Neighbourhood of the Society by Sofia Cae

Pic.1 – Public space of the Matrix H; source: Sofia Caetano, 2015

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY DIFFERENT WAYS TO OCCUPY THE SPACE

MAIB11 - Critical Urban Theory A60481 Tutor: Caroline Newton

Sofia Isabel Lopes Caetano Student Number: r0610464 2015-2016

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

INDEX

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 3 Topics ………………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 3 Key Words ………………………………………………………………………………………….… 3 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………….…. 4 The Context …………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 The Architect View ………………………………………………………………………………… 7 The Residents Using the Space ………………………………………………………………. 9 The Conversation with People ……………………………………………………………….. 12 Solutions ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 17 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………... 19

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

ABSTRACT

This paper attempts to analyse the way that people live on a social habitation. The focus goes to a social neighbourhood, Matrix H in Bairro da Flamenga, Lisbon – Portugal, it was constructed in 1982⁶ by the City Hall of Lisbon to house people without resources. The people were totally isolated fiscal, geographical and physiographical, without job offers and opportunities. The project for the buildings was an experimental architecture, with new and different concept for the social activities. The residents are people without instruction and appropriating the space as they know. (Monica Farina, 2001) ¹. The goal of this paper is to show the problem of the culture between the architect and the residents. Study the Utopia of the public, intermediate and private space, right of the city, the difference about gender and age. And to support some solutions is used the information with the studied case on the text by Lee Stickells ⁵ and The Community Architects⁴. The object is to find a solution for this problem and understand what has gone wrong in the view of the architect.

TOPICS

I’m studying the Martix H – Bairro da Flamenga in Marvilla, Lisbon, Portugal. Because I found to important the mistakes made between the architect and the resident people. In order to learn how to do an urban plan in the city.

KEY WORDS

Modern, street, poor, people, right, residents, architect, diversity, relation, social life, activities, behaviour, freedom, learn, appropriation, idea, concept, real life.

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

INTRODUTION The goal of this paper is to understand the difference between the architect and the residents. Architecture exists for the people. How can the architect forget the residents? How can it be possible for the people not to be the centre of the design? Why is it difficult to change poverty? Do poor people only need one house or do they need anything else more? Do the residents need instructions to use the space made by the architects? This is some questions that would answers.

THE CONTEXT

Situated in the Parish of Marvila, a place with big contrasts between small streets and avenues, big modern houses and vegetable gardens, small homes and industrial installations.

Matrix H Chelas

Marvila

Lisbon

Pic. 2 – Plan of Lisbon, Location of the Marvila and Matrix H, 2015, from website lxi.cm-lisboa.pt/lxi ¹¹ 4

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

The history of Marvila started in the pre-history it has remainings that go back to the Roman Empire and it survived the Moor domain. In 1147 ⁶ this place was only used as dockland activity. The place was divided in big noble farms houses, because it had a valley that made the land fertile, it used to have small river that flowed to the Tagus River but it dried. In the 15th century Bishop of Lisbon divide it in churches and religious buildings around the farms houses. From the 17th until the 18th century this place was inhabited by aristocrats (Almeida Garrett, 1846). ³ After the big earthquake in 1755 the people abandoned their steading and it was created the firsts factories dedicated to stamping chintz textile. Were built with the extinction of religious order in 1834 and the inauguration of the railway in 1856 the industrialization grew rapidly. The religious buildings transited to the businessmen’s, with new functions, such as commercial or industrial. The people arrived from the north of Portugal looking for a job, and Marvila offered good opportunities. These big and new factories represented in 50’s the job perspectives in this area. In 1970 ⁷. Marvila was one village with a big commercial and industrial area outside the limits of Lisbon. Nowadays the factories were acquired and transformed into offices and salons.

The name Marvila has been used since in 1959. A public urban design started in 1960 the idea was to implement the urban structure socially diverse. The urban plan was approved in 1964 and was finished in 2000 ⁷. But the plan never became a reality as desired, the government decided to accommodate people from stalls and ex-colonies and create a social house.

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

Marvila is isolated from the city, it is a dangerous place, without control, without integration, only indifference. Forgotten by the public identities for many years. Only in 1998, with the event of the Expo 98 in Lisbon was it connected with big urban arteries and metro line. The viaduct to connect with the city was built in 1990. The new

Pic. 3 – Plan 1899-1948

modern streets and cities are thought only for the motorized flow with speed, this characteristic forgets the urban value of social life in the street, there are no walking areas or squares, it is the opposite of the old Lisbon city. This big avenues don’t contributed to relocate populations socially excluded. (Monica Farina, 2001) ¹

Pic. 4 – Plan 1911, Architect Silva Pinto

The topography of the terrain is a hill what divides the centre of the periphery. With one look to the landscape it can be seen small fragments of modern neighbourhoods dispersed in the mountains and diffuse surrounded by

Pic. 5 – Plan 1950

trees and parks. Matrix H is one of the most atypical buildings because is the mark of experimental modern architecture. It is a group of “islands” that represents a “social world”. (G. Velho 1999) ¹

Before the 90’s the place was organized by zones called

Pic. 6 – Plan 1970-83

zone N1, today named Bairro da Flamenga, it was built between 1982 and 1987 by Technical Office Housing of the City Hall. The program of the Municipality of Lisbon intended to rehouse people without resources using 115 lots for 4 360 people, a monthly rent of 89,50€.⁸

Pic. 7 – Plan 1987; source website lxi.cmlisboa.pt/lxi ¹¹

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

THE ARCHITECT VISION

The Urban plan of the Marvila was make by Hélder Tércio Guimarães and Elias Cachado Gonçalves. The Architect Raul Cerejeiro was responsible for Technical Office Housing of the City Hall that design the Martix H, he started to study painting, drawing and sculpture made some individual and group exhibitions, but changed and graduate in architecture in the same university.

The project needed to be functional, cheap and flexible, with the characteristics of that period. The architect decided to create two parallel blocks (Block A and B) to rehouse a population from this location in pre-fabricated houses, and relocate the population from illegal neighbourhoods also in the area. Matrix H is a project-type for versatility that consists of giving a better answer for the recommended typologies, which contribute to develop rules for social houses.

The concern of the architect was fundamentally to create spaces for community life, where people could recreate neighbourly relations. The architect kept in mind that the idea for the buildings was to bring the street up to the top floor of the building. Which shows ethics is more important than the technology plan (Monica Farina, 2001). ¹ Galleries, patios, stairs, terraces and bridges establish a physical link to connect the people and the buildings. The architects intention was to use modern ideas but keep the common space traditional with the reference of village and patio houses. The solution that the architects found to keep social life is not to separate the private and public areas. In the middle of the two blocks, the architects created a central street, as a heart of the social life. The central street is limited by the two facade of the buildings, the people inside of their house can see the public space, and the galleries. And the stairs are open to this street, like balconies “to talk to each other” (Monica farina, 2001). ¹ The interior street is open for the public, there isn’t a legible frontier between public and entrance for the private houses. The concept is always linked with the outside.

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

Pic. 8 – Matrix H aerea plan; source Google Earth, 2009

Pic. 9 – Public space of the Matrix H Picture, 2009

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

THE RESIDENTS USEING THE SPACE

The population in the Matrix H are inset in the folk layer. The big majority of the people were born in Lisbon and Portuguese-speaking African Countries (PALOP). The education level in average is the 4th year of primary school. The average income of these people is very low, the people work majority in construction, servants, industry or factory workers, street vendors, employees in commercial establishments in the surrounding areas and in a regime of precarious and illegal work. The people don’t have many work opportunities inside Matrix H. The universe of work is heterogeneous but with professional division between women and men. The type of family aggregate is formed by couples, young parents, single or divorced mother and the single children (1-9 children per couple) and in some case there is tree generation of the same family live in one house, parents, children and grandchildren. (Monica Farina, 2001). ¹

The residents appropriate the space as they want. On the heart of the blocks is a domestic environment, familiar and serene, occupied by different people of different ages. The children use the common space to play with friends, skating and riding a bike. They used the unevenness and ramps to play (Monica Farina, 2001).¹ The women are alone in the balconies and windows watching the children or in a small groups talking to each other, located in the galleries with the body supported in the guards of the terrace. The men are in pedestrian street on the ground floor, busy observing people passing on the street, the space for the men is in a commercial establishment, the cafes or shops, talking with each other, playing card games and watching football games on television. And the elderly are in the intermediate space between the public areas and their houses, looking for the possibility to connect with the outside.

Women

Children

Men Pic. 10 – Section diagram about the organisation in the building by gender and age, source Sofia Caetano

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

Local groups started to form attempt to establish a solution to face the adaption problems to the new lifestyle, these groups are not communities, but a group of people who live together and exchange experiences. These groups originated around the groceries store, the hairdresser, and the cafes. The social life of this neighbourhood developed next the commercial environments.

Pic. 11 – Representation of two symmetrical open spaces, on the right empty space, on the left public social live; source Sofia Caetano

There exists two symmetrical open spaces in Matrix H, but they are totally different, the space below is empty, without people or occupation, people won’t stay and there is a big graffiti on the wall, only the dogs are sleeping. On the upper part there are people and doing activities, around the buildings next to the road, people take advantage of the provisory parking to meet, and use the concrete marks to sit (these marks set the division between visitants and residents). On the weekend there is a market where vegetables and fish are sold. This upper level is closer to the architect concept of the public space (it is only the space formed by extending the walking sides) next to the cafes, the bus station and the entrance for the garden-park. However we can’t consider the existence of an social life, this is a symbolic space of the general social life.

The people close all the windows of the house with curtains and blinders. This action can be due to temperature comfort. But in another hand the windows of the houses can be see directly

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

form the galleries, and if someone in the neighbourhood in the gallery can have a look inside of the house, people don’t feel the privacy and close the connection face-to-face, because it can be a space of conflict, people prefer to live hidden and observing without being observed.

Pic. 12 to 15 – Pictures represented the different ways to use the space by people, source Sofia Caetano, 2015

Pic. 16 to 18 – Pictures represented the different ways to appropriated the space by objects, source Sofia Caetano, 2015 11

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

THE CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE

To support this paper it was conducted some interviews to the people, mainly to the resident of the Matrix H, to understand the situation in that neighbourhood. The interviews is not only about people that live there but also people that live next to the neighbourhood and people that were passing by near the building. Were interviewed 15 people, 9 mans and 6 woman, the majority were with low education and old people. The interviews conducted had the intention to ask questions to the resident and leaving the control of the conversation to them so they could freely talk about the issues, the topics were about: period of living in the neighbourhood, their education, if it was a place of their choice, preferences and experience of live, positive and negative aspects about Matrix H.

The majority of the interviewees are living in the Matrix H since the construction about 26 years and before that were living on the same region but on prefabricated and poor conditions houses. Most people responded “yes” on the question about “if it was you who choose to live in Matrix H” this was a surprise to obtain a positive answer. With a simple reason, that choice was fictional choice because, the Portuguese government give two choices, the people had to choose the

Pic. 19 – Diagram of results of the inquiry to the residents of Matrix H, source Sofia Caetano 12

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

Matrix H or on a house far from the city in the middle of field. The people compare and decided to live in Matrix H because the government promised employment and good access, but this didn’t happened. The people responded very quickly that the architect never have in consideration their opinion, only one resident know the architect, and add information that the architects, had on the design in attention the old people. Architects decided that the old people should live on the ground floor because the accessibility of the above floors are complicated, but today, 30 year later almost all the residents are old. The accessibility is difficult for people that can’t walk. The building have only two pars of elevators that only stops in 3 floor: ground floor, first floor and third floor. But the elevator never works because of the poor maintenance. The population know that the Matrix H is a debacle and was forgotten by the government, the elevators are out of order for a long time and the public illumination doesn’t work. The stairs, the elevator and the flowerbed are vandalized, the clothes on clothesline are frequently stolen. The people would like to see a good atmosphere and a clean neighbourhood.

Pic. 20 and 21 – Pictures from common areas in Matrix H, source Sofia Caetano

One of the residents said that the architects was so focused on winning the public tender, that reduced on unnecessary things. For example, the limited floor access by elevator and the absence of doors on the stairs to limit the access to the galleries, only permitting the residents and avoiding any person to go up to there.

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

The positive issuers that the people said were about the interior of the houses are good, with good areas and good views out the window but the problem is outside. Another issue is that some residents don’t pay rent but the right are the same for everyone. The upkeep of the common and public areas is rare, and when done are wrong or aren’t finished.

One of the people that were interviewed was a Spanish person but living in Portugal for a long time and were passing by the neighbourhood and identified the problem in matrix H. He said that the building have a big problem since the beginning, because the poor community were put in the same place and that makes a division between poor and rich. This situation potentiated the creation of rules and practices of the own group and it made even more closed community, and this makes a cycle very difficult to solve. Poor together

Isolate/Divition

Particular rules

Pic. 22 – Diagram of cycle of social life in Matrix H, source Sofia Caetano

The Rock in Rio is a music festival hold every two years and happens in the public park in front of Matrix H. The festival makes a lot of noise but the resident like because it is a way to the government to clean and take care of the street before the event and the festival give a new visibility for the neighbourhood. The image of Matrix H now is associated with the festival and it is not a bad thing. The metro and the new hypermarket created a new access to the metro, more closer to the neighbourhood, and that motivated to use that transport, nevertheless, people have rather take the buses due to be a high hill and it is not easy to walk to the neighbourhood.

It was also interviewed a man that is currently living in the Matrix H and he likes the neighbourhood and was interested in improving the place and made some suggestions, for example he had an idea of trying to get together most of the residents to paint all the facade of the buildings, the government only have to give the material and the community would paint the wall by their own, but the government don’t gave him the adequate and enough material to paint, and now the building is incomplete and with different colours, and the man is unmotivated to suggest more ideas. He also tried another idea, he identified a lot of areas where the concrete of the buildings is breaking and falling to the street creating a dangerous situation by injuring the pedestrians, for that, this resident collect in a box all the concrete that were

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

falling down, and went with the box to the city hall to show how dangerous it is cross the public street, after that the government repaired, but only one wall. He also said that the only intervention the government made to improve the neighbourhood was to make some authorised graffiti’s so it be more friendly neighbourhood, but instead, in his option this degrade even more the place and attracts bad persons to the neighbourhood to do illegal graffiti’s, he don’t liked the graffiti’s because are associated with drugs, alcohol and violence.

SOLUTIONS

Who can improve the bad atmosphere? Who can help the life of this people? What can do now? What should done in the beginning? Some of these problems could be easily solved if the government make a social study to understand the resident issues or a shared conversation with the residents. The study should understand the feedback of the people and make interview to the residents, in order to understand the people needs. This study should be made by a group of sociologists or psychologist. Another issue that could be improve if the architects can made a public meeting to discuss new ideas. The architects should show their ideas and drawings to the resident so they understand, the goal of this conversation should be listening the resident’s opinions. Occasionally in Portuguese public buildings exist this open meetings for all population but this meetings don’t have in consideration the population issue and the design are already decide, almost approved and only exists to create the illusion that the architect have in mind the people’s contribution in their design.

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

According with Stickells ⁵ the architect rule isn´t to discover a brilliant idea alone, but is to give power and discipline to the people, to help to find answer and more solution. Stickells ⁵ said that the architect should rethink and help to transform what is restricted and accessible. To reform this idea it the architect should look for the community’s architects⁴, in this kind of communities the architects are not the decision maker but the facilitator, the architects mission in Community Architects is: to find solutions for the community; create opportunities for the city wide upgrading; reflect about larger process of change; support and help in technical skills (material, calculations, budget, etc.); to create space to people decide for themselves; help in resolution for conflicts. The Architect should gived space for the people dream.

Pic. 23 – Critical image, source website www.antikleidi.com ¹³

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

CONCLUSION

The residents have a negative image of their own house and that neighbourhood translates an isolation and closure of inhabitants. It is a close space where neighbourhood networks control the public space. To receiving house from the government is an indicator of poverty, and this create a difficulty in integration on the society. The idea of the architect to focus on promoting the interaction, isn’t one of the most important issues of these inhabitants. This type of building forces interaction between the neighbours that are not of in the same status and this can creates reciprocity and conflict. The architects created a new and different concept of building, but these residents only want to have a normal house like normal people have. The people living in social house were not given the liberty of choosing their own house. People need to adapt to a modern life regardless of their family ties like: ethnicity, region, religion, culture, etc. The gallery the architects plans to link the exterior and the interior, allows the inhabitants to control the space immediately in front of their house and is a depository for furniture, which doesn’t transmit a positive appropriation.

Different cultures between

Architects and Residents

Plan Design Make the space

Real Day-to-day Live in the space

Rational Functional

Humanistic

Pic. 24 – Diagram of difference in plan and real life, source Sofia Caetano

The architects thought about the social relation but forgot to create work posts for people and a lot of time has passed and still does not have job opportunities. This happened due to the priority of the architect was to win the public tender and win with a new and revolutionary concept. The relocation of the population increased their own expenses. The absence of jobs

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

create a problems and a vicious circle: people go to the street, they control the space, the crime increases, and since of the space is so wide the area is propitious to have some criminality, it is easy to cross all the space and leave very quickly.

Pic. 25 – Diagram of economic life cycle in Matrix H, source Sofia Caetano

The architects had an extraordinary concept with a complex system of accessibility and to fill the needs of the integration of the communities. It is a good idealization to have a space for the community to be integrated and have a social life. The idea of the life space has many possibilities but is only an experimental architecture. In the real life this is ignored or disqualified with subaltern culture. The architects should have studied the place and the people better as well as doing an urban plan in human scale. The big preoccupation of the architect is to reduce on materials and have a good concept to win the design in public tender, but the real preoccupation should be the people.

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

BIBLIOGRAPHY ¹ CORDEIRO, Graça Índias and VIDAL, Frédéric; A Rua: espaço, tempo, sociabilidade chapter 7: FARINA, Mónica; Espaços, Marcas e Símbolos num Bairro de Habitação Social em Lisboa; Lisbon: Livros Horizonte; 2008; pp. 113-128 (Book of social housing neighborhood in Lisbon with a sociologist view)

² FREIRE, Paolo; A educação na cidade/ O caminho se faz caminhando: conversas sobre educação e mudança social. (Book of social house in general)

³ GARRET, Almeida; Viagens na minha Terra Ediouro; 1846; pp.3 (Book of trips in Portugal)

⁴ LOUSANSANG, Chawanad; BOONMAHATHANAKORN, Supawut; DOMINGO-PRICE, Maria Lourdes; The role of community architects in upgrading; reflecting on the experience in Asia, 2012 ⁵ STICKELLS, Lee; The Right To The City: Rethinking Architecture's Social Significance; 2011

⁶ www.jfmarvila.pt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35&Itemid=57 (history of Marvila; consulted at September 2015)

⁷ www.pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelas (History of Chelas; consulted at September of the 2015)

⁸http://www.gebalis.pt/moradores/OmeuBairro/Localizacao_Gabinete/Paginas/default.aspx? bairro=27 (History of the Matrix H; consulted at September of the 2015)

⁹ http://sociologico.revues.org/910 (sociologist view of Matrix H; consulted at October of the 2015)

¹⁰ http://lisboasos.blogspot.be/2009/03/um-grelhador-em-marvila.html (Blog with comments and photos of Matrix H; consulted at September of the 2015)

¹¹ http://lxi.cm-lisboa.pt/lxi/ (Lisbon area with all plans; consulted at November of the 2015)

NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE SOCIETY – Sofia Caetano

¹² http://www.monumentos.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SIPA.aspx?id=29705 (History and information of Bairro da Flamenga; consulted at November of the 2015)

¹³ http://antikleidi.com/ (Critical pictures of the society; consulted at December of the 2015)