjective lens, often contrary to that of the architect. Their unpredictable private and public actions, activities and rituals often subvert implied uses and encode a distinct meaning to architecture over time. This idea of appropriation or spatial practice was primarily explored by architects, sociologists and other theorists in the 1970’s and 1980’s - a period referred herein as ‘the spatial turn’. For example, in The Production of Space (1974) Henri Lefebvre refers to a ‘spatial trialectic’ of perceived (i.e. physical, material and functional reproduction of society), conceived (i.e. the ‘ideal’, linguistic, represented, conceptualised) and lived space (i.e. the directly lived, sensual, everyday space of inhabitant). This is picked up in Edward Soja’s ‘Third Space’ model (1985). In ‘The Practice of Everyday Life’ (1980), Michel De Certeau describes how people subvert the rituals and representations directed in the built environment by ‘higher forces’ through everyday acts of reappropriating space. Whereas the ‘strategies’ of authority create places conforming to abstract models; the everyday tactics of the inhabitant do not obey the laws of places.6 This highlights the interrelation and overlaying of the design discourse of architects, the physical environment and the directly lived, sensual, everyday space of inhabitant. It suggests that the act of ‘producing’ space and produced space are inseparable. Architecture, therefore, has an obligation to consider the space of lived experience, where meaning, identity and uses are subjectively applied. It is these often unpredictable, repeated human activities, habits and rituals and social practices that create meaningful architecture over time. The social significance of a home or neighbourhood is constructed through appropriation and acts of ‘dwelling’.

Subverting Deterministic Forces

5 6

Bauman, 2013 De Certeau, 1984

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency

Dwelling Today it is difficult to define what a dwelling is: a shelter, sanctuary, or a top-down wealth-building mechanism. The ‘standard’ dwelling is detached from the very act of ‘dwelling’ and the unique, indeterminate public and private processes that give character and ontological meaning to dwellings. “The provision of housing cannot be called a process of man housing himself. Man no longer houses himself: he is housed.”7 The commodification of the housing market is a deterministic practice, that is geared primarily toward commercial expediency. In this sense, it largely ignores the indeterminate ‘lifeworld’ or the everyday world of lived experience, particularly of the poor. King (2016) argues a need for a theory of dwelling, as an act related to the environment and personal aspirations of the dweller.8 The seminal text related to this concept of dwelling is Martin Heidegger’s ‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking’ (1791). Here, Heidegger describes dwelling as a natural state of ‘being in the world’, important to a thoughtful and authentic individual existence. This is related to the act of ‘building’; physical acts that bestow progressive layers of significance, value and meaning through time. This highlights the nature of the dwelling as a place of ontological security, where through acts, the dweller, by that very act, produces and reproduces their selves and identities.9 This is also related to a capacity to care for, protect or nurture a particular space of dwelling, not necessarily the home, but also other locales. Lewicka (2010) describes the importance of neighbourhood and urban public space as a place of dwelling, community ties and networks and expressions of collective identity.10 In ‘The Concept of Dwelling: On the Way to Figurative Architecture’ (1985), Christian Norberg-Schulz applies Heidegger’s theory more explicitly to architecture. Norberg-Schulz expands the theory to a ‘total environment’ of dwellings; the public, collective, private and natural. He contends that the experience of dwelling and shared understandings and societal interactions are where conceptions of ‘sense of place’ are synthesised: “centres of meaning constructed out of lived experience.”11 Norberg-Schulz states that the role of architecture is to provide a “means to visualise the genius loci, and the task of the architect is to create meaningful places, whereby he helps man to dwell”.12 It can therefore be said that architects have a relative power to establish or preserve places of dwelling. As this concept of dwelling is dynamic, subjective and multiple, an unfixed conception of place identity should therefore be maintained by the architect. However, it can be argued that the relationship of indeterminism, dwelling and ‘sense of place’ is suppressed in the contemporary condition, shifted toward the “oppressive ideology of designer” or the market.13 “The currency and intangibility of ‘sense of place’ has been widely exploited by the market...reduced to scenographic and rhetorical effect as a cover for place destruction”14

Habraken, 1972 p.9 King, 2016 9 Woessner, 2003 p.23-44 10 Lewicka, 2010 p.35-51 11 Norberg-Schulz, 1980 12 Ibid. 13 Dovey, 2008. p.44 14 Ibid. 7 8

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency Byker Wall (1969). These shared common regards to dismantling programmatic functionalism, communal living, user agency, emphasised circulations and destructured formal hierarchies.

The Contemporary Dwelling The Commodification of the Public Dwelling: A History The public housing sector is one of the most notable subjects of experimentation in environmental determinism; from the socialist communitarianism of the 1930’s to the controlling spatial segregation of garden-city estates. Public housing has been an area of extensive architectural and sociological interest, particularly following the mixed fates of various architectural experiments in the post-war era. However, it can be argued that since the neoliberal turn of the 1980s, public housing is more greatly determined by economic imperatives than aspirations for social uplift. In Australia, as a matter allocated to the states, the New South Wales Housing Act of 1912 saw the construction of the first public housing estates, abruptly coming to a halt with the onset of the First World War and The Great Depression. However, the 1930s saw a re-energisation of the Public Housing sector. In Melbourne, a campaign for improvements to sub-standard ‘slum’ conditions gathered momentum, leading to the formation of the Housing Commission of Victoria in 1938. Concurrently, the ideas of the early Modernist movement deeply informed the social and architectural outcomes. The Garden City Movement and the Athens Charter categorised the city’s functions. Modernist functionalism and rationalization saw housing as a means to ‘organise’ living through purity, order and austerity. Environmental determinism became central to the modern city: a belief that architecture could promote social reform through design. The postwar era saw the most significant public housing investment in Australia, with State housing authorities building almost 100,000 dwellings for public rental, or one in every seven dwellings built in Australia.15 This expansion of Public Housing included larger estates of four-storey walk-ups; housing for returned servicemen and migrant workers. Concurrently, the late modern era saw aspirational and utopian architectural schemes, aided by new material industries and changes in living customs. With a boom in population, mass housing became a central concern to the era’s foremost architects.

However, The 1980s saw the birth of neoliberal governance. Conservative governments (including in Australia) turned against public housing, reducing the size of the public housing sector, in turn, shifting provision away from workers to the most vulnerable, often on a social wage or unemployed. A significant political shift toward reduced State intervention and a dependence on the private market informed a systemic abandonment of estates. The demolition of Leinweber, Yamasaki & Hellmuth’s Pruitt-Igoe housing Complex (1955) in 1972 became a symbol of either modernisms failure, and the abandonment of the welfare state. In Australia, falls in public housing continue today, with public dwelling completions falling from an average of 16 per cent from 1945 to 1972, to 9 per cent over the 1980s and to 5 per cent over the 1990s. Public housing in Australia has now shrunk to 4% of all dwellings.16 The neoliberal influence is still largely apparent today, with the demolition and privatisation of public housing estates an international trend. Although partially justified by ageing stock, it also represents an ideological commitment to the private market. Though given the current length of the public housing waitlist and the housing affordability crisis, this faith in the private sector’s capability of providing sufficient affordable housing is increasingly questionable. Despite this, it can be said that there has been a recently renewed scholarship on housing, evidently brought on by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and housing affordability crisis. Increased income inequality has spurred social unrest and has highlighted the current state of public housing. Renewed scholarship on alternative housing models, architectural solutions to density suggest the resocialization and politicisation of housing.

However, by the 1960s the deterministic shortcomings of modernism were made apparent with a postmodern movement spurred on by social change. Predominantly in the 1960s, the emergence of post-modern theories of socio-spatial production informed ‘the Spatial Turn’. The influence of Lévi-Strauss, Lacan, Lefebvre and Foucault and theories of metabolism and structuralism permeated architectural circles; a re-evaluation of the social role of architecture and its relationship to the inhabitant. The modern approach to mass housing was critiqued in the support/infill and open building theories of Habraken (1981) and Hertzberger's theories on polyvalence. The post-structuralist theories of Barthes, Eco, Derrida, Deleuze had a similarly sizable impression on architectural thought, with their emphasis on agency, subjectivity and hegemony, manifested in the embracing of symbolism and dualism. Architects such as Cedric Price, Yona Friedman and Archigram saw flexibility as a means of confronting unpredictability. Deconstructivism viewed architecture as an autonomous art form or provocation. Jane Jacobs, the Krier Brothers and Christopher Alexander championed indeterminate urbanity. Combined with progressive governments, the postmodern era gave rise to a significant number of ambitious public housing projects, such as those by Neave Brown under the London County Council, The Smithson’s ‘mat-building’ Estates, Oskar Hansen’s Slowacki Estate (1964) and Ralph Erskine’s

Wheeler, 2020

G roenhart et. al, 2014

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency

Privatisation & The Public Housing Renewal Program

Contemporary Public Housing It is estimated that Australia has a shortfall of at least 433,000 public housing dwellings.17 Victoria currently has the lowest proportion of public housing, relative to all dwellings of all states. In Victoria, more than 82,000 people remain on the public housing waiting list (including 25,000 children). 42% of which are homeless.18 It is notable that similar shortages exist across the affordable housing spectrum, with a shortfall of 271,000 affordable and available private rental dwellings for low-income households in 2011.19 The lack of public housing provision, informs a range of other issues including the concentration of disadvantage and the overcrowding of current stock.20 Furthermore, as access to public housing has become more restricted, public housing now houses those with the greatest needs rather than the low-income working families it was first intended to serve. The remaining stock is not fit for today’s diverse demographic of tenants who are more likely to be single-person households (57% of public housing households) or larger households of immigrant families.21 One-third of households include at least one member with a disability.22 This is problematic, as the majority of proposed designs for public housing through private mechanisms are market-oriented, generic responses to lifestyle, place and culture; conceived deterministic and prescriptive configurations and assumptions of spatial practices. Perhaps the most perverse consequence of the lack of provision of public housing is the market failure through funding-gap that this informs: “the gap between the low rates of return available on affordable housing investments compared to market returns available on alternative investments with similar risk profiles”.23 The rent received from public housing tenants is insufficient to cover operating costs and fund new supply, a partial result of ‘residualisation’. The lack of provision and subsequent prioritisation of social housing to those in greatest need has seen tenant demographics shift from households with at least one employed person to entirely non-working households reliant on government welfare payments and assistance.24 Given the overwhelming majority of tenants’ incomes are statutory welfare payments this has decreased the funding capacity of public housing. This in turn positions privatisation as a preferred, low-risk mechanism for governments to provide ‘social housing’ and ‘upgrade’ existing stock through indirect and minimal government expenditure.25

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency

This contemporary nature of the dwelling is exemplified by the Victorian State Government’s Public Housing Renewal Program (PHRP), consisting of the sale of public land, the demolition of low-rise public housing estates, and the introduction of private apartments (commonly 70%) alongside community housing provider dwellings in Melbourne’s inner suburbs. The program has been critiqued by various reports and enquiries, highlighting how privatisation pre-determines social and architectural outcomes. Sale of Public Land and Lack of Growth in Stock The program entails the continued sale of well-located public land; a public asset offering the potential for on-going future uses; namely providing public space and housing. 578 ha of Victorian public land parcels were sold between 2000 and 2018.26 About 80 per cent of land sold since 2000 was in residential areas and capable of accomodating an estimated 11,000 units.27 Alternatively, the PHRP increases the number of public units (primarily smaller units) on these estates by a mere 10%. Social Mix The program is justified on grounds of the concept of ‘social mix’. This draws on countering stigma, the transferring of social capital and the neighbourhood effects thesis (i.e. that concentrations of poverty exacerbate its effects). However, research repeatedly indicates that introducing private housing on public estates gentrifies a neighbourhood, displacing the social spaces and networks of the most vulnerable.28 Issues with the implementation of the public-private mix can be seen in the prior renewal of the Carlton and Kensington public housing estates. Here, only 30% of public tenants returned, there was a reduction in family-sized units and a decrease in public bedrooms overall.29 Furthermore, there are no shared entries, paths or gardens and the private apartments function as gated communities.30 Unsustainable Financial Model In addition to the finite amount of public land available, privatisation presents a short-term economic fix. It leaves little consideration to the future life of the buildings, their longevity, maintenance and long-term suitability. Furthermore, revenues from private housing sales are absorbed as developers’ profits instead of being invested back into public housing, presenting an unsustainable financial model (see diagram). Dwelling Suitability The involvement of private developers gives them significant influence on decision making around physical design, lack of shared space and in turn, lack of social interaction between private and public communities.31 This informs a propensity across the renewal sites to provide smaller units and cater designs to increase amenity and ‘value’ to private units.32

Porter & Davies, 2020 N.a, 2020 19 Hulse et. al, 2019 20 Burton, 2020 21 Groenhart & Burke, 2014 22 Ibid. 23 Australian Government Council on Federal Financial Relations, 2016 24 Ibid. 25 Shaw et al. 2013 18

Architecture AU, 2020 Topsfield, 2020 28 Shaw, 2017 29 Shaw et. al, 2013 30 Harris, 2017 31 Levin et. al, 2018 32 Lucas, 2017 27

Diagram of PHRP financial structure

Map of PHRP sites

PROPOSITIONS The following chapter explores mechanisms and architectural strategies that respond to the prior issues discussed. The responses centre around the concepts of determinism and indeterminism, with a view to liberating design from the deterministic influence of both the property market and the architect.

Public Land for Public Good As land price constitutes a substantial component of the cost of providing low-income housing, a costeffective measure is to build on government-owned land. However, rather than selling off finite land, there are alternative means of procurement. One such option is the long-term leasing of public land to a separate entity, such as a Community Land Trust. As a diverse model practised abroad significantly; it presents a legally plausible means of separating social value from land value, creating a pathway for decommodification. This has the additional benefits of retaining public land in perpetuity, expanding available land for development and rehabilitating vacant public land through bottom-up mechanisms. This might inform longer-term communities, sustainable finance based on upward mobility, the perpetual retention of public land and tenure-diverse dwellings. As a form of shared equity tenure, this also provides individual and collective autonomy over the built environment, the security of tenure and the potential for asset wealth-building. The model can be replicated, scaled and networked on latent public land.

Privatisation vs. Decommofication

Decommodifying the Dwelling Alternative financial mechanisms may liberate design from deterministic political or economic interests. Inspired by the ‘Equity-housing model’, a proposal includes a continuum of public, submarket rental and long term leasehold dwellings, which residents can move between with social mobility. This responds to a wider shortage of affordable housing: not just public, but ‘key worker’ and ‘belowmarket rent’ housing. However, a further subsidy is provided through the leasing of small low-rent tenancies. Furthermore, the initial sale of long-term leasehold dwellings would offset the reliance on municipal funding or private investment that is the primary barrier to alternative development models. Regardless, each dwelling is tenure blind, offering the same architectural qualities, privacy and agency to each inhabitant. Diagram of alternative financial structure

Inversion & Articulation As a design response, the architect may begin to challenge the normative approach in which architects enact power; namely, through enclosing and delineating space for pre-determined uses or a particular group of intended users. One such method is the inversion of the rectilinear figure or enclosure. This might open up a site to a greater variety of users or uses, taking advantage of adjacent space. Here, surrounding laneways and footpaths become an extension of an indeterminate territory: a field of negotiation with no discernable ownership, at odds with the minimal area of quasi-public space usually offered through the private market. With the provision of public amenities, tenancies and services, the public domain might better infiltrate portions of a site, emphasizing collective social use, accessibility and intensity of social interaction.

Thresholds & Indeterminate Space Through inversion or the placement and form of buildings within a site, adjacencies and surrounding interstitial spaces may become of equal programmatic importance to the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s themselves. The resulting niches and thresholds might accommodate social or convivial use. The public colonnade or private balcony is one key example.

Inversion of figureground & indeterminate space 30

Superimposition The superimposition of spatial or structural systems is another means of designing indeterminate spaces. Here, the insertion of a new structural grid highlights the dialectical opposition of fixed structure and indeterminate open space. The irregularity of columns expands programmatic opportunity through a variety of suggested spaces. A structure placed within an existing warehouse is denied a programmatic definition. Its use is informed only by its ambiguity, permeability, adjacency to the street and basic utilities.

Dematerialising Boundaries By rethinking the hard boundary or wall, a porosity of interstitial connections can be achieved. Furthermore, operable partitions may allow a greater combination of spatial arrangements to accommodate various uses.

Diagram of Indeterminate Programme 34

Openness & Programmatic Ambiguity ‘Openness’ or the generous provision of space for expansion and activities has largely been removed from the commodified dwelling. The incursions on cost or density that spatial generosity might have may be offset through the multi-functionality of rooms, removal of designated circulation zones or ‘efficient’ construction methods. A long-spanning structural system (such as Cross Laminated Timber) or heavy, load-bearing exterior walls can provide a cost-effective means of providing open space, while also providing a liberated plan which may be subdivided into smaller areas without hard boundaries. Combined with movable partitions or furniture, this allows an ability to reconfigure internal arrangements and multifunctionality through time. Working, sleeping, relaxing might even occur in the same space as similar times.

Deprogrammed Circulation The elimination of narrow corridors lessens the restricted contact and privatisation of rooms as well as the deprogramming of circulation routes. This informs the option of promoting interaction and connection or alternatively affording privacy. Openess & choice: A family inhabits an entire floor, with the capacity to divide and rent out portions as needs change.

Non-Hierarchical Plan There are inherent formal and spatial qualities that might give architecture a capacity to accommodate multiple uses and be instilled with meaning by the dweller, without sacrificing privacy or seclusion. The non-hierarchical plan is observable in noncommodified domestic archetypes, for example, the Meditteranean ‘Quarto’ or Palladian Villa. The enfilade, symmetrical or centripetal form, the nonhierarchical plan or interchangeable spatial order constitute such qualities. The ‘function’ of rooms becomes ambiguous as well as the relationships between them.

Neutrality By positioning architecture as a neutral ‘backdrop’ or ‘structure’ to the every day, the architecture is absent of conditions that predetermine a perception of space. The layering of materials, structure, skin, services, internal partitions, finishes; and objects constitute ‘shearing layers’ (as coined by Frank Duffy, 1994) of continuity and change. The built form, therefore, acts as a neutral canvas for personalised landmarks, objects and acts of inhabitation.

The non-hierarchical plan: A block catering to single residents or small families; three indeterminate rooms connected in an enfilade sequence.

Dwellings: Determinism & Agency

References Andrea Kahn ‘The Invisible Mask’, in Andrea Kahn (ed.) Drawing, Building Text: Essays in Architectural Theory (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991), p.85-106 ArchitectureAU, "Victoria wasted the opportunity to build 12,000 public housing units," 4 May 2020, https://architectureau.com/articles/victoria-wasted-opportunity-to-build-12000-public-housing-units-study-finds/ Australian Government Council on Federal Financial Relations, “Innovative Financing Models to Improve the Supply of Affordable Housing” (Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia, 2016), https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/C2016-050_Final_report.pdf Bauman, Zygmunt. Modernity and ambivalence. 1st ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. P.7 Burton, Tom “Melbourne's 'war on slums' back in the spotlight”, Australian Financial Review, July 8, 2020. https://www.afr.com/companies/healthcare-and-fitness/melbourne-s-war-on-slums-back-in-the-spotlight De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Dovey, Kim, Author, and Dovey, Kim. Framing Places : Mediating Power in Built Form. Second ed. The Architext Series. Oxfordshire, England ; New York: Routledge, 2008. p.44 Groenhart, L. and Burke, T. (2014) Thirty years of public housing supply and consumption: 1981–2011, AHURI Final Report No. 231, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited, Melbourne, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/231. Habraken, John. 1972. Supports: an alternative to mass housing. London: The Architectural Press. P.4 Harris, Josh “Mixed-tenure housing failing public housing tenants”, ArchitectureAU, 23 June 2017, https://architectureau.com/articles/mixed-tenure-housing-failing-public-housing-tenants/ Hulse, K. et al. (2019) The supply of affordable private rental housing in Australian cities: short-term and longer-term changes, AHURI Final Report No. 323, AHURI, Melbourne, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/ King, Peter. The Principles of Housing. London, [England] ; New York, New York: Routledge, 2016. Lewicka, M. (2010). What makes a neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), p.35–51. Levin, Iris, Kathy Arthurson & Anna Ziersch (2018) Experiences of Tenants’ Relocation in the Carlton Public Housing Estate Redevelopment, Melbourne, Urban Policy and Research, 36:3, 354-366 Lucas, Clay “'Social mix' approach to public housing is failing, research finds”, The Age, June 16, 2017, https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/social-mix-approach-to-public-housing-is-failing-research-finds-20170616 N.a., “The Numbers”, Protect Abbotsford Street Estate Group, n.d. 2020, https://protectabbotsfordstreetestate.weebly.com/the-numbers.html Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Genius Loci : Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1980. Porter, Libby and Liam Davies, "Public land is being sold exactly where thousands on the waiting list need housing," The Conversation, May 27, 2020, https://theconversation.com/public-land-is-being-sold-exactly-where-thousands-on-the-waiting-list-need-housing Shaw, Kate “Social mix in housing? One size doesn’t fit all, as new projects show”, The Conversation, July 21, 2017, https://theconversation.com/social-mix-in-housing-one-size-doesnt-fit-all-as-new-projects-show-80956 Shaw, Kate, Peter Raisbeck, Chris Chaplin, Kath Hulse, Evaluation of the Kensington redevelopment and place management models (Melbourne: University of Melbourne Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, 2013). Till, Jeremy “Architecture and Contingency,” Field Journal vol.1, issue 1, 2007, p.120. Topsfield, Jewel “Calls for surplus land to be used for public housing as pandemic bites,” The Age, May 4, 2020, https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/calls-for-surplus-land-to-be-used-for-public-housing-as-pandemic-bites.html Wheeler,Tone "On Social Housing Part 1", Architecture & Design, 9 June 2020, https://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/people/tone-wheeler-on-social-housing Woessner, Martin. "Ethics, Architecture and Heidegger." City 7, no. 1 (2003): p.23-44.

Phillip Pender phillip.pender1@gmail.com