7. Upscaling

After having worked on Svartlamo(e)n and Mellamon we see that there is a great value in the community and that the model offers housing to those in between the housing market and social housing. However, Svartlamo(e)n is a small area and there are more people who are in need of more just housing. Due to this we wanted to look at how one could learn from Svartlamo(e)n and give more people access to the third sector housing. Mellamon could be viewed and be analyzed as a great model to how the ideals of Svartlamo(e) n can be incorporated to a place with modern housing services like that of Mellamon to have the best of both worlds. This could be viewed as a long-term vision to develop places like Mellamon around the city, but a lot of it depends on how the community succeeds in the coming years. With the rent prices rising steadily in Norway, the need for low rent social houses is bound to increase and this is where the idea of self-maintaining communities can be used to lower the rents. Small satellite blocks like that of Mellamon could be developed where the basic maintenance and management could be in the hands of the people that helps in reducing the service and maintenance part of the rent. Sharing of resources also contribute in lowering of the rent prices. These neighbourhoods or communities could manage themselves with a common organisation like the Svartlamon Housing Association looking over these satellite communities. The group used the game theory to know more about the situation that could arise and it lead to some interesting ideas which can provide a good starting point for further development and upscaling of the Svartlamo(e)n model. Based on the results of computer simulations, the following opinions were presented:

The more initial collaborators, the more likely everyone is to cooperate. A good social donation environment can form a virtuous circle and promote free contributions by latecomers. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a good cooperation environment at the early stage and try to avoid “free riders”.

When the degree of participation becomes low, everyone thinks that others will be more inclined to cooperate. For Svartlamo(e)n they have done this by having community groups working on different projects and in Mellamon they are working together to create spaces where

Figure 71: Upscaling Svartlamo(e)n Model, Authors

people can meet and interact with each other. These smaller projects can also be seen as a part of connecting with each other and create a sense of stewardship.

As the total amount of funds consumed by the project increases, the proportion of cooperation decreases. Because many people think that the difficulty of completing the task is too high, they lose enthusiasm, resulting in a reduction in the proportion of final cooperation. Looking to Svartlamo(e)n they have focused on giving the residents the freedom to create spaces and projects that engage them or through small actions. We therefore believe that in new projects there should be room for these small projects and activities initiated by the people in order to continue to be efficient.

Smaller groups in the public goods game are more likely to have higher optimal ratios over the total ratios. Both Svartlamo(e)n and Mellamon are smaller groups of people located close to each other. For other projects one should keep the groups smaller to ensure relations between the people.

The model in this article assumes that when the number of households in the community are basically stable, and there are no large numbers of people moving in or out; it is then considered that the system starts operating. The first five years of operation are the most difficult, and there is a very high probability that the willingness to cooperate will decrease.

Overall, in the construction of the community, the participation of residents should be increased first. Good participation is the basis for a sound democracy. When people get involved in political life, they begin to feel responsible for what goes on around them. Citizen participation in the planning process is much the same; people become invested in the development of their neighborhoods, have a heightened sense of ownership, and will engage for the long haul, building and strengthening trust in the decision-makers over time. Especially for the first five years of the agenda, you need to be especially careful about the possibility of cooperation failure.