Social Housings Essays by social.housings

Social Housings essays

by Zuzanna Mielczarek & Zofia Piotrowska

Index Introduction

Socializing Social Housing

published on Archined, 7.09.2018

Poor houses

published in Kwartalnik Rzut 19(1)/2019

Long live normality!

published in Architektura&Biznes, 03/2019

Mix to the max

published in Architektura&Biznes 05/2019

WDS - Warsaw Social District

Bibliography

Colophon

Introduction

Housing is a political issue. As such, it should be one of the main topics of public discussion. Is the most basic human right for adequate shelter fulfilled? Is everyone equally included in the housing system? And finally, how can we best live together? Essays included in this book are a reflection on different understandings of social housing based on the study of Dutch and Polish contexts. All of them have been published in the architectural magazines in Poland and the Netherlands in 2018-2019. Book is part of Social Housings research project led by Zuzanna Mielczarek and Zofia Piotrowska, supported by Stimuleringsfonds creatieve industrie - Creative Fund NL.

GWL Terrein, Amsterdam, December 2017, ÂŠ Zuzanna Mielczarek

Socializing Social Housing Zofia Piotrowska

As part of our research into a new housing strategy for Warsaw, Poland, we decided to study the Dutch social housing system. It has always been presented as an inclusive solution, which resulted in high-quality developments built as part of an integrated planning process. However, we were surprised to discover that our most recent case studies were completed over a decade ago. Was this due to the real estate crisis? Or did the whole system recently undergo some major changes?

My personal experience from living in the Netherlands confirmed the latter. Earning an average wage at a junior position, but with no support from ‘the mum-and-dad mortgage bank’, I had great difficulty finding affordable accommodation in Rotterdam. The problem became even more acute when, after I moved out, the landlord raised the rent for my old home by almost 30%. I always felt privileged and had enough stability to spend time researching global issues and the problems of some abstract ‘others’. In this case, I could study my own situation, compare it with stories of Dutch friends, who were lucky enough to get an apartment during the ‘good times’. That proved to me that the housing crisis was widespread and rapidly getting worse. We cannot go back to the times from before the crisis, but we can learn from the past. The old solutions had been transformed into a system that created inequalities and social segregation. This is why I think it is important to find a new language for housing solutions that profit from past experience, but look to the future.

Off the social The word ‘social’ has multiple layers of meaning. When referring to housing, it immediately suggests subsidies, financial support and low-cost projects for the poor. In Britain the term ‘social’, as in to ‘live off the social’, is generally used in the sense of being part of the social security system. This idea can be illustrated by the image of over-sized, anonymous blocks inhabited by the lowest classes only. What comes to mind later, if at all, is another meaning of ‘social’ — the organization of society and a form of collective living. The Netherlands boasts its own unique social housing system, yet it reacts to the course of global change. The idea of societal cooperation laid the foundations for Dutch social housing. At the end of 19th century, various groups — mainly Protestant or Catholic communities — organized themselves in response to the problem of poor living conditions. Over a century later, housing associations still retain some of this original idea, especially when they target specific social groups and provide housing for the elderly, students etc. However, inclusion is, for the most part, not a value they still uphold. To improve this situation

and make inclusion part of the future, a more understandable term should be proposed. Common — is that too close to communal, as used to describe Tsarist and Soviet apartments? — or simply inclusive housing would express the renewed housing objectives more adequately and help avoid negative connotations. What was once a Dutch export concept — the social housing system and ways it operated — is now part of a global crisis. In the past, the system stimulated public life. Unfortunately, its transformation in response to the pressing problems of today is occurring with a very shallow understanding of the term ‘social’.

Ownership worship In contrast to the shared enthusiasm for a better economic climate, there are few positives concerning rising house prices. They are now rising much faster than incomes in most European countries. This situation is giving rise to higher levels of homelessness and overburdened rates (i.e. housing expenditure above 40% of income) and creating great difficulties for first-time buyers, especially those without ‘mum-and-dad mortgage banks’. For

many, buying or renting housing is simply unaffordable. The commodification of residential real estate has resulted in a lack of basic social security, especially for indebted homeowners. Fluctuations in global finances generate enormous personal dramas on a huge scale. In the Netherlands, the share of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;underwaterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mortgages (i.e. those in negative equity) reached 36% in 2013. In big cities, despite legal regulations (based on the points system), high demand combined with a shortage of apartments makes free market prices hike with no relation to quality. To become the country with the highest share of outstanding residential mortgage debt in the whole European Union, the Dutch housing system very quickly drifted away from its social housing principles. This dramatic change in the housing situation caused the recent real estate crisis. Now there is an urgent need to revise policy, focus on sustainability, and target groups excluded from the current system.

Unavailable affordability The Netherlands still has the highest share of social housing in Europe, with housing associations owning 30% of the stock. This system is heavily criticized, but the criticism mostly misses the main points. The debate is still shaped by a vivid memory of fraud and mismanagement by housing associations, which justified tighter control and restrictions on their work. That was definitely needed in a few cases, most notably with the billions lost by Vestia in 2012. However, it is important to remember that most associations acted responsibly, proposing community-oriented projects. The permanency of tenant agreements is pointed to as the other major problem. Financial conditions are set at the moment of acquiring a social unit, and residents are allowed to stay in rent-regulated apartments despite their income increase. This is a very delicate issue, as any proposed change threatens residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sense of security. However, not all housing associations view the existing situation as a concern. The governmental policy of cheap mortgages makes people switch from renting to buying the moment they can afford to do so. What, then, are the real defects of the system?

What values are missing? Strong community housing requires diversity to stimulate integration. It should be based on solutions that improve residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; quality of life and provide long-term safety. Current regulations create greater segregation among social groups. The sharp income limit makes it almost impossible for couples with shared incomes to meet the criteria for renting and discourages them from seeking a salary increase while on the waiting list. Social housing ends up focusing mainly on recipients of social security. Options for mixing income segments in one development are limited. Housing associations are allowed to have only up to 10% of non-social housing in their portfolios. There used to be a category for mid-segment housing (i.e. for people with an annual income of around 40,000 euros) but it has been removed from the regulations. Rent levels are set for apartments, but they are not connected to the income level of residents. Thus, they cannot increase with their salary. The maximum rate for rent-controlled housing is set at around 710 euros, regardless of the size of the unit. A common practice in other European countries is to calculate it per square metre. One-pricefits-all doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t work for families or any form of

house-sharing. As a result, one of the financially viable solutions is to fill new developments with substandard micro-units. Housing associations were forced to sell off a substantial portion of their stock to pay the levies set by the government. In big cities, waiting times can currently be up to nine years. Instead of making associations provide more social housing, municipalities set quotas for new private developments. The numbers look impressive: 40% affordable housing in new projects in Amsterdam. But market reality kicks in after the first tenants decide to move out, because there is no control to maintain the units as rent-regulated units in subsequent contracts. All this creates an oversimplified, inflexible housing system focused on the lowest income groups only â&#x20AC;&#x201D; singles or families living on social welfare. Even if financially affordable, it is not an accessible housing solution. Just like high-end developments, it creates its own form of social exclusivity.

The need for self-study Many countries, among them Denmark and Germany, rely on the strong role of housing coopera-

tives, but the specificity of the Dutch conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a high percentage of social housing units and an association-oriented system, but no cooperative or council housing â&#x20AC;&#x201D; calls for more customized solutions. Fortunately, there are some good examples that could serve as valuable references. Perfectly suited to the context, the Dutch situation of less than twenty years ago could become a reference point. Projects like the GWL Terrein in Amsterdam or Le Medi in Rotterdam still impress, not only on an architectural level, but also as processes â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the way they were initiated and designed. Amsterdam was praised as an egalitarian city. In the 1980s, almost all housing stock consisted of social housing. Even in the early 2000s, when the push for ownership started, 75% of all units were rent-regulated, 55% of them owned by housing associations, the rest private. With no stigma connected to this living solution, 25% of high-income groups (and even more middle-income groups) occupied a social housing unit. That resulted in a true social mix and inclusion. Home ownership was an option chosen as a long-term, personal decision. This allowed for a stable, non-speculative residential property market. At that time, the public agenda was pushing to-

wards developer-oriented solutions, and the government allowed for big increases in rents and guaranteed good crediting. Associations also profited from these changes. They accounted for 77% of all housing developments in Amsterdam, sometimes in association with private partners. Most of them were developed as mixed projects that combined both owner-occupied and rental dwellings, which enabled internal cross-subsidization. The quality and architectural design were of the highest importance, with housing associations commissioning the projects from young architects, investigating new typologies and investing in communal spaces. At present, it seems impossible to totally reverse the market-oriented housing agenda. However, the mixed housing system of twenty years ago could be an interesting reference to help rebuild the meaning of social housing.

Accessible solutions It is not difficult to point out which solutions could be implemented today. Firstly, the target group for social housing should include the middle class. The whole system calls for more diversity and flexibility. Rates for rent-regulated units could be adjusted

to income levels and calculated per square metre. Regulations to secure existing stock are urgently needed. For now, it is too easy to transform a social unit into a market one. There is also a general debate about how housing subsidies are distributed and their consequences. In most European countries, including the Netherlands, there was a shift from supply subsidies (financing associations or public housing construction) to demand subsidies (contributions for inhabitants, for example in the form of housing benefit). Despite some advantages, demand subsidies donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t address long-term problems, such as a housing shortage. Overall, the problems with the solutions mentioned are similar to those with affordable housing: they are there; they are just not accessible, and they are not being implemented. For that, political motivation is what is really needed. What role could architects play in improving the housing situation? Aspects of collective living are mentioned in many â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;design philosophiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. However, as stated, this cannot be achieved unless the housing programme becomes inclusive and sustainable. There are always small-scale possibilities. In Germany, baugruppen (self-built, cooperative residential projects) have very often been initiat-

ed by architects. But it is a living option only for middle and higher income groups who are able to provide the down-payment and take a mortgage. However, the many individual baugruppen projects help to curb speculation across the whole residential market. In such projects, home-ownership is not seen as an investment, but as a personal longterm choice. There are also examples of engaged designers who provide more than they were asked for — for example, Assemble with their ten houses on Cairns Street in Liverpool. In addition to refurbishing the buildings, they ran a workshop to help finance the project. But what about ‘the real influence’ that could shift the course of action? That is a broader discussion about whether architects can and should be the ones to create policies. Nevertheless, the whole community must be aware that we are heading for another crisis. It will yet again result in drop-off in commissions and a lack of work. Maybe that can motivate the architects to take a stand. But what about ‘the real influence’ that could shift the course of action? That is a broader discussion about whether architects can and should be the ones to create policies. Nevertheless, the whole community must be aware that we are heading for

another crisis. It will yet again result in drop-off in commissions and a lack of work. Maybe that can motivate the architects to take a stand.

Le Medi, Rotterdam, March 2018, ÂŠ Zofia Piotrowska

Poor houses Zuzanna Mielczarek

What makes houses for the poor â&#x20AC;&#x201C; poor and why public housing should be for all. On the discrimination in the housing sector

Shanty houses Poor houses, shanty houses or shacks as they are referred to in some parts of the world, commonly connote low-quality small-scale housing architecture. It is usually self-constructed out of cheap or reused materials, or simply out of waste. Such houses can be found in slums around the world as well as along main roads in small Polish towns. Houses may be erected on the land owned by their future residents and allocated for housing though it more frequently happens that they are built without any permit due to harsh living conditions or choice. In Poland, they are located on garden plots or municipal waste land. As a domestic example of typical poor houses we may hold a homeless camp at Bem Fort (Polish: Fort Bema) in Warsaw, as a foreign

one - slums in the greatest cities of South America and Asia. This type of architecture, or rather construction, offers substandard housing as it usually lacks electricity, running water, heating and plumbing. What is more, the houses are often built by people lacking technical knowledge and experience, which results in poor execution and low material strength. The houses became a symbol of economic and social discrimination. Poor houses, just like poor mine shafts1 or hoarding, is a bottom-up unregulated social practice of people who are discriminated against or marginalized by the city with all its socio-economic structures. The ‘poor’ prefix is patronizing and reveals a scorn for someone’s lack of resourcefulness, as well as inability to perceive the fact that the state is unable to address the most basic needs of its citizens, such as housing or employment, as aberration. Yet are poor houses really excluded from economy? Why is it that we assume poor people do not need decent housing? 1

Poor mine shafts (slang, the name dates back to the 1930’s) – is a subterranean construction (a gallery or an adit) illegaly excacavated next to the outcrop to supply coal. In the 1990’s, after all the local mines were shut down, poor mine shafts spread in Wałbrzych.

And why should poor people live in different conditions from others in the first place?

Slum porn â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the fetishization of poverty Slum tourists, sometimes referred to as ghetto tourists, choose the poorest areas in the world as their destinations. This phenomenon is criticized for its perverse desire to experience living in poverty for a moment. Poverty lures tourists, photographers, journalists and architects to the extent that it became an aesthetic and situational fetish. Poor areas are not just tourist destinations, they are also inspirations. The sentimentalization of slums is reflected in architecture and design projects. It was the case of Urban-Think Tank cafe, presented at 2012 Venice Biennial, which mimicked Torre de David in Caracas. Despite their in-depth research and being awarded the Golden Lion, the project was widely criticized for slum porn, the sentimental mimicry of the poor aesthetics.2 2 D. Hancox, Enough Slum Porn: The Global Northâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fetishisation of Poverty Architecture Must End, online: architectural-review. com, https://www.architectural-review.com/view/enoughslum-porn-the-global-norths-fetishisation-of-poverty-architecture-must-end/8668268.article [accessed 18.02.2019].

The inspiration from colors and materials typical for the ground up practices of slum inhabitants and their temporary shelters has become a design trend. Another trend, less formal and more practical, is to offer ad hoc help to the poor and other people in need. An example of this are over-designed refugee camps, multi-function sleeping bags for the homeless and other projects which, despite good intentions, may also be seen as stemming from slum porn. Although the homeless and refugees waiting for the asylum are in completely different situations, what they have in common is temporary or long-term housing discrimination and the general acceptance for locating these groups in substandard housing conditions. Modular houses and tents for shelter-seekers have become a favorite research topic for design students and socially active designers, and, in the face of refugee crisis, even for mass-scale producers. Better Shelter, a project carried out by IKEA in collaboration with the United Nations, which was, like most IKEA products, a flat-packed tent for refugees, or Sheltersuit, the Dutch sleeping backpacks for the homeless,3 are some illustrations of this.

Sheltersuit Foundation: http://sheltersuit.com/en, [accessed 18.02.2019].

The idea of humanitarian aid, as we know it, strengthens the sense of temporariness and being in limbo of people seeking shelter in a new country. The problem was aptly captured by panelists in Good design for a Bad World discussion during the 2017 Dutch Design Week in Eindhoven.4 Putting camps, we assume the asylum seekers are temporary newcomers who will eventually go back to their country. What is more, the whole discourse around the refugee crisis sounds like mass migration is a completely new and unknown phenomenon. A crucial remark was made by Kilian Kleischmidt, humanitarian aid expert and former UN advisor, who summarized the underlying assumptions and discourse around the refugees: Refugees are human beings – not a species – so there is no need of tech, design or architecture just for them.5 4 M. Fairs, “Don’t Design Yet Another Shelter” for Refugees, Say Experts, online; dezeen.com https://www.dezeen. com/2017/12/18/dont-design-shelter-refugees-kilian-kleinschmidt-rene-boer-good-design-bad-world/?li_source=LI&li_medium=rhs_block_1 [accessed 18.02.2019]. 5 Kliian Kleischmidt during Good Design for a Bad World discussion at the 2017 Dutch Design Week in Eindhoven.

Nonetheless, many designers still improve, adapt or add things to their projects, and by this perpetuate the assumption that you must live in very harsh conditions. Despite good intentions and willingness to help, what strikes in such projects is the patronizing attitude to those who are to be helped. The internalization of stereotypes that it is a temporary situation and that it is fine to live in substandard conditions may paradoxically strengthen the social marginalization and discrimination. A tent or a sleeping bag is a shelter resulting from the housing shortage, so making it well-designed, even if it brings fast relief, is counter-productive. Individual designer solutions are, in fact, a response to the lack of structural solutions and larger policy. Nonetheless, in a long-term perspective, they contribute this lack and release the state from its obligations.

Slum porn and housing policies The city policy to offer substandard social housing contributes to the acceptance of slum porn in everyday life, and in effect, to new potential slum tourism destinations. Council tenement houses in Warsawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Praga district, falling apart and lacking insulation, are shown as picturesque and travelled

to. A well-known and telling example of housing discrimination financed with public money is also a container complex in Poznań, launched by the city’s former mayor, Ryszard Grobelny in 2012, for the ‘troublesome tenants.’ It was put next to plants on Średzka St. The main objections against this investment were not only substandard conditions the containers offered, but also the ghettoization scheme of city authorities - their plan to stigmatize a specific and small group of people by locating them in isolation, away from public amenities. It is worthwhile to keep in mind that at the roots of social housing there is an idea to provide decent living conditions to the working class in the face of housing crisis, that is to eliminate, not to strengthen inequalities. Early social housing are wellplanned city complexes, such as Justus van Effen complex by Michiel Brinkman in Rotterdam, the Amsterdam School projects or the Warsaw Housing Cooperative (Polish: Warszawska Spółdzielnia Mieszkaniowa) developments, not camps or concentrations of poor houses. To successfully counteract discrimination, we need strategies and structural solutions, not changes at the level of a company, foundation or individual volunteers/enthusiasts.

Poor houses Social housing is commonly associated with lowest incomes, poverty and marginalization. Forty-six years after the demolition of Pruitt-Igoe in Saint Louis, there are still many people who use this iconic and outdated example to confuse the symbolic failure of modernism with the failure of social housing. To assume that a particular type of building or style create social inequality is to overestimate the power of architecture. The authors of The Art of Inequality: Architecture, Housing, and Real Estate express a similar opinion. In the chapter entitled Designing Inequality, they write: No particular type of building or style in architecture create social inequality by themselves. Such assumption would largely overestimate the power of architecture.6 Malfunctioning architecture serves as an easy excuse for social problems already there in a given 6 The Art of Inequality: Architecture, Housing, and Real Estate â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A Provisional Report, ed. R. Martin, J.Moore, S. Schindler, NY: The Temple Hoyne Buell Center for the Study of American Architecture, 2015, p. 60.

community or district. Although by itself, it cannot create inequality. It may contribute to the strengthening of inequalities or create tools that will help to combat them. It is enough to say that what is associated with poverty and humble living in one century, may become the embodiment of middle-class dream in some other. This happened with many modernist housing architecture and surely could be true about Pruitt-Igoe had the complex not been demolished. More and more frequently, we talk about bad housing and social policy, poor flat conditions, and not about the above-mentioned myth of a maldesigned building or urban plan to be blamed for the fall of housing complexes. An illustration might be found in the Bijlmermeer complex in Amsterdam, considered a bad or dangerous area. Modernist buildings there were widely criticized for their architectural and urban monotony. The NL Architects and XVW Architectuur studio drew a conception that persuaded Housing Corporation Rochdale not to demolish them. The project allowed for a much cheaper remodelling for the architects selected simple, almost invisible programming and solutions which made the building healthy again and improved the living conditions of its residents, e.g. they divided a long gallery into smaller units â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

neighbor units. This example, although it has little to do with bigger housing policy, shows that the source of social problems is not the building itself but the way it is managed. The fear of dangerous ghetto with high crime rates override major goals of public housing. And the major goal is, or should be, to provide decent living conditions to those who cannot afford to own a house or simply do not want to own one. Until recently, the framework for Polish social housing, was outlined in the 21/06/2001 Tenants Rights, Municipal Housing Stock and the Civil Code Amendment Act. Pursuant to Art. 2 par. 5 of this act, social housing unit is a unit inhabitable due to its equipment and technical conditions, in which each household member must have the minimum of 5 sqm of a liveable surface at their disposition, and in case of single households the minimum of 10 sqm, wherein this unit may be in a lowered standard.7 The amendment to this Act, abolishing the defi7 Article 2, point 5, of the Tenants Rights, Municipal Housing Stock and the Civil Code Amendment Act (Dz.U.2001 no. 71 Item 733).

nition, took effect on 21 April, 2019. Though the fact that for almost twenty years this definition was legally enforced, led to the public perception of substandard conditions as a natural situation in social housing. With the 5 sqm per household member requirement, a four-people family could have lived in 20-sqm studio. To compare, the Belgian public housing norms allow no less than 37 sqm of surface for a 4-people family, and the minimum of 18 sqm for a single household.8 Legal norms apply to both private rentals and social housing. Though because they are aware of the social role and importance of public housing investments, they tend to rise standards in social housing. The Belgian SLRB agency (French: logement social Region Bruxelles) aims to provide the best living conditions to their tenants, and to create and follow model architecture and urban solutions. The above-mentioned Art. 2 point 5 of the Polish Tenants Rights, Municipal Housing Stock and the Civil Code Amendment Act, although it allowed for substandard solutions, defined social housing 8 Le code bruxellois du logement, 17 lipca 2003, wersja lipiec 2013: http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/ordonnance/2003/07/17/2013A31614/justel, [accessed: 18 lutego 2019.].

unit as the one ‘inhabitable due to its equipment and technical conditions.’ Yet the municipal social housing stock, out of all other types of housing stock in Poland, have the lowest equipment rates. Oftentimes, the units are not equipped in basic installations, and the bathroom is located in the hallway or outside the building.9 It is vague how to understand ‘inhabitability,’ but in the 21st century we may assume that electricity, running water and plumbing installations are a must. Still, some residents of social housing in Warsaw Praga-Południe district are struggling with fungi, dangerous for human health, the lack of central heating and outmoded electricity installation. A model investment for Polish municipalities to follow might be the housing investment of the Brussels Public Center for Social Welfare, Savonnerie Heymans, who is carrying out a high-quality social housing complex, employing original typologies and good materials, as well as passive technology. The offered standard is even higher than what is found on the market from private developers, which strengthens the idea 9 M. Thiel, H. Zaniewska, Mieszkania socjalne i społeczne w Polsce oraz wybranych krajach europejskich - dostępność i standard w “Problemy Rozwoju Miast, Instytut Rozwoju Miast”, 2007, s.38.

that public institutions investing in housing are role models for other housing actors to look up to.

Tenants excluded Letting substandard houses to be offered for social or council rent, the authorities in Poland put tenants in weaker position: they are worse than others, excluded from our society. In her book, Reprivatizing Poland – the story of a grand scheme, Beata Siemieniako asks a question: ‘A tenant means whom?’ and analyzes how this group is perceived by the Polish society.10 Commonly, a social or council housing tenant is poor by their own choice, is a drunkard or a crook who is late with their rent or does not pay even though can easily afford it. During all these years, legal regulation contributed to general scorn for tenants, that is for people who do not own the house they live in. Unfortunately, the resistance of ‘lucky’ property owners against social tenants is quite high. Siemieniako recalls many scornful comments found under the article that reported there will be a parking lot built next to one of social 10 B. Siemieniako, Reprywatyzując Polskę: Historia wielkiego przekrętu, Warszawa 2017, s. 163.

housing complexes. On the Internet, under articles reporting the Amendment to the Tenants Rights (...) Act, you can still read how frustrated property owners are with the fact that, in their opinion, tenants are given more and more rights to the extent that their rights are better protected than the rights of owners.11 Subsidized housing tenants are being called names, such as ‘pathology,’ or ‘drunken crooks.’ All subsidized housing projects, whether social, council or affordable, are seen as ghettos. It is all the more paradoxical given that the incomes of people eligible for TBS (Polish: Social Housing Associations) or affordable housing, are only slightly lower than the incomes of those who bought their houses on credit. What is more, in case of affordable housing stock, there might be no income gap between the two groups, but rather they may differ in lifestyle or decision to keep renting.12

11 For example, the comments under this article: https:// sadurscy.pl/blog/2018/02/16/ochrona-praw-lokatorow-najnowsza-nowelizacja-ustawy/ [accessed: 18.02.2019]. 12 M. Bryx, A. Szelągowska, Rozwój zasobu mieszkań dostępnych w Stolicy w perspektywie 2030 – Ekspertyza dla Biura Polityki Lokalowej Urzędu Miasta Warszawy, Warszawa 2018, s. 14.

Middle-class discrimination Affordable housing and public subsidies should be addressed for those who are excluded or otherwise discriminated against by the real estate market. Which, paradoxically, means not solely for the poorest. High rents and the lack of control over property owners offering their flats on free market, coupled with low social and council housing stock and very low income requirement to be eligible for these, forces the middle class, who are not eligible for a house from public housing stock, to buy on credit. The commodification of housing led to the situation in which housing speculations are prevalent and we are forced to overburden ourselves with mortgages, and to work too hard just to be able to buy a house on credit. Stress, lack of individual and social mobility, overburdening house budgets and working more than it is healthy can lead to isolation as much as poverty. Being forced to devote oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s all time to earning a living equally results in social marginalization. Compulsory capital accumulation becomes a goal. Housing in Poland has been almost thoroughly left to the free market in the 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, which

led to a popular belief that you must own a flat and that property is, for the most part, your capital. Moving housing to the realm of free market economy after 1989, with the shift in responsibility of who must provide it, the state or individuals, took away the sense of housing security from Poles. What is more, local governments, unable to handle their housing stock, were selling it out for almost nothing, making the situation worse and rapidly reducing their own resources. To adequately answer the needs of middle class, it is necessary to launch and carry out affordable housing programs. Contrary to the tendency to address social housing exclusively for lowest-income households or social groups with special needs, many European countries, and cities, enforce comprehensive housing policies, offering municipal units for rent to diverse social groups, from the poorest to the middle class. For instance, in France, they divided public housing stock, HLM (French: Habitation Ă Loyer ModĂŠrĂŠ, which translates as controlled-rent housing), into several income groups: from PLAI with the maximum rent at below 917 EUR per person to PLI with the maximum rent at

below 2335 EUR per person.13 The income groups are called pillars. Introducing such a diverse housing stock through the four pillars and the subsequent diversification of subsidies make the French policy for public housing fair and addressed for the majority of its citizens, not only for the lowest-income groups, but also the middle class. In Paris, for example, the rents are: in PLAI (5,79 € per sqm), PLUS (6,71 €), PLS (13,08 €), in PLI, they are 16,83 € per 1 sqm. The division into four segments may be seen as similar to the present, though still under formation, system in Poland: social housing stock, council housing stock, housing association (TBS) stock and affordable housing stock, the new category which comprises the Polish National Housing Program, Mieszkanie Plus. The following division is also adopted in the new City of Warsaw Housing Policy, Housing2030. The city’s ambition and goal is to invest in diverse housing developments characterized by social mix in terms of income, age, family/household size and lifestyle, even within 13 The maximum income per person in each segment varies per number of the household members - described in the table: https://www.paris.fr/pages/demander-un-logement-social-37 (accessed: 21.03.2019)

one building. There are four segments mentioned: A – social housing for people at risk of social and residential exclusion and people who need additional assistance, e.g. refugees, people with disabilities, B – council housing for indefinite rental, for people whose incomes are too high for social housing eligibility, although still relatively low, C – TBS housing intended for households whose incomes exceed the maximum income for social and council housing but do not give them the creditworthiness to buy a house, D – affordable commercial rentals, developed both by city agencies and private investors. What is more, in new buildings social mix will be ensured, which is counted the following way: 15% is reserved for young people who want to start living by themselves and students, 10% is intended as training flats, 5-10% is for creative professionals, 20% is universal-standard housing, accessible for people with disabilities. For the remaining percentage, there will be done a project-specific diagnosis/ analysis. The City highlights the role of C and D segments, i.e. affordable housing with rents below

the market rate.14 Including the middle class in public housing investments prevents the housing discrimination against any social group and counteracts a still-present practice of stigmatizing and ghettoing. The National Housing Program, launched by the government in 2016, assumes an increase in housing supply for those who are excluded from or invisible in the market.15 Mieszkanie Plus, being major part of the program, invests in segment D, i.e. affordable and commercial rentals, with two additional options of housing benefits and rent-toown program. The investments are carried out in cooperation with local governments, which determines different eligibility criteria for residents.

Housing for all Housing discrimination may occur due to different factors and follow a different course. Both slum and 14 Team of i.a. M. Olszewski, G. Okoński, J.Erbel, Program Mieszkania2030 (draft document from 28 September 2018), Warsaw 2018, p. 54 15 A. Muzi0ł Węcławowicz, K. Nowak, Raport o stanie polskich miast - Mieszkalnictwo społeczne, Obserwatorium Polityki Miejskiej IRMIR, Warsaw 2018, p. 46

makeshift shacks â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, as well as middle-class families who cannot afford to buy a house on credit nor to commercially rent from private owners, are excluded and discriminated. On the market monopolized by housing developers, even houses bought on credit are seen as the capital investment, not as much in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own stability in life, but in the peace of mind of their children or grandchildren, given the length of credit agreements. Discrimination may hit people with disabilities, seniors, refugees waiting for the international protection, students, young professionals. Any social group may be in difficult housing situation, regardless of their income. Housing market excludes not only via prices, but also through location, types of units and their accessibility. Many European countries, such as France and Denmark, learnt that successful housing policy includes all. A house is at the core of our sense of security. It is not a joke or a tourist fetish. Hence, local and national governments should aim to counteract unequal access to housing even if it is considered a normal situation. Life in substandard, or even inhuman, conditions should not be a norm for any social group, just as much as a compulsory mortgage. Hopefully, thanks to city and national programs for social and/or affordable housing, the situation in Po-

land will soon change. Public agencies, through their investments in affordable high-standard housing, may serve as role models and regulate, or impact the market dominated by private developers. We need a social change, and must become aware that house is not a luxurious commodity, but a basic human need that should be met.

GWL Terrein, Amsterdam, February 2018, ÂŠ Zuzanna Mielczarek

Long live normality! Zuzanna Mielczarek, Zofia Piotrowska

On the success of ordinariness in the Dutch housing architecture

What is the normal in architecture? On the hand, it could be standardization, prefabrication and cost-effectiveness. On the other, it means space that is non-peculiar, friendly and in accord with our every-day habits. The success of Dutch housing developments at the turn of the 20th and 21st century is based on the ordinariness as conceived this way.

GWL Terrein, located in western Amsterdam, is the embodiment of the Dutch housing dream. Developed at the beginning of conscious housing boom which took place at the turn of 20th and 21st century (with Funenpark and IJburg complexes in Amsterdam and Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam carried out a bit later), it was a model project employing then-up-to-date energy-efficient technologies. Kees Christiaanse, its designer from the KCAP Studio, aimed to spatially embody the ideas of ecology in apartment layouts and building typologies – there are no hallways, you enter apartments right from the community backyard etc. Showers, instead of bathtubs, were one of the eco-solutions that forced residents to save water. Tiny bathrooms were designed to accommodate the washbasin and shower tray only. Though for families with kids, who were majority in this complex, the self-explanatory need for a bathtub turned out stronger than environmental awareness – hence the popular tendency to immediately remodel bathrooms after moving in.

The architecture of social behavior At the beginning of the 1990’s, national policy in the Netherlands was to reduce the use of private

cars. In GWL Terrain, this call was taken radically serious – there are no parking lots in the development. You may apply for a parking permit on a neighboring street, but there is only one parking slot per six apartments and the waiting line has always been much longer than the one for apartment. You cannot enter the complex by car even when moving out. Its open space is used as a great community backyard for kids’ play, gardening and even… chicken-raising. The car could ruin the place harmony. Social housing in the Netherlands, with its particular and not-for-profit investment model, aimed to implement and accelerate social change from the very beginning, by, among others, eliminating residents’ bias against some spatial solutions. The 1922 Justus van Effen complex in Rotterdam offered completely new, because high, standard for the working-class residents. Common green quarters and vast galleries encouraged social interaction and, as Jane Jacobs put it, neighborhood watchfulness and control. Some of the solutions that structured human behaviors in social housing at the beginning of the 20th century could be now seen as tacitly oppressive as, for example, locating post office in an Amsterdam school-like quarter,

het Schip, designed by Michel de Klerk. In 1920, post offices commonly served as banks. The reason for locating this public facility on the ground level of housing complex was not to make sending and receiving correspondence easier (many residents were illiterate) but to control the working class expenditure â&#x20AC;&#x201C; transferring wages to a bank account was thought to prevent the blue collars from spending all their money on drinking.

Building as a design object and space-making tool Aaron Betsky, architecture critic, in his book, False flat, describes the Netherlands as a country thoroughly designed. Why Dutch design is so good is the bookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s subtitle and major concern. Answering this question, we might relate both to design and architecture, seeing buildings as industrial design. To include architecture in the umbrella term of industrial design enables a completely new interpretation of space and buildings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not as solid spatial forms or static elements of the landscape, but rather as dynamic structures that serve well-defined functions. It was this approach that contributed to the success of low-cost standardized housing architecture. In Poland, both standardization and

prefabrication are not perceived that well. Concrete slab, although it offered a few possible systems, did not offer a full range of solutions nor much diversity: Polish housing complexes from the 1970’s and 1980’s are similar one to another, both in terms of form and function. The systems developed by the Polish People’s Republic made the construction process more effective, though less necessarily added to the comfort of living. In his project Elements of Architecture, carried out for 2014 Venice Architecture Biennial, Rem Koolhas dismantles a building into primary parts: the wall, the window, the roof. He analyzes their history, political contexts and meanings. The Dutch housing architecture might be similarly taken into parts, understood not as the smallest construction elements, but as spatial solutions. For instance, a gallery building plays both housing function and is a tool of community-building, whereas a city villa makes the surrounding public space more active. To optimize, in housing architecture, cannot simply mean to lower the costs of development but to increase the quality of using it too. A well-functioning space is achieved through a typology mix adapted in this standard, though ever-improved system. You do not need to employ complex technologies, it is

enough to use simple design solutions, such as galleries, staircases, the distribution of entrances and common spaces etc. Mixing the elements-and-tools enables both visual diversity and scalability. It is particularly important in the context of contemporary discourse around social housing which, to quote Natalia Rogaczewska from Housing Europe, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;should embody the idea of social responsibility as a new answer to capitalism.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Vertical street The Dutch housing legislation from the beginning of 20th century (de Woningwet) was drawn in response to disastrous living conditions in cities. In Rotterdam, the local government decided to adapt new standards in the above-mentioned complex, which we may call the invention of social democracy era. It was Justus van Effen housing complex designed by Michiel Birkman between 1919 and 1922. Birkman spatially represented the ideas promoted by then-major Dutch architecture figures, e.g. Hendrik Berlage, such as arranging the building line into spatial quarters and treating the street as social space â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a place for all social classes to interact.

The street, in the form of gallery, is located two floors above the ground. One level of duplexes is accessed from the courtyard, whereas the other â&#x20AC;&#x201C; from the elevated hallway. Thanks to his solution, Birkman retained the singularity of typical Dutch terrace houses but put them twice as densely. The gallery typology also allowed for new comfortable layouts, more sunlight and courtyards that accommodated social infrastructure.

Gallery - great comeback The gallery, a collective invention of the social democracy era, was transformed into an anonymous passing space in many modernist realizations. As a cost-effective and time-efficient solution, it was multiplied in prefabricated concrete blocks, creating low-quality generic space, particularly uncomfortable in the Dutch climate with its wind and frequent rains. The general public associates galleries in this negative way as a substandard monotonous external hallway with never-ending rows of doors, despised by their residents. The modernist failure did not bury the idea of gallery building though. In a more social form, it was back at the end of 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, creating more individualized and diverse entrances

to higher-floor apartments. One of the first vaster galleries can be found in Rotterdamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Stadstuinen, social housing complex designed by KCAP studio and addressed for seniors. The well-lit southern galleries serve both as display space, with residents proudly showing their collections of plants, figures or baskets, and as the merely functional one (others leave strollers and deck chairs there). The gallery is also a great tool for lowering construction costs and optimizing the space use into flats surface. In Amsterdam, there is an indisputable champion in this field, the Whale, by de Architekten Cie. studio. It is an intense housing tower located in Borneo Island in eastern Amsterdam . Its internal patio is surrounded by the meandering gallery located every two or three floors from where residents may look at the otherwise-inaccessible space of the courtyard. The communication is well-adjusted to emergency-exit legislation and provides access to duplexes. Unfortunately, in this highly efficient and well-budgeted project, there was not much community space left. Low-cost social galleries are soundproof â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and they may serve multiple functions. It happens that they resemble jailhouse hallways or, when glassed, heat up like a greenhouse. Nonetheless, galleries are one of the

elements typically used in the Dutch social housing architecture, and their future will surely evolve in yet another surprising direction.

IJburg IJburg is an eastern Amsterdam district which lies predominantly on an artificial island, Haveneiland-West. The island, which is typical of the Dutch, was taken away from the sea. Its masterplan, drawn by architects from, among others, Claus en Kaan and de Architekten Cie., is based on the normalized block grid but the divergent investment process allowed to create a spatially heterogenous district. Urban blocks are diversified in terms of typologies, density and residents class. This effect was achieved thanks to the fact that each quarter was designed by a different architecture studio and based on a different development model. IJburg is characterized by both spatial and social mix, within one quarter there are high-standard single-family houses, terrace houses, social housing, high-end apartments, hybrid typologies and additional functions and facilities. Functional and social diversity promotes community-building and contributes to the character of the district.

Just as Rotterdam may be seen as an experimental laboratory of post-war architecture, IJburg serves as a textbook of housing architecture in its heyday at the turn of the 20th and 21st century.

Entrance to the community Communication space, such as the above-mentioned galleries, staircases and hallways, has an intrinsic community-building potential. In higher scale, what matters most is how these spaces are designed within a quarter or district â&#x20AC;&#x201C; greenery areas, yards and parks are favorite meeting places for residents. A good illustration of a lively backyard is IJburgâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Blok 23 designed by Dick van Gameren. What made the space function so successfully is the composition of surrounding buildings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; diverse heights, solid geometry dismantled etc. Frequent entries encourage pass-byers to go inside the quarter, which makes this space used by more residents than just those living in it. Het Funen (Funenpark), a district in eastern Amsterdam, works in a similar way, linked by a community park from which you enter the flats directly. Stoep, the Dutch front yard, entry terrace or just sidewalk, is found along all doors. It becomes

a buffering zone between the private and public space, and also a place for spending time together in front of the house.

Housing cooperatives Vrijbrucht, a quarter located on Steigereiland, IJburg’s northwestern island, is an exceptional project. It was developed on city-owned land by the resident association. Housing cooperatives are a grassroots response to the housing shortage, incredibly high rents and real estate prices, and limited access for the middle class to traditional social housing. Vrijbrucht is not a social housing project though, the investment, from its launch to its end, was carried out by future residents who decided on the whole process and its costs. The model is based on house ownership and long-term rentals from house owners, which guarantees supportive and diverse community and strong status for its residents. What’s more, such initiatives as Vrijbrucht are characterized by high social participation and sense of community. Besides apartments, the quarters ccommodates a café, restaurant, theater, daycare center and childcare facility. The investment seems to embody Kent Larson’s, City Science Initiative

MIT professor, prediction that small dynamic and self-sufficient communities are the future of cities.

Housing associations Housing cooperatives are, despite favorable Dutch conditions, rather minor phenomenon. In all the other above-mentioned architecture projects, the investors (or one of the investors) were housing associations, the type of organization characteristic of the Netherlands. The organizations management and development models have changed with time but the main goal has always been the same: to ensure high-quality and affordable housing. Housing associations (Woningcorporaties) started in the mid-19th century in the Netherlands. According to the 1901 housing legislation (de Woningwet), their legal status is public benefit organization and as such they are eligible for public subsidies. Since then, the policy and vision as for their role in shaping the housing market have changed many times. Nowadays, their share of the total housing stock is 30%. In bigger cities, the share is higher, e.g. in Amsterdam it reaches about 45%, but only small percentage of this share are new investments. The legal limitations and new taxes made it difficult for

housing associations to lead new investments given their funds were also lowered. Despite all this, many interesting and progressive housing projects at the turn of the 20th and 21st century were either inspired or supported by housing associations. GWL Terrein, which was initiated by the residents of neighboring district, would have never been developed if it had not been for the collaboration of five housing associations and their joint funding. For a good project to come to life, a good architect is not enough, you also need an open-minded investor. The Dutch urban plans are flexible and based on contracts among many agents. Housing associations are trustworthy partners in unusual hybrid programs or investing in difficult locations. A good illustration are hybrid projects by the Mecanoo â&#x20AC;&#x201C; De Honingraat studio, such as a culture center and social housing complex in one, or Osdorp, a school with housing on top of it, both developed in collaboration with Ymere Housing Association. These projects reveal the potential that lies in combining housing and public facilities. Housing associations are great partners in developing social ambitions and dreams. To illustrate this, you may recall the endeavor launched by

Hassani Idrissi, a Moroccan entrepreneur, with the support of ERA Contour Consulting and Havensteder Housing Association. They developed a housing oasis in one of the slightly declining Rotterdam districts. Le Medi Complex, designed by Geurst & Schulze studio, is a mosaic of North African motifs and the Dutch middle-class taste. The courtyard is surrounded by columns, buildings have small windows and Arabic details. But inside, they accommodate typical apartments, and cars park below an elevated terrace. Le Medi is an apt illustration of a successful mix of the elements that belong to completely different orders. The projects we describe above are complexes in different scales and of diverse character. What they have in common, is the successful embodiment of the idea of social housing, and transparent development process which engages many agents. With smart management and careful urban planning, simple though efficient formal solutions, which also address the needs of residents, guarantee a well-functioning housing complex.

GWL Terrein, Amsterdam, December 2017, ÂŠ Zuzanna Mielczarek

Mix to the max Zuzanna Mielczarek, Zofia Piotrowska

On diversity in housing complexes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Poland

Social mix is what, among others, guarantees a diverse and sustained community in a given housing development. Both the state, investors and architects should make sure that the developments they design and build are socially sustainable. You should ensure the social mix from the beginning of an investment process. But how to maintain it during the whole development lifecycle? And what is a model social mix?

Definitions Social mix might be defined in two ways. On the one hand, it is the situation when the residents of a given housing development vary in terms of their economic status and the incomes they receive, which leads to the better diversification of a housing offer. In Poland, there are following housing segments: subsidized housing which includes (1) social housing addressed for people in crisis and lowest-income households; (2) council housing addressed for low-income households; (3) housing associations (Polish: Towarzystwa Budownictwa SpoĹ&#x201A;ecznego, abbreviated TBS) which offer affordable housing, i.e. the rent does not exceed 30% of the household income, which one can rent for life or become a particiapnt by paying a percent of its value; (4) affordable housing with rent lower than market rate, developped e.g under the national program Mieszkanie Plus; (5) the most common commercial rentals and private ownership. On the other hand, social mix might be defined in terms of residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; diverse lifestyles. These vary depending on the family size, including single households; age, student status etc. To ensure such diversity, it is advisable to design flats of different

sizes and typologies that will address the needs of each group, such as studios, two-bedroom apartments, three-bedroom apartments, cohousing, duplexes, apartments with backyards etc. In relation to the place and demographics, there might be different proportions assumed for the mix. The idea of well-designed and well-functioning development is that each group finds comfortable and corresponding housing for themselves, as well as that the surrounding social infrastructure corresponds to the needs of residents and the place character. For instance, if an investment is predominantly addressed for families with kids, you must ensure a certain number of childcare facilities and schools. Social mix might be distributed in the whole development, in one estate or just in one building in different ways. Though the biggest challenge is to maintain it throughout the many years of using any development.

Out of mix GWL Terrein is a model eco-development built in the late 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in the west of Amsterdam. It promotes both energy and social sustainability. Its housing stratification is as follows: 55% of pri-

vately owned apartments, 45% of apartments for rent, out of which 60% is social housing. In 1995, 600 families moved to the newly built apartments. The development offered its residents very high comfort of living in an almost central location: attractive flat typologies, various common spaces and greenery, and no cars that could ruin this idyll. The solutions used by the designers helped to create a very sustained neighbor community and almost all residents who originally moved in stayed. The residents know one another quite well, they run a neighbor newspaper, organize various events, contests and parties. Even though the social mix is distributed unevenly â&#x20AC;&#x201C; e.g. there are two blocks that are 100% social housing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; you do not feel any segregation or stigma due to different ownership status. It was relatively easy for us to contact the development representatives to learn more about the community. Diego Pos, who owns an apartment with a beautiful view in the building at the end of GWL, knows many details from the development history, as well as all his neighbors. Thanks to his introduction, we could get to know the residents and their apartments, both privately owned and socially rented. What all the households we visited

had in common was that their residents lived in GWL from the very beginning â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they were usually older or middle-aged married couples whose children either moved out or were about to move out. They also shared high and verbalized satisfaction about living in this neighborhood. When telling their stories, they usually started by saying why they like living here so much, which is not that common in other places. Both people who bought the apartments and those who rented them years ago, did not want to move out. In case of social tenants, it results from the specific housing policy in the Netherlands. The maximum income for social housing offered by the housing development associations (Dutch: woningcorporaties) is checked only once when you apply for social housing. On the one hand, this system guarantees stable long-term rental model, which e.g. in Poland is still under way. It also prevents the situation that someone hides their income not to lose the apartment. On the other hand, this system creates long waiting lines and reduces tenant rotation in the most attractive locations to almost none. New applicants with lower incomes are forced to wait while older tenants who might have got better off keep their right to social housing. Yet

another result of the Dutch housing policy is the demographic ageing of developments, something you immediately feel in GWL Terrein. The Dutch emphasize social mix when carrying out housing investments. Social housing comprises 32% of the housing stock in the Netherlands. Similar proportion of social housing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; only slightly varying in certain cities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; must be kept in every new investment. Thanks to such policy, the profile of new residents is diverse. Though with time, wealth accumulation and ageing, residents become more homogenous and the social mix is gone.

Well-mixed. The case of Denmark Denmark provides a very interesting case of the country which realized how dangerous anonymous developments are, and how certain socio-economic problems concentrate in these. The Danish social housing system is based on tools enabling the longterm nurturance of housing mix. Most of all, social housing in Denmark is called general housing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; everyone is eligible for it, regardless of their income. You just need to sign up on a wait list to rent a social flat. There are two exceptions for this rule though. (1) Eligible to skip the

line are people living in hard conditions, such as students, people with disabilities, recently divorced, jobless etc. One of the most common groups who skip the line are single or divorced mothers who look for a new house for their kids and themselves. 25% of all dwellings offered in the system are reserved for these groups. (2) Surprisingly as it may appear, those with higher income may also get on the priority lane. They may easily rent a social flat in areas with high unemployment rates, and their presence is considered desirable and provides a ‘positive model’ for the community. Housing mix as a tool of adding ‘positive models’ to economically-struggling neighborhoods is what enables the Danes to create socially sustainable districts. Different housing organizations aim to attract locals, though not necessarily residents, to come to a given development and spend time there. Interacting in public spaces, e.g. playing together with kids or participating in a cultural event, diverse social groups come to contact. Hence, in social developments revival projects such places as playgrounds or recreation areas play a significant role. Sole infrastructure is not enough though, so there are social workers supporting these interactions by e.g. setting up afterschool cafes in which they help

children with homework. The residents are also encouraged to act and volunteer for the community, e.g. to organize cultural events or run sports activities. Tenant democracy is another important tool of activization. It does not aim to make the residents more diverse, but to build relationships among them. Tenants, even though they do not own their apartments, are obliged to make various management decisions as for the place they live in, from choosing kitchen cabinets in their newly renovated flats, through selecting the way and cost of greenery maintenance, to permitting (or not) the right to keep pets in the building. Tenant democracy is also based on solidarity. All social flats subscribe to common renovation fund which works as an insurance policy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; if one of the buildings needs some repair or renovation, it is paid from this collective moneybox. It may as well mean that some tenants who were lucky to get a place in well-maintained building, will pay for their neighborsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; renovations throughout all these years. Social tenants live in the apartments for different periods of time, depending on their needs, e.g. students may only have a lease for the fixed time of their studies, or immigrant families may afford

to buy their own house after some time. You may use this rental format a couple of times in your life. This fact confirms that the Danish system of general housing functions well as the one that allows people to fulfill their housing need but also to develop.

Model tenement house It may appear as a completely new tendency introduced by the Western European housing policies, but in fact, housing mix is nothing new in Polish cities. One example that helps to illustrate this is tenement houses in the central districts of biggest Polish cities, in which social tenants, commercial tenants and flat owners live one next to the other. The fact that different tenants and owners are distributed within just one building results in a diverse building community, and from the bigger perspective â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the whole neighborhood community. Here, the residents from various income groups and from different backgrounds live together. Such social diversification of community is absent, though, from the new free-market developments which frequently concentrate the same resident profiles â&#x20AC;&#x201C; young middle-class families with kids,

who bought their flats on mortgage. The lack of diverse community may lead to stigmatizing some social groups, e.g. in big social housing projects. The city of Warsaw sees high potential in housing mix that characterizes the buildings in which it owns some dwellings as part of the city housing stock. One of the aims of Warsaw Housing Program – Housing2030 is to reach similar socio-economic diversity in new investments through, among others, model tenement houses in which in one building or in one block there will be established diverse and sustained local communities. The program proposes to divide the housing stock into four above-mentioned categories (segments): A – social housing, addressed for lowest-income households, people in the most pressing need of housing, e.g. people with disabilities or refugees seeking asylum, B – council housing addressed for low-income households, C – housing offered by housing associations (Polish: TBS) for the households that exceed the maximum income for social or council housing but are excluded from the commercial rental

market due to insufficient income, D â&#x20AC;&#x201C; affordable housing developed by both city companies and private investors in which rents are still lower than on the market. The program also advocates rational distributing of tenants leading diverse lifestyles, such as students, seniors, creative class representatives etc. Affordable housing, that is the latter from the above-mentioned segments, is also developed by the state in the Mieszkanie Plus National Housing Program.

Warsaw Social District The Warsaw municipal dream of sustainable housing policy found its expression in the Warsaw Social District. The project was first envisioned 3 years ago, when discussing and gathering sources for the current housing policy. Recently, it has become more tangible. The idea of WDS (Polish: Warszawska Dzielnica SpoĹ&#x201A;eczna) is that it combines the social, architectural and environmental aspects, and such intrinsic combination results in a specific urban structure based on quite big quarters filled with community spaces and social infrastructure. Besides the important, and self-evident in West-

ern Europe, guidelines in mobility and ecology, the project emphasizes social sustainability as part of sustainable development of the city. The housing offer is diverse and addressed for different social groups so that it corresponds to the needs of everybody, regardless of their age or income. 20% of all units are reserved for seniors and young tenants, that is the groups most frequently excluded from the real estate market. WDS also introduces the new D segment into its offer â&#x20AC;&#x201C; affordable housing will constitute 50% of all housing units in this development. The remaining part will be a mix of subsidized housing (both social and council) and commercial rentals. The conception of WDS development, presented in Zodiak, Warsaw Pavilion of Architecture, in March 2019, met with high social acceptance and public support. Such interest was also the voice against the city of ever-rising rents and real estate prices, unavailable for most of its residents. WDS opens up a new phase of the discussion on possible tools and financial models for sustainable housing.

The Dutch case - social housing controversy Many social housing organizations in Europe closely followed the long dispute between Dutch housing associations (woning corporaties) and the European Commission, which started in 2002 and finished at the end of last year. The case is particularly interesting for this article given that it concerned the very idea of social mix, or more precisely â&#x20AC;&#x201C; who is eligible for social housing. Before the EU legislation, social housing in the Netherlands was addressed for all, just as it still is in Denmark. Currently, it may only be offered to the poorest residents whose income does not exceed certain maximum level. Such requirement inevitably leads to the situation we wish to counteract in cities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to the ghettoization of the poor. It is worthwhile to explain the Dutch housing associations business model. They were entitled to balance their investment portfolios with commercial rentals, which they often did. In practice, it meant that besides cheap and affordable housing they also offered commercial housing with high rents, office and commercial spaces or even hotels. Possibly, the misusing of this right led to the international dispute. Why did the Commission see this

case as infringing the regulation? The case was listed as the infringement of the EU competition rules. The housing associations were entitled to various forms of State aid (for instance, cheaper land acquisition), so they should use the subsidies to promote public goal: developing housing for the poorest, not to steal customers from the commercial market. The housing associations failed to convince the Commission that social housing remains to be addressed for the lowest-income households in the Netherlands. The courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision keeps it open though to introduce other than financial eligibility for social housing. The EU does not recognize social mix as a public interest in the slightest. So the responsibility to put good practices in life, when it comes to housing, lies on the member countries, their local governments and local housing policies.

WARSAW SOCIAL DISTRICT

Poland is a post-communist country, during its history some problems have been well addressed, while others not at all. Part of its socialist heritage was quickly forgotten and that included publicly provided housing. Now in the capitalist system, with a slight delay, but nonetheless, the global housing crisis hits also major Polish cities with Warsaw at their forefront. Warsaw Social District (also translated as Warsaw Community District) was a research and design project, which aimed at finding housing solutions most adequate to the local context of Poland and most specifically its capital. Warsaw Social District was neither a bottom-up project or a top-down comision. It was an initiative of professionals - architects, activists - who wanted to say â&#x20AC;&#x153;Hey! The work we are doing is not addressing the most pressing problems! We are having a discussion on things like esthetics, urban design, while some other crucial issues are being overlooked!â&#x20AC;? It was a way to take notice of the huge gap of middle income group of people which are being passed over by our housing system, which is directed mainly to the wealthiest with good credit rating and then secondly to the few poorest percentages of the society.

The project was then supported by city officials and other professionals. But an idea and theoretical research was not enough to make it understandable for all. This is why the second phase of the project - preliminary design - was so important. A master plan presented with the physical model, visualisations, public space design and program estimations - illustrated the project and triggered the interest of the press and a big group of engaged inhabitants. After a series of meetings, discussions, comments from the city offices, the master plan took its final form and was compressed into one booklet, available on the official website of the municipality. Warsaw Social District was also an important process which connected city officials, architects, engineers and researchers. They teamed up to work on the design that could best represent the ambitions of the city of Warsaw and most adequately answer its local problems. Design ambitions were arranged into six major topics - three of them touched upon social aspects - urbanity (as an active urban environment), community, diversity. The other three were more â&#x20AC;&#x153;technicalâ&#x20AC;? - sustainable mobility, environment and construction. Housing is a political issue and thus we need to have strong political pressure to change the status

quo and implement new solutions to address the housing problems. It seems that Warsaw is only slowly getting ready for it. The project of the Warsaw Social District was put on hold due to formal reasons. We hope that it will become a precedent and a harbinger of the future change.

Main idea Warsaw Social District (WDS) started as an initiative of Tomasz Andryszczyk, Joanna Erbel and Wojciech Kotecki. Since it’s inception, it was supported by many – the municipality officials, the neighbourhood inhabitants and independent experts. The project would not exist without this collective, constructive engagement. The project is a reaction to the common criticisms of the market housing. The commercial housing model is by definition conservative and does not respond to inhabitants’ needs, perceiving them merely as clients, rather than valuable members of the community. As a result, newly built estates rarely aim to realize the objectives of a happy city. This public project gives an opportunity to create a new model, where all the planning aspects are

coherent, all that in order to fulfil the expectations of different social groups. Warsaw Social District is a project, which works as an example and a prototype for new design solutions. In the future, we would like to have many social districts on the map of Warsaw. We hope that the future Warsaw map will include many more such social districts.

The site Warsaw Social District is located in Ulrychów in Wola district on the site where the former prefab factory produced the surrounding housing estates built in the ’70 and ‘80. Metaphorically, we are recreating the history of this location – what was once the manufactory of mass housing, will again provide housing for everyone.

Preparation for the project The first phase that was commissioned by the Planning Bureau was to create guidelines for the future project. The recommendations were based on the analysis of the existing European projects – in particular on the following three detailed case studies: GWL Terrein in Amsterdam, Clichy Batignolles in

Paris and Mehr Als Wohnen in Zurich. As a part of Social Housings research project study trips to GWL Terrein, Ijburg in Amsterdam, Stadstuinen in Rotterdam and Clichy Batignolles in Paris took place. A set of social, sustainability and architecture standards was created by a team of experts and all the possible investment scenarios were widely discussed. Additionally, a detailed analysis of the WDS site researched the surrounding context in terms of the program and spatial conditions. Based on this content, a preliminary master plan design was commissioned as the second phase of the process.

Design ambitions There are six main ambitions set in the project. Three of them touch upon social aspects - urbanity (as an active urban environment), community, diversity. The other three are more â&#x20AC;&#x153;technicalâ&#x20AC;? - sustainable mobility, environment and construction. They might seem to overlap with each other, as they all affect one another and only when put together form a consistent whole. However when defined separately, they clearly demonstrate the reasoning behind the design process.

District built around the community The whole structure is composed of mega blocks, which are spacious enough to fit inside a linear park and the social infrastructure – such as a community centre, a school, kindergartens and a sport hall. Those mega blocks are further divided into building groups with half-open courtyards, which are small enough to create a feeling of community. The whole urban structure is both permeable and characteristic in the means of spaces created within.

The urbanity The project aims to reconnect separate districts of Wola and Bemowo. The public space framework connects important destinations – new subway station, existing centre of Ulrychow and a school. The open spaces are organized into three main types – public spaces, semi-public neighbourhood spaces and private gardens. They all have different characters.

The community The housing program is dedicated to all, regardless of their income or life situation. Two main dis-

criminated groups are especially addressed - those excluded from the commercial housing market but not eligible for social or municipal housing and elderlies, who are often regarded in Poland as one of the most discriminated social groups. To create a social mix housing is planned to be spread among different social and income groups. As for social groups 20% of housing units are dedicated for elderly, 15% for students and young people, 20% for couples and 45% for families, out of which 25% are 3-rooms apartments, 15% 4-rooms apartments and 5% 5-rooms apartments. Usually, in commercial developments only 5% of the units are designed as 4-rooms apartments, which makes it very difficult for large families to find suitable accommodation. 20% of all units are designed with a possibility to have it transformed into wheelchair-friendly apartment. The housing units are also divided according to different income groups - 20% of the apartments are planned as social and municipal housing with price levels of maximum 13.5pln per sq meter, 30% being rented with commercial prices and 50% as affordable housing meaning they should not exceed 70% of the current market prices or as part of the TBS (polish housing associations) developments.

Affordable housing as a category doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t exist in the current housing system in Poland.

The diversity The project provides both spatial and functional diversity. The programmatic mix fulfils the projected needs of the future inhabitants. Mixing housing and work places ensures that the district will remain active at different times of the day. The program consist of 73,7% housing, 7,5% retail and small workplaces, 9,6% offices, 1,8% social functions and 4,4% educational program. The projected housing surface will equal around 180.000 sqm, which accounts for over 2100 housing units. WDS will also include four buildings dedicated to various community programs, a school and a kindergarten complex.

Sustainable mobility Different transport options must be equally accessible to the users. This means that the private cars remain on the edges of the district (both in terms of driving roads and parking garages), while the interior is car-free, bike and pedestrian friendly.

The site of the whole development is located next to a planned subway station, which is scheduled to be opened in 2022. There are existing bus stop on the northern and southern edge of the site and one stop is designed in the center of the district.

Sustainable environment Due to the climate changing, Warsaw will probably be affected by heavy rains after very dry seasons. The so-called sponge city strategy needs to be implemented, in order to retain the water in place for as long as possible. This will help reduce the heat island effect as well. The greenery projected on the site is diverse and creates a self-sufficient ecosystem, which means it requires less effort and funds to maintain it.

Sustainable construction The construction of the project needs to be cost-effective and sustainable. We recommend prefabrication as the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;cleanestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and most efficient construction system. The buildings need to be easy and cheap to maintain, while simultaneously enable functional and programmatic alterations and future modernization.

GWL Terrein, Amsterdam, February 2018, ÂŠ Zuzanna Mielczarek

Bibliography ON NATIONAL HOUSING SYSTEMS: The Netherlands Ouwehand A., van Daalen G., Dutch housing associations, A model for social housing. Delft, 2002 Boeijenga J. ,Mensink J., Vinex Atlas, Rotterdam, 2008 Needham, B., Dutch Land-use Planning. Principles and the Practice, Asghate Publishing Limited, Surrey, 2014

Poland Twardoch A., System do mieszkania. Perspektywy rozwoju dostępnego budownictwa mieszkaniowego. Warszawa, 2019 Muzioł-Węcławowicz A., Nowak K., Raport o stanie polskich miast. Mieszkalnictwo społeczne, Instytut Rozwoju Miast i Regionów, Warsaw, 2018 Muzioł-Węcławowicz A., Mieszkalnictwo w Polsce. Przyszłość najmu społecznego, Habitat for Humanity Poland, Warsaw, 2019 Siemieniako B., Reprywatyzując Polskę, Historia wielkiego przekrętu, Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej, Warsaw, 2017 Bryx M., Szelągowska A., Rozwój zasobu mieszkań

dostępnych w Stolicy w perspektywie 2030 – Ekspertyza dla Biura Polityki Lokalowej Urzędu Miasta Warszawy, Warszawa 2018. Program Mieszkania2030 (draft document on 28.09.2018), Warsaw, 2018, http://2030.um.warszawa.pl/wp-content/ uploads/2018/09/Mieszkania2030_Program_01.10.2018. pdf?fbclid=IwAR1VK7aOSrtw4EHbYVeKCY-scNQl9B_ eI8Opvf6-GY0if0VKzZvTX71KS5E (accessed on 24-05-18)

COMPENDIUMS OF HOUSING PROJECTS: Fernandez Per A., Mozas J., Ollero A., 10 stories of collective housing. Graphical Analysis of Inspiring Masterpieces, Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2013 Domer K., Drexler H., Schultz-Granberg J. (eds.), Affordable living. Housing for everyone, Berlin, 2014 DASH - Delft Architectural Studies on Housing #1, Nieuwe open ruimte in het woonensemble. New Open Space in Housing Ensembles, Delft, 2009 DASH - Delft Architectural Studies on Housing #5, De stadsenclave. The Urban Enclave, Delft, 2011 Tulkowska-Słyk K., Nowoczesne mieszkanie, Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, Warsaw, 2019

ON PARTICULAR HOUSING PROJECTS OR ARCHITECTURAL OFFICES: Christiaanse K., Bol E., Schneider U. (eds.), Situation/ KCAP, Basel, 2005

Claus, F., IJburg: Haveneiland and Rieteilanden, 2001 Hugentobler M., Hofer A., Simmendinger P. (eds.) More Than Housing, Cooperative planning - a case study in Zurich, Basel, 2016 Karakusevic P., Batchelor A., Social Housing. Definitions & Design Exemplars, RIBA Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2017

ON THE HOUSING CRISIS: Boughton J., Municipal Dreams. The Rise and Fall of Council Housing, Verso, London, 2018 Madden D., Marcuse P. In defense of housing. Verso, London, 2016 ed. Martin R., Moore J., Schindler S., The Art of Inequality: Architecture, Housing, and Real Estate â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A Provisional Report, NY: The Temple Hoyne Buell Center for the Study of American Architecture, 2015 Pittini A., Gerald K., Dijol J., Lakatos E., Gheklere L. Goudis (2017) The State of housing in the EU 2017, Brussels, 2017, http://www.housingeurope.eu/file/614/download (accessed on 26-05-18) Walker S., Jeraj S., The rent trap. How we fell into it and how we get out of it, London, 2016

GWL Terrein, Amsterdam, February 2018, ÂŠ Zuzanna Mielczarek

Colophon This publication is part of research project Social Housings led by Zuzanna Mielczarek and Zofia Piotrowska and was possible thanks to financial support of Stimuleringsfonds creatieve industrie - Creative Fund NL, Starting Grant, Grant Programme for Internationalization collaborating country: Poland period: 2017-2019 One of the key moments of the research was a workshop on social housing policies in Rotterdam and Warsaw, held in Rotterdam on the 2nd of February 2018. Ideas were shared between city officials and professionals from those two cities. We would like to especially thank STIPO - urban planning consultancy office and Havensteder, one of the biggest housing associations in Rotterdam. Those two institutions also informed us on Dutch housing strategies in individual interviews. FROM WARSAW: Joanna Erbel Department of Housing Policies, City of Warsaw Piotr Sawicki Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, City of Warsaw

Bartosz Rozbiewski Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, City of Warsaw Milena TrzciĹ&#x201E;ska BGGK Architekci, architecture and urbanism Wojciech Kotecki BGGK Architekci, architecture and urbanism Justyna Biernacka Fundacja Przestrzenie, sustainability expert FROM ROTTERDAM: Mattijs van â&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Hoff STIPO, urban strategy and city development consultant Paul Elleswijk Havensteder, housing association Jeroen Dirckx KCAP Architects & Planners, urbanism Ania Molenda Amateur Cities, urban research Ingrid de Bont Municipality of Rotterdam, housing expert

Zuzanna Mielczarek zuzannamiel@gmail.com Architect and urban researcher with international experience. TU Delft Faculty of Architecture graduate. After spending 3 years studying and working in Rotterdam and 1 year in Brussels, she moved to Warsaw where she currently works as a housing innovation expert at PFR NieruchomoĹ&#x203A;ci - organization responsible for the national affordable housing program in Poland. She has been involved in research phase of public housing project WDS - Warsaw Social District. She also works at the National Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning in Warsaw. Norman Foster Foundation Scholar. Contributor to Kwartalnik RZUT. Zofia Piotrowska zofiapio@gmail.com Urban planner and architectural researcher based in Warsaw. She has international experience in urban planning, out of which she spent 3 years working at KCAP Rotterdam. She worked several public projects in China, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany (with partners as IBA Hamburg). She now manages urban projects in Poland at BBGK Architekci, where she was a project leader for the Warsaw Social District master plan- a public housing project in which she was involved since 2016. She is an editor in Kwartalnik RZUT.

As part of our research into a new housing strategy for Warsaw, Poland (WDS - Warszawska Dzielnica Społeczna/Warsaw Social District), we decided to study the Dutch social housing system. It has always been presented as an inclusive solution, which resulted in high-quality developments built as part of an integrated planning process. However, we were surprised to discover that our most recent case studies were completed over a decade ago. Was this due to the real estate crisis? Or did the whole system recently undergo some major changes? Social Housings research project soughts the answers to the question what does social (inclusive) housing mean in a broader, European context, based on the analysis of the Dutch and Polish situation.

Texts by Zuzanna Mielczarek & Zofia Piotrowska Book design by Wojciech Gawroński Photography by Zuzanna Mielczarek & Zofia Piotrowska Translation by Natalia Malek Illustration on the cover by Tosia Kiliś Architectural illustration by BBGK Architekci Printed and bound by Publication Studio Rotterdam 2019