2021 - Trondheim, Norway - Uropatruljen - Group 3

AAR4525 - Urban Ecological Planning: Project Course Project Report, Autumn 2021 Urban Ecological Planning Master’s Programme

Department of Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Architecture Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

Uropatroljen

Living Conditions of Migrant Workers

Course Coordinator: Marcin Sliwa

Assistant professor (NTNU) Doctoral researcher (University of Oslo)

Main Supervisor: Marcin Sliwa

Assistant professor (NTNU), Doctoral researcher (University of Oslo)

Supervision Team: Mrudhula Koshy

Assistant Professor, NTNU

Peter Gotsch

Professor, NTNU

Riny Sharma

Research Associate, NTNU

Booklet Layout: Mrudhula Koshy

Assistant Professor, NTNU

Trondheim, Norway Authors Alberto Vertiz Mexico Mariana Costa Silva Brazil Katherine Weir USA Kaitlin Mclearn USA

Having lived in Singapore and studied Architecture in Mexico, I got into this masters program to further my studies in urban planning on how cities are developed in order to create efficient, functional and connected societies. I believe that creating ecological green habitable places where citizens can co-exist with nature changes our way of life, giving us the perspective of cre ating cities within a garden like Lee Kwan Yew once said. My goal in UEP is to design and create co-living spaces, in order to create a community between citizens and improve the living standards within urban ecological cities. Fi nally, I came to Norway as I had always been fascinated by the history of the Vikings as well as Norway’s breathtaking nature scenery.

I studied civil engineering in São Paulo, Brazil where I spent most of my life.

After graduating in 2017, I had the opportunity to travel to the European Con tinent where I have been living ever since. Three countries later, I noticed my interest in cities and people dynamics. So, I decided to learn more and started at the UEP program. I believe cities should be as lively as people. And it is my goal as a future planner to help others see that.

I am from a small town in the pacific northwest of the USA. My small town grew very quickly and sparked my interest in sustainable development. I got my first degree in urban planning and sustainable development. I worked several years as a city planner before I came to Trondheim to study urban ecological planning.

I am an exchange student from the United States where I am working on a master’s degree in food studies. I have worked as a community development practitioner throughout East Africa. That is what inspired me to pursue this UEP course, to gain more perspective and collaborate with students from all over the world. I believe the world’s biggest challenges will only be solved with cooperation between nations and peoples.

Zannat Priom Bangledesh

I am from Trondheim, and with a few years in exception, I have always lived here. Development of this town caught my interest at a young age, that is why I studied geography at NTNU as my bachelor’s degree, where I was especially interested in urban planning. People should have the opportunity to influence the design of their hometown, this is the reason why I chose UEP as my mas ter’s degree. This Uropatruljen-project has given me a lot of good experience that I hope I can convert into applicable skills and knowledge.

I am a 22 year old Chinese, who has lived in Shenzhen, China for over 20 years. I earned my bachelor degree in Geographic Information Engineering from Shenzhen University. To further develop my interest in applying GIS to Urban Planning area and experience life in a European country, I began my study in UEP program in 2021. The Uropatroljen project offered me a chance to look through the migrant housing problems which also arise in my home town. I hope to develop a UEP view that could help me better understand the relation between city and human, and make my work satisfied with both nature and human.

Preface

This project report consolidates the results of the 2021 Autumn semester conducted by students of the 2-year International Master of Science Program in Urban Ecological Planning (UEP) at the Faculty of Architecture and Design at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim, Norway.

For the second consecutive year, the COVID-19 pandemic made it impossible to conduct the usual fieldwork we have been under taking traditionally. Before 2020, most UEP student groups have been traveling to Nepal, India and Uganda to study urban infor mality and practice area-based and participatory approaches to planning. However, mobility restrictions caused by the pandemic forced us to modify the fieldwork logistics and our pedagogical approaches to adjust to the uncertain situation, and at the same time work towards the similar learning objectives as before.

As opposed to last year, where most students performed individual fieldwork in their home cities, in 2021 all the UEP students worked in Trondheim, Norway, which is the home city of our university. For the first time in the UEP program, the entire class has been working together in a Global North context. The students were divided into 6 groups and were assigned three different cas es. This report summarizes work of the group working with housing challenges for temporary migrant workers.

I am an Architect with a bachelor degree from Lovely Professional University in India. Having three years of experience in this field and currently doing my master’s in Urban Agglomerations at Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences in Germany. Due to my Interest in the Ecological planning strategic field, I joined NTNU as an Exchange student in the UEP program for six months. I had a tremendous experience working on this Uroparoljen project and I believe that I could use skills and academic knowledge in the future to succeed in my goals learned at NTNU.

In their project work, students practiced the “Urban Ecological Planning” approach, which places emphasis on integrated ar ea-based (as opposed to sectorial) situational analysis and proposal making using participatory and strategic planning methods. Our approach was inspired by the Chicago school, which proposed ethnography as a way to study urban spaces and social ecology as a framework to understand them. This approach is not new to UEP, but this year we had to make pedagogical changes to adjust the fieldwork courses to a Global North context. This included revising our compendiums to make it more relevant to urban planning in Norway, distributing students in groups in a way that helps them with language barriers and using our existing research network to kick start three parallel student projects in Trondheim.

Being from a background in Architecture, I briefly got an idea on urban design and planning in my Bachelor’s programme in Bangladesh, where I used to live. However, I have always been interested in knowing how urban planning works in real life. The Urban Ecological Planning programme at NTNU allowed me to explore the complexity of the city. As a travel lover, I am looking forward to gaining knowledge in theory and hands-on experience by traveling to dif ferent cities, particularly Europe.

By spending a large amount of time in the assigned areas and engaging with local communities as well as other relevant stake holders, students gained an in-depth understanding of the local context. This allowed them to discover strengths and weakness es and identify opportunities and challenges in each of their assigned areas, something that would be impossible to achieve by applying traditional technocratic and purely quantitative planning methods. The rich evidence and data collected in the field was used by the student groups as a basis for proposals for spatial and policy interventions in their corresponding areas. We hope that you enjoy reading this document as much as we enjoyed supervising students in their work!

Marcin Sliwa, Riny Sharma, Mrudhula Koshy and Peter Gotsch Fieldwork Supervisors, NTNU, Department of Architecture and Planning

Peder Ude Norway

Hang Li China Rohit Rohit India

Acknowledgements

Acronyms and Abbreviations

We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to all those who are helping us to bring this project to a successful conclusion. The residents of the barracks, interviewees from Job zone, Caritas and SUA took a significant part in our interviews, coffee sessions and questionnaires, and they shared a lot of useful information with us. We would not be able to complete the project without their patience and help!

We are extremely grateful to our professors and supervisors, Prof. Peter Gotsch, Marcin Sliwa, Mrudhula Koshy, Riny Sharma for their support, motivation and guidance for this project. We were inspired by their constructive comments and suggestions through the process, and this study would not have been done without them.

We are especially grateful to Brita and Gunika for their kind support and sharing with their pre vious research on migrant housing issues. Their research has been very inspirational and has helped us have a preliminary understanding of this subject.Their research has been very inspira tional and has helped us have a preliminary understanding of this subject.

Last but not least,We would like to extend our deepest gratitude to the family and friends who have been with us and support us. Thanks again to all those who gave suggestions, criticisms and help to this project.

PAR Participatory Action Research

UEP Urban Ecological Planning

GIS Geographical Information System

EU European Union

E6 European route 6

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

RVO Regional safety delegate (Regionale verneombud)

LO Landsorganisasjonen i Norge

UDI Norwegian Directorate of Immigration

NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet

SIT Student Welfare Organization in Trondheim (Studentsamskipnaden Trondheim)

SUA Service Center for Foreign Workers (Servicesenter for utenlandske arbeidstakere)

Contents

Conclusion and Reflection

Introduction

How a foreigner is born

I

just woke up and checked my phone. My cousin who has been abroad is in town. Another person that is making a living in another country.

Another success abroad. I am skeptical, it is not my place. I have my family and friends here. I have worked hard to keep my job. But still, I was laid off.

It is the recession, they say. didn’t make a lot of money, but could survive. live cheap! Without a job that is not cheap enough. moved back to my parents’; they are happy to have me close. But they would be happier if had my own family. I wish I had, but with no job how am I having one? I keep applying for jobs here and there, but no one ever calls me. My cousin keeps sharing photos of the ‘vacation at home’, going to all the expensive places in the town. Acting like a tourist. Everyone looks so pleased, without troubles, grateful for everything they have achieved.

Maybe I should give it a try, what else is in here for me? None of my former colleagues are happy with their jobs, they have this stress and fear that they will be fired on the next day. And everyone that has been working abroad is home for festivities, parents’ birthdays, family gatherings. They are always having fun; they have accomplished so much! Maybe I should give it a try. Why not? Good, I found a job! That was easy, one way ticket, that is scary! This better work out, can’t go back home empty handed. Ok there is no one at the airport to meet me, but there should be a bus... Yes! There it is, just one. It should take me to the center and to the address they gave me.

On the way to the address our new migrant notices that the surroundings are not very welcoming and that the assigned accommodation does not look very comfortable.

I just arrived, maybe it is just for a night, tomorrow someone will come here and will help me find a new place.

They did not help, that is the assigned accommodation for all the stay. And it is the worker’s responsibility to find another place. The em ployer does not get involved nor provide assistance. The worker is determined to find a better place. With another worker they visit their first house...

1.1. Migrant workers in Trondheim/Norway overview

Following the expansion of the European Union (EU) in 2004, more and more migrant workers came to Norway to find work. With the agreements that Norway has with the EU, workers with EU citizenship can come to Norway to find work without a visa. The pay tends to be higher in Norway compared to other European countries which at tracts laborers from countries like Poland and Lithuania. Such workers are primarily focused in the construction industry. Laborers are recruited by staffing companies in their home country. They typically sign a contract with the staffing agency and are then rented out to construction companies that need labor for their projects. The staffing companies provide housing for the workers as part of the recruitment process.

Migrant workers often come from Eastern Europe, in our research we have identified workers mainly from Poland but also not limited to Lithuania, Russia, Romania, and So malia. Migrant workers tend to live a temporary lifestyle, moving around the country and to different job sites. From our research we understood that some workers may stay in Trondheim for a few weeks up to several years. Our research is focused on migrant workers here in Trondheim on a con tractual basis working in construction and we therefore will focus on the temporary housing that is provided to the workers upon arrival in Trondheim.

This is a made up story, we explored the motivation of a person that is going abroad. One dreaming for better living and opportunities. It is how a migrant is born. Migration is a sensitive subject and has several branches. Although this story is not real, it represents other stories we heard and read during our research on the living conditions of migrant workers in Trondheim, Norway.

During approximately three months our team worked to understand the housing situation of migrant workers in Trondheim, Norway. We interacted with different groups involved in temporary housing for workers, we got acquainted with the situa tion and with the workers' challenges in a new country.

Labor migration is a trend that has grown with globaliza tion. Workers come from their home country to find work with higher wages in another and live a transitory life be tween their home country and the country that they work in. This trend exists in Norway and has been driven by the need for labor in Norway, the higher wages offered here compared to other countries, and limited job prospects in the workers’ home countries. The expansion of the EU in 2004 resulted in an increase in labor migration to Norway. According to register data from Statistics Norway, 8,500 labor migrants were settled in Norway in the year 2000, with an increase to 180,000 in 2016 (Slettebak, 2020).

When migrant workers come to Trondheim for construction work they are often recruited by a staffing company. If the staffing company recruits workers from other areas, includ ing abroad, they often provide accommodation to the work ers during the time of the contract. The staffing company typically offers some housing options, usually these are bar racks or rigs, and sometimes shared houses. Barracks and rigs are housing units made up of many individual rooms.

The size of the rooms are comparatively small and only pro vide the basics, a space for a sink and stove top for cook ing, and a private restroom. The barracks exist to provide an easy housing agreement for migrant workers who have come to Norway only to work. The accessibility and the affordability of these options are the main drivers pushing migrant workers to choose these housing options. Addi tionally, workers may accept to move into these units due to a variety of reasons which we will discuss throughout the report. The understanding that the housing is tempo rary impacts the level of interest in improvement or care

1.2. Issues with migrant workers in Norway

for the situation. Through our research and work on this project we have identified a need for improved housing conditions. The higher quality housing will also have to be within the financial limitations of the migrant workers and the companies that hire them.

In addition, we have identified a need for improved so cial services. Many migrant workers are coming to Nor way with few social ties. The longer the worker is in the country, the more they learn about the culture and way of life. As well as forming relationships and creating so cial ties with stakeholders, co workers, and other foreign nationals. These networks are considered social capital. Having a higher level of social capital can help migrant workers leverage better living conditions. In fact, many migrant workers with more extensive social capital net works have better living conditions than those with less social capital.

Historically, migrant workers have been paid less than their Nor wegian counterparts and have had some issues with integration and housing during their stay in Norway. According to interviews with stakeholders, migrant workers seldom utilize the services available to support migrants with integration and legal issues. There have also been some instances of human trafficking in the constuction industry with migrant workers. The workers have signed fake contracts and have been swindled out of the income they made during their time working in Norway. Migrant workers are also stereotyped and regarded somewhat lowly in Norwe gian society, this could be a contributing factor to the poor living conditions.

Driving Forces from Labor Demands and Trends in Trondheim

Located in the middle of Norway, Trondheim Kommune is, with its rough ly 210.000 inhabitants, the third largest municipality in Norway (Statistics Norway, 2021).

Between 2009 and 2019 the population grew, on average with 2.800 peo ple each year. The population is expected to grow further and faster in the future, and by 2050 the population is expected to be around 250.000 (Trondheim Kommune, 2021a) That represents a growth of 16,1%. The surrounding municipalities also have a similar growth pattern. Melhus, Malvik and Stjørdal all grew with 12-13% in the same period, while Skaun grew with even more, 25,6% (Haugen, 2019) Statistics from Trondheimsregionen shows that in 2019, roughly half of the inhabitants in these municipalities are commuters into Trondheim, more than twice as many as in 2000 (Trondheimsregionen, 2019). With almost 40.000 new expected inhabitants, and more people commuting into Trondheim, a demand for more housing and more jobs appears.

Housing and living conditions are essential components of healthy livelihoods. The predictability of housing and good quality living conditions is a necessity. Labor prices in Europe are rising and if Norway does not step up in terms of providing higher wages or better quality housing conditions there is a chance that migrant workers will go elsewhere. Ensuring stability when it comes to housing in Norway and specifically Trondheim can attract more flexible contractual workers that can fill the demand for labour in the construction industry that ebbs and flows.

As the city grows, and Trondheim Kommune are planning big densification projects closer to the city centre, a growth in demand for workers in the construction industry reveals. Together with a sinking trend for young Norwegians that seek into the industry (Dagens Næringsliv, 2017), this creates room for migrant workers to come into Trondheim to find employment. It is hard to estimate the number of temporary migrant workers employed in construction in Trondheim. Statistics with residents of different nation alities from Trondheim Kommune tell us that almost 6.000 migrants come from eastern Europe within the EU, and of those, around 3.000 are Polish. Compared to the same numbers from 2010, that represents a tripling from the same areas. A lot more than the increase from other areas and nations. (Trondheim Kommune, 2021b) This compared to the sinking number of Norwegians in the industry, and amount of construction projects in Trondheim, we can assume that there possibly are thousands of migrant workers from Eastern Europe, in Trondheim alone.

2. Methodology

2.1. Introduction

As we carried out our research in Trondheim, Norway, our goal was to gain a better understanding of the livelihoods of mi grant workers living in Trondheim. By understanding the daily lives and living conditions of workers we can begin to identify opportunities for improvements. In addition, our goal was to identify key economic, social, political, spatial influences that are converging together to shape the lives of the migrant workers in Trondheim.

Using qualitative research methods we were able to contextualize the situation and identify opportunities for policy creation and spatial adaptations. We did not have a specific site in which our research was taking place, rather we conducted our re search from visiting work sites, interviewing stakeholders in offices, researching secondary data and doing walkabouts near known housing units where workers reside. In addition, we observed workers behavior in social settings, informal interviews and questionnaires. We first identified some focus areas, by making Heimdal and Brundalen our main focus locations. We began to observe these spaces and were able to move around these to have some interactions with residents. Additionally, we had some observations from the inside at the Heimdal site. These initial observations greatly impacted our research. In addition, interviews from stakeholders provided us with more context that influenced how we understood the situation from different viewpoints.

2.2. Stakeholder Workshop

To kickstart our fieldwork, we attended a preorganized workshop of stakeholders. This was organized by a professor and master student from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU (Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet) in order to collect data for a thesis on migrant housing. The group members were active participants in the workshop and had direct interaction with stakeholders. We took part in conversations. From this workshop we were given a presentation of data already collected. The data that was presented to the stakeholders included interviews from workers, recruiting companies, and construction companies. The research presentation gave the stakeholders some insights on issues that helped spark conversation. The workshop informed us about the temporary lifestyle migrant workers are living and the issues they face throughout their stay in Norway. It is important to note that some stakeholders were missing from this workshop. It would have been beneficial to hear from the police, the workers, the companies, and politicians. However from this workshop we were able to begin to create our stakeholder maps.

Figure

- Stakeholder Meeting at Workshop

Figure

2.3 Site visits/ Observations

The groups split up to walk several sites that housed migrant workers in Barracks or Dormitories. One group went to the barracks near the Brundalen school and the other went to some barracks located in Heimdal. We walked the sites and made observations about the surrounding area, the visible conditions and any other details that stood out to us, including the origin of the license plates on the cars parked in the lots. We also explored a few locations where caravans were parked and used as housing.

2.4. Data Collection

2.4.1 Questionnaire

One of the first steps of acknowledging the problem was understanding what the current situation is. A question naire was developed based on one of the stakeholders’ requirements of temporary housing. It was an assess ment about objects in the house, such as the condition of appliances and sufficiency of shared space.

The first attempt to share the questions was online and fo cusing on one nationality: Polish. This group was chosen due its high number of migrant workers. After the group’s visit to a few sites and observing the license plates on the cars, as well as previous information about migration in Norway.

With the help of a Polish speaker volunteer the question naire was shared on social media groups for workers/job seekers in Norway/ Trondheim. It was explained that the purpose of the questions was for a study and understand ing of the current situation of their temporary living. It was anonymous and no emails were collected.

The number of respondents was low; A second attempt was made, after revision of the questions the group visited the sites one more time, now with questionnaires at hand with the purpose of reaching the residents. How ever, the visit was made around 4pm on a weekday, and few residents were present. We managed to reach three participants. Before delivering the questionnaire the workers interacted a bit with our group, answered and asked general questions. The questionnaire was then de livered and some valuable information was shared, but it

still was a small number of answers. Aiming to reach more answers the questionnaire was shared through a QR code and posted in the sites that were visited and some con struction sites in the city, but we did not get any answers from it, the answers from the second attempt came only through personal contact.

Figure 2.5 - Results of Questionnaire.

Figure

Barracks at Barundalen

Figure

- Location Map of Migrant Workers Housing, Barundalen and Heimdal.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

After processing the information and developing the first draft of the housing proposal and reading interviews from recent re search (Between housing and home, Gunika Rishi unpublished) the group had more information and understanding about the migrant workers situation. And because the residents of the barracks seemed more comfortable with direct interaction. The group decided that it was time for a new attempt of contact, for validation of the first proposal or coproduction of it.

The café was planned to take place on a Sunday in the parking lot at the Brundalen barracks. Sunday was chosen because some workers might work on Saturdays, but in Norway it is not common for one to work on a Sunday. On the Friday before the event, an invitation was distributed on the common areas which were open as well as the mailbox (Friday is one of the mailing days in the city). It was distributed on the site close to Brundalen skole as well as the one placed in front of Charlottenlund videregående skole. Aligned with the other attempts of contacting this very important stakeholder. Very little engagement: two participants. Some group members tried to knock on some doors to invite and explain the event, but no success. Although, those who participated shared their stories and one agreed to be a source during the project, providing feedback and insights. More information is de scribed in the section Interaction with workers.

The most notable challenge we came across was the lan guage barrier. In addition, there is general disinterest from the workers themselves. There have been difficulties in col lecting field data due to the research subject being varied and spread throughout the city. There is also the sensitivity of the situation and ethical questions around the exploita tion of workers’ experience or situation. Workers are not in a position to advocate for themselves and have a sense of helplessness and hopelessness in their situation improving. The interviews and secondary data have indicated that mi grant workers are often afraid and suspicious of the local authorities, this includes work authorities and government authorities. In some ways, staying under the radar will en sure their job security and financial stability.

We tried to approach the workers in three ways, the most suc cessful was the online questionnaire with 10 answers. It was anonymous and it was in Polish, shared in groups for Polish workers in Norway. Though it was not accurate, the answers were open to everyone in the group, living in private accommodation, barracks or other temporary solutions, it was also possible that those with more access to those groups were in better condition than our case study. After attempting to contact the ones on the sites we visited and having little success, we had to rely on other sources such as interviews done on previous research to support our small data collec tion and serve as a base to develop our proposals.

Figure 2.7 - Discussion On Site Cafe (Workshop) with the Residences at Barracks.

Figure 2.8 - Diiferent Methods to Access and Talk to the Residence.

Figure 2.6 - On Site Cafe (Workshop).

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Uropatruljen Group

3. Situational Analysis

The recruiting companies provide housing as part of the recruiting process when seeking labor from abroad. This housing is usually temporary and driven by costs. Typically, this housing is a barrack. The barracks for workers can sometimes have ser vices for cooking and cleaning included in the price, or simply be a container converted into living space with a bathroom and small kitchenette. The legislation in Norway: Working Environment and The General Application Act respectively Arbeidsmil jølovgivningen and Allmenngjøringslovgivningen require certain elements for the housing provided to workers, but checking the boxes of those requirements does not necessarily constitute a sense of home, safety or belonging. Workers can also find housing on the private market but can face difficulties due to their language barriers and ability to pay for a deposit. Also, there are some instances of migrants being taken advantage of on the private market. There were cases of workers that sign a very shifty contract and are made to believe that there is nothing they can do about it because they may be sent back to their home country if they raise issues.

3.1 Barracks at a glance

This report will primarily focus on the employer pro vided housing, the barrack. The barracks we have visited varied in quality. The barracks seemed to be able to meet the requirements of housing per the law, but many lacked other elements of housing and had a dismal atmosphere. Some had common areas while others were very basic. Each barrack we visited in the Trondheim Kommune was placed in an area away from any urban amenities and very unattractive. The barracks placed at the Brundalen area stood out as very basic without any features that delineated it as housing. The more attractive barracks we visited were at Heimdal, they are placed in an industrial area next to a garbage processing facility. However these bar racks did provide other amenities that contribute to a better living environment, like a canteen and common areas for socializing. The information collected and explored on this section was based on site visits and online research.

3.1.1. Physical Context - Brundalen Barracks

These barracks are located on the East side of Trondheim in an area called Brundalen. They consist of two different sites, the first is located in between a primary school called Brundalen Skole and some apartment blocks in a small street called Aunegrenda. While the second one is located just across Charlotten lund High School. To reach the sites, it takes approxi mately 15-25 minutes by bus from Trondheim S to reach the Brundalen Barracks as they are 8km in distance. This is done by taking Bus Number 2, 24 or 311 and hav ing to change to bus number 14 at Gildheim and Lerken dal stations

Site and landscapes:Site 1a : 32 Containers piled up in two floors, containing 30 rooms, a washroom for laundry and a storage room. They are located Behind Brundalen skole which is a primary school. The site measures ap proximately 45 x 25 meters. There is a shaded space with a pergola that the vegetation has grown into. Sev eral cars were parked in the area, all of them of Polish origin.

Site 1b: 47 rooms approximately in different configurations. Some have shared spaces within, where they have a living room, kitchen and toilet area. Across Char lottenlund High School. The area measures approxi mately 100 x 30 meters. Many Polish and lithuanian cars were seen in the parking lot.

Figure 3.2 - Barracks-a and b Location Map.

Figure 3.3 - Housing Options in Charlottenlund.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 3.1 - Waste processing facility accross from the Heimdal barrack

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Site surroundings: The Barracks are surrounded by residential areas, schools, kindergartens, public clinics, workshops/stores, buildings that are under construction and green spaces.

Roads & Transport : The site consists of a few nearby bus stops as it is the primary mode of public transportation in the area. The main modes of transport are the bus, bicycle and car.

Tunga Kretsfengsel Bus stop is within 9 minutes of walking dis tance and the buses that travel that area are Bus No. 10 and 15. Brundalen Bus stop is within 10 minutes of walking distance and the buses that travel that area are Bus No. 102 and 211. Charlottenlund vgs Bus stop is within 10 minutes of walking dis tance and the buses that travel that area are Bus No. 14 and 102. The bus stops are operated with approx. 10 minute intervals during rush hours.

Site-1a : The adjacent road is ‘Aunegrenda’ which is joined with the road ‘Leistadvegen’ in the north and with ‘Nermarka’ in the south.

Site-1b : The adjacent roads are ‘Yrkesskolevegen’ on its east and ‘Brundalen’ on its west.

3.2 Demographic Context

Social context

The area surrounding Brundalen Skole is largely containing blocks of apartments that belong to Brundalen Borettslag (Brundalen Housing Association). This association contains 555 dwellings, and was built during 1970-1971 (TOBB, n.d.).

We cannot find specific statistics on the closely surrounding areas of the barracks, but numbers on Brundalen school district, which contains a slightly larger area, shows that the population is rela tively young. As shown in the pie chart, out of the full population of 5991 people, 4120 of them are under 50 years of age. 1596 people are in the age span of 20 to 34 years, with 1315 people being under 20 years old. What we can interpret from these stats is that it is a popular place for young adults, and newly established families.

Brundalen is also popular amongst immigrants. According to Trond heim Kommune’s study on living conditions and public health, we can find that 2,9% of people living there are from eastern-European EU countries, and further 11% are from countries in the rest of the world. Both these numbers score medium high, and are above the city average. (Trondheim Kommune, 2018a)

According to the same study, Brundalen does not score that well, when it comes to different aspects of housing accomodations. The study also includes numbers on cramped living. It is considered cramped living when there are more people than rooms in a flat, or there is less than 25 square meters per person who lives there. Results from the study shows that 34% of apartments are cramped in the Brundalen area, compared to the Trondheim average of 21%. (Trondheim Kommune, 2018b)

Figure 3.4 - Barracks Housing at Barundalen.

Figure 3.5 - Nearest Bus Stop at Brundalen and Char

Figure 3.6 - Residential Nebhourhood at Brundalen.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Economical context

In our research of the economical context of the area, we can see that there is very little commercial activity. This is probably due to the fact that our project area is mostly built up by residential apartment blocks. There are no significant companies registered that are located remote to the barracks. As a result of a web search, we can still find that there are a few registered, but none that we find interesting, that has influenced the area.

The study of living conditions that we looked at earlier also addresses apartment prices and median income per consumption unit. The median income is a little bit higher than the rest of Trondheim. (Trondheim Kommune, 2018a) Compared with sur rounding areas, the price of an apartment is very low. This statistic covers apartments of all sizes and types in the area, but if they are split into two segments of small and medium apartments, the numbers change slightly. The smaller apartments are priced higher, but still under the average of Trondheim city, and lower than similar apartments in close areas. Medium apartments, though, are much cheaper than the surrounding areas. An apartment is considered small when the base floor is between 35 to 55 square meters. (Trondheim Kommune, 2018d)

3.3 Land property Brundalen

3.3.1 Interests of Landowners

Trondheim Kommune has produced an area plan for the Brundalen-ar ea. These plans consider the greater area that we are working on. There is also a zoning plan for the specific area where our project is located, which contains both the barracks plot, and the nearby Leistadveien 1 plot. This plan is written and presented in a document published by Trondheim Byplankontor (Trondheim Planning Offices).

The purpose of a zoning plan for the area, is according to the document to facilitate densification of housing in the area. The suggested plans contain four different blocks of flats, as can be seen in figure 1 and 2.

According to the Trondheim Kom mune’s detailed regulation plan description of Leistadvegen 1 in Brundalen, the property where the barracks are is owned by HAW Ei endom AS. This means that they have control of what to do with the barracks that are here. In this article a proposal plan is made to demolish the barracks as well as the adjacent red building and build apartment blocks comprising four levels with outdoor recreational areas. These apartment blocks serve as a plan to densify the area around the existing primary school and the new secondary school the municipality will build in this area. Now this master plan proposed by ARKITEKTER firm was approved in 2017 but no further development has been done. (Trondheim Kommune, 2017b)

These buildings are proposed in line with the municipal area plan for Trondheim, which says that the area should be used for housing, with a minimum requirement of three dwellings per acre. When evaluating to which extent these plans are relevant to our project, it needs to be considered that the planning-document was published in 2017, and an online search has not resulted in any indications that the decided plans will be fulfilled in the reasonable future. Due to these plans, our project will be limited to either creating better temporary housing for the people who live in the area at the moment, or to propose a solution that sees them moving to a different site.

Source: Trondheim Kommune

Figure 3.7 - View of Proposed Residential Housing at Brundalen Site by Trondheim Kommune.

Figure 3.8 - Site Plan of Proposed Residential Housing at Brundalen Site by Trondheim Kommune.

Figure 3.9 Elevations of Proposed Residential Housing at Brundalen Site by Trondheim Kommune.

Source: Trondheim Kommune

Source: Trondheim Kommune

3.4 Riggs Housing Heimdal

3.4.1 Physical Context

The Heimdal Riggs are located to the south of Trondheim. They are 4 blocks of two-storeys each painted in red colour. To reach this site, it takes approximately 45 minutes by bus from Trondheim S as they are 12.7 km in distance.

Site: It is owned by a private company that rents temporary rooms. The units were once transported to different sites and rented out side the current complex. Similarly as the barracks in the Brundalen area. Now it has been in the same place for more than seven years and the units are assembled together and function as dorms (rigg).

The company has three dwelling options, a sin gle room with meals included, that is charged by the day, double rooms and single rooms with monthly rent and a shared kitchen. There are a total of 250 rooms. All the dwelling op tions have access to other facilities such as gym, sauna and parking space. During the site visit it was observed the presence of Swedish, Polish, Lithuanian utilitarian cars and general local (Norwegian) private company cars.

Figure 3.10 - Nearest Bus Stop at Rigg Housing.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Surroundings: The rig is located in the industrial area of Heggstadmoen, Heimdal. The area of Heggstad is defined as indus trial on Trondheim’s kommune plan. Beside the rigg area there is a container disposal facility, and on the closer lots there are different industrial sites. Not so far from the rigg complex, there are other disposal facilities, such as: garden waste, metal/car wreckage and the city’s waste.

Roads & transport: The main access is through E6, this has also access to Industriveien (connection to Heimdal center) or Østre Rosten (connection to Tiller center). Due to the area's characteristics, it is not common to use public transport. Although there is a bus line within a 5 minute walk (0,5km) at Heggstadmoen 2 with a single bus line No 46 every 15 minutes during rush hours. which has connections with other bus lines that head towards the city center as well as the train station. Within a longer walk of 23 min (2km) at Sandmoen E6, it is possible to have access to a direct bus that heads to the city center No.310 from 6am until 08, with intervals varying from 15min to 30 min, and after 08 hourly. Bus 410 and bus No.340 are also direct to the city and the frequency varies during the day. The public transport options have approx travel time of 40 min which is more than the average time for a bus route in Trondheim.

At first, the group considered both sites as the same category: barracks, a temporary housing with little management and low standard infrastructure but through online research, it was found that there was a difference. Those units in Brundalen are a temporary construction, and will be demolished in the near future while at Heimdal, it is an estab lished business that runs and maintains the place. “People stay here like a hotel but they pay 650 kr.-/day while in the hotel is double the price”. The business representative said during an interview with two students from the group. Heimdal rigg works similarly to a hotel, with workers as a target group. This finding showed the group an opportunity as the business at Heimdal establishes a precedent of decent shared housing for profit, as well as it proves that better accommodation can be achieved, maintained and valued by the users. The project got a new perspective and direction.

Figure 3.11 - Common TV Launge at Rigg Housing.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 3.12 - Exterior Photos of Rigg Housing.

UEP - Uropatruljen Group

4. Introduction Stakeholders

4.1. Migrant Workers

From the start, we knew that interacting with migrant workers was going to be a challenge due to not only the language barrier but also their long working days. During our site visit we approached several workers. We began to go to housing units and attempt to interact with people near their homes.

The first interaction was during one of the attempts of gathering data. A group member visited the barracks at Charlottenlund area and noticed a man outside the barrack, on the top of the stairs and listening to music. One decided to approach the person and talk. He did not speak English, but he saw the questionnaire the group brought and asked for his friend's help. He invited the group to go inside.

When the second man arrived the group explained the reason for the visit and immediately he began to com plain about his accommodation. He was grateful and happy with the visit, misunderstanding the purpose of it. The members clarified the purpose and asked him to fill the questionnaire. After that, the conversation started, the group asked about the complaints he had at first, and he agreed to show his room, toilet and kitchen. The bedroom had, according to our source, a bad smell and he showed the condition of his bed: no top mattress and stains. He said he had to do a lot of cleaning when he first arrived to be comfortable enough to sleep in the bedroom. The bathroom was not clean, had a moldy smell and the toilet seat was visibly broken. The living room where the students and the source were talking in the beginning was partly furnished. A small table, one sofa, a

those two. As they seemed to be concentrated in the chat and not open to others. Eventually the residents noticed the students and inquired what was the purpose of their standing on the entrance of the site. Therefore the students were compelled to express their motivations and began to talk with those two.

- Migrant worker

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

broken chair and a drying clothes rack were visible from sight. The kitchen had ap parently all the basic appliances functioning well. This source is from Poland, he had arrived in Trondheim a couple of days before the group’s visit. He was young, with average English skills (basic communication), it was his first time in Norway, it was not clear if he had worked in other countries or just visited them. He asked if the visitors knew of a vacant place where he could find a better place to live.

Those residents were construction workers, not as young as the previous interviewed. One of them complained about the place, he had a good humor and was ironic during the conversation when talking about his current dwelling. He pointed out that for the quality of the accom modation it was far too expensive. He lived in a better one, on an island in Norway, with cleaning services included paying roughly the same. Although he accepted because that’s what the company offered. He had hopes to find a better job that paid higher wages.

“Housing conditions here are similar throughout Europe”

- Migrant worker

the barracks for 2.5 months. He has worked in many differ ent jobs and countries and sees Norway as the best so far. His main issue is that he got basic documentation in Nor way, which gives him less opportunities. Such as looking for better housing and opening his own business. His second reason was because he lacks the financial capital to pay a deposit on his own. Until he can gain more financial capital he will continue living in the lowest cost options. We learn from him that barracks are common throughout Europe and this is where you stay when you begin working in a new country.

He identifies an unwritten law that workers will struggle when they start in a new place. He has low expectations for living arrangements and notes that vulnerability has drivers of the conditions in which he is in. He sees a busi ness opportunity that would provide better housing and working conditions for workers, seeing the gap that needs to be filled and who else is better to fill this gap than some one who has suffered through these conditions.

Figure 4.1 - Barracks-1b Layout Plan, Brundalen.

He agreed to answer the questionnaire but his results were more neutral than his speech. The second man was also from Poland and did not speak much, but seemed to agree with most of the statements as his colleague. He answered the questionnaire and similarly to the previous one, neutral answers.

The group told him about some websites where he could find other housing options. The group left wishing him good luck on his search and staying in the country.

After that interaction, the group moved to the next site, close to Brundalen skole. Arriving at the place, it was possible to see two men having a conversation outside their dwellings. The group felt intimidated and discussed how to approach

During our group’s proposed On site cafe we had two more in depth conversations with migrant workers. Through those, we learned a bit more about their viewpoints and how they feel about the barracks. The first interaction was with a construction worker, a man that has been living in

The second in depth conversation he had was with anoth er construction worker, younger in age and Polish. There was also a follow up interview with him and a tour of his room in the barracks. He had been living in the barracks for 3 months. His main issue with the space is that it is too small. He has no space for storing his belongings. It is evident in the “kitchen corner” there is a lack of space to prepare anything.

“We are trying to save money here until we can move in to something better”

- Migrant worker

“The room was disgusting when I got here, I had to clean the whole first night. Stained mattress with no padding. There were issues with the toilet and shower.”

4.2 Staffing Company

In an informal meeting with a representative from a Norwegian staffing company. We got confir mation that the need of migrant workers is constant and rising. According to the representative, there is a high demand for construction workers. Construction companies are not always able to fill the positions therefore staffing companies can bridge the gap. The staffing company claims that there are plenty of jobs in Norway, so essentially there shouldn't be unemployment. Though, many of the jobs are considered for lower class. More and more Norwegians are getting formal ed ucation and moving into different work sectors. This is leaving gaps in the service sectors, hence why there are migrant workers coming here. We also learned that not everyone in the barracks is working in construction, if there is an empty room they look to fill it as soon as possible in order not to lose money.

The staffing company signed a contract to rent the barracks from an entrepreneur company that owns the land and provided the barracks we were touring. They do not make a profit from this arrangement, it is only to provide housing for foreign workers. Without workers filling the rooms, they have to pay the difference in rent, so they tend to lose money on this contract. The barrack that is discussed in the interview is the same barrack in which we have had multiple visits to and interactions with the residents.

This barrack has no social space, when the topic of social space was brought up, the representa tive noted that communal space only leads to poor behavior. Making of the barracks is a lucrative business and common throughout Norway. Construction sites change and move. On average peo ple are staying in this specific barrack for 3-6 months. The representative noted that the construc tion workers cannot find anything more affordable than this (6000NOK per month). If the workers want to find somewhere else to live that is their prerogative.

Though, the issue of affordability comes up again because workers confront the problem of paying for a deposit. The staffing company is not interested in their motivations for changing housing and has little interest in where the workers are residing. But the interviewee did acknowledge that construction work is hard labor and that workers should get a proper amount of sleep in order to be productive on the job.

4.3 SUA

We sought an interview with SUA because we see them as a stakeholder due to their regular interactions with migrant workers, connection with the labor inspection authority, and under standing/claiming to be of some help during the processes that migrant workers take when coming to Norway. Through a key informant interview with a SUA employee, we gained insightful perspectives.

According to a representative from SUA, “We cannot provide any type of advice or information that is not relevant to the SUA services.” This means if migrant workers ask for information about housing or banking, SUA is not at liberty to speak on this; they can only provide the name of the bank or service for the individual to seek out themselves. According to the SUA employee, there is an information desk at SUA which has informational pamphlets and this counter has been closed since the onset of the pandemic, so going on two years they have not been utilizing this information counter.

SUA is not in the position to prioritize the livelihoods of workers. In the tax office, there are many SUA employees working at their desks and each may see up to 20 or more workers per day. The traffic of workers is constantly flowing and because of this employee being Polish, many polish workers will try to open up to her about their issues and unfortunately she is not in a place to answer all their questions and concerns. The employee recognizes there is a need for more social services for the workers. According to the recruiting companies, they do not want to help with social services because it's “not their job” so they send workers to SUA, but also it's not their job either.

The employee gave a rough estimate that 70 percent of workers are here without their families. Noting that without their families, being here as an individual there is less of a desire to learn about Norwegian culture and language so essentially less desire to integrate into a new country if they are feeling detached from home. SUA is also made of the police, workers go to the police to report issues with contracts and payments.

SUA hears about issues where companies cheat workers but they cannot do anything about it unless the worker comes and files a report. Workers are not always making reports because of fear of losing their jobs, being ostracized, and being subject to negative rumors in the migrant worker community. Ultimately, SUA acknowledges that workers need more protections but also must respect the laws. Migrant workers are essential employees and Trondheim depends on their labor to construct the buildings in which people live and work, therefore, it is imperative we respect their bodies and their work by providing better living conditions.

Facebook

“Many rumors are spread through the groups and word of mouth”

4.4 Caritas or (NGO organization)

Throughout the course of our work, we met with different professionals, including employees of Caritas, a Catholic Church aid organization. According to their website, Caritas works to integrate immigrants and refugees into Norwegian society. They help immigrants and their families into active participation in society and work and out of poverty by offering Norwegian language teaching, social and labor market knowledge, general counseling and guidance.

From our interviews with two Caritas employees we learned that they offer courses on working life in Trondheim where people can learn about taxes, laws, regulations, job interviews and union information. Also, Caritas sees themselves as a facilitator be tween foreigners and Norwegians as a means to resolve issues with landlords or employers. During an informal conversation about migrant workers, one of the employees told us of her experience with some Polish workers who did not seem to want to reach out for assistance despite experiencing very poor living conditions in their privately rented apartment and not having enough food.

The employee speculated that they likely did not reach out due to pride, but they were aware of the services and aid she was providing for their neighbor who was in a similar situation and they did accept the food she brought for them. She told us that the landlord of their building was having them sign shifty leases and not repairing damages that led to the Polish workers being without heat for three months during the cold winter season.

She said that they were able to resolve the issues with the landlord by stepping in and calling on their behalf. In a follow up interview with Caritas, we provided more of our findings and understanding of the situation. During the follow ing discussion, we identified a lack of trust of Norwegians and language barrier as major roadblocks to better livelihoods of workers. Moving forward, Caritas is aiming to identify Polish speaking volunteers that can do more outreach in the migrant community.

5 Stakeholder Mapping

5.1 Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder mapping is defined as “Individuals and organizations who are actively involved in the project, or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of project execution or successful project completion.” (Project Management Institute (PMI), 1996) It is important to identify the people who can be involved in the project as this can help us define who we can talk to, in order ro get more information about the situation that migrant workers face when living here in Norway.

To clarify the relation among stakeholders, we detected 4 kinds of stakeholder in our immigrant housing project:

“We offer a working life course where you can learn about taxes, unions, rules and regulations”

In the workers groups

- Fellesforbundet is one of the largest organizing trade unions in Norway which organizes employees in industry, construction, hotels and restaurants, transport, and automotive industries across the Country.

- Landsorganisasjonen (LO) i Norge is another large employer organization union which deals with fair payment, good pensions, safe workplaces and giving employers a voice to deal with problems. They have a potential positive influence as they deal with workers as well as their wages and workers’ rights here in Norway. The organizations are very important as they focus on the fairness of wages as well as that the workers can express their own rights in a foreign country to theirs. LO works with the trade union movement in the Nordic countries, Europe and globally to promote the interests of their members who work in Norway and to cooperate with workers in other countries who are fighting for the same ideas as they do.

- Caritas is a religious Non-Governmental Organization NGO acting in Norway. This organization provides assistance to foreigners in Norway, integration courses, language courses (English and Norwegian.), courses on labor laws and regula tions in Norway, and even legal assistance as well as guidance through their integration process.

In the government agencies

- The Fire Department Trøndelag brann- og redningstjeneste (TBRT) keeps safety measures in place around the city in order to lower risks of fire, especially in industrial, construction and housing areas. It is important as regulations and laws need to be taken into consideration for improving or constructing new living conditions and houses, in order to reduce risks of fire. Cooperates with the job inspection authority to inspect housing conditions, has guidelines for safety. Also the migrants need to be aware of fire safety and how to contact the Fire department, since our interviewees said that they once encountered fire and living alone might increase the risk of casualties in a fire. TBRT thus has a positive effect on immigrant housing.

- SUA is the Service Center for Foreign Affairs In accordance with the laws, an EEA national who stays in Norway for more than three months is obliged to register at the immigration office and in the case of a worker, one has additionally to reg ister at the foreign worker service center from now on SUA. To be registered at the immigration office, one must have grounds for residence as an employee, self-employed person, service provider, student, or have sufficient means to stay in Norway. EEA nationals who do not meet the conditions for grounds for residence do not have a right of residence for more than three months and must leave Norway. (UDI) Because migrant workers are often staying longer than 3 months they have to contribute with taxes, therefore they are required to register with SUA. “SUA is a collaboration between the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, the police, the Tax Administration and the UDI” (Servicesenter for Utenlandske Arbeidstakere, n.d.) it is the service

where a foreign can get the help needed to be able to work in Norway, as tax registration and to get the first national documentation. This organization is important as it helps foreign workers to sort their documentation with UDI, the police and the Tax administration if they were to have a problem, and thus has a positive effect and potential to be more participative on our proposals.

- Arbeidstilsynet is the Labour Inspection Authority this organization promotes visits to job sites and ac comodations. At their website it is possible to consult the requirements for a safe working environment and a proper temporary accommodation. The requirements however are valid only if the employer is the one providing a house for the employee “The rules do not apply if the employer only communicates contact with one or more landlords. If the employer assists the employee in obtaining accommodation (...).” (Arbeidstilsynet, n.d.). And the inspection visits may occur at any given time. For those visits, the labour authority declared their cooperation with other institutions such as the Fire Service and other municipal authorities. It is not clear although, how often those inspections happen, nor the others that seem to be mainly for working conditions. According to the information from Uropatruljen website, the audits happen upon tips (Byggebransjens uropratulje, 2021), similarly at the fire department website (Trøndelag brann- og redningstjeneste iks, n.d.) There is not a database of accomodation to visit and do regular inspections. So if the worker does not file a complaint or the employee presses charges about the employee's hazardous dwelling, such inspection is hardly happening.

- Trondheim Kommune Byggesak is a department of Trondheim Kommune, which manages roads, sport facilities, water, sewage, forests and parks in Trondheim. It has the potential to contribute positively to immigrant housing, as the government might be generating demand for new infrastructure and therefore demand for more work ers, so the department should be aware of the situation on how the migrants are living and working within the city of Trondheim and also what they need to live.

In the employers

HENT is a company that carries out construction projects across Norway. It has developed its own implementation model called “HENT Totalverdi”. Its mission is also to provide close relationships between good quality, good economy, good customer relationships, several assignments and a safe and secure workplace. This construction firm affects the migrant workers in the sense of how they work in the construction sites. Safety always needs to be taken into consideration. It has a mixed or negative effect on the housing project, since they might worry that the increase of cost of immigrant housing costs would lead to the increase of employment costs, while it has rising needs of labour from outside Norway.

1 Uropatruljen gives name to our project, it is not a location, it is a group concerned about safety in the working industry, they collect tips and forward them to the agencies, helping both sides to have a more efficient communication. If translated to English is “Restless Patrol”, it is formed by seven people: three from the employer side and four from the employee side. All fighting side by side for better working and living conditions for workers in the construction industry.

- Jobzone is a group of companies with a number of subsidiaries with extensive expertise in all aspects of personnel, recruitment and restructuring, each of which focuses on its own field. This institution builds a bridge between workers and employers. They help their clients with staffing, hiring, and direct recruitment across many professional areas, and help staff and recruit across many positions in IT, finance and payroll, administration, sales, events and customer service. Other than that, they are well established within the construction, maintenance, transportation, warehousing, production and manufacturing industries where they collaborate with both large and small companies.

Uropatruljen

Figure 5.4 - Stakeholder Power and Interest 3. Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

In the agency

Figure 5.5 - Stakeholder Power and Interest 4.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

- Regionale verneombud (RVO) is a Regional safety delegate that contributes to a better safety and working envi ronment within construction sites, so see if everything is in order and according to the law. It affects positively on the working conditions of the workers on site, so that they are safe and do not risk injury when working with materials, chemicals and machinery. RVO people are important as they manage the safety and working conditions of the workers on the construction site, although we believe that they don't have much to contribute towards the living conditions.

5.2 Processing information

This study has a diverse group of stakeholders, and most of them agreed that the ones on temporary housing were hard to connect and interact with. After first (non) interactions with the workers, it was possible to understand the informa tion previously gathered and learned. Based on that, some interpretations were formulated. From interviews with stakeholders, our interpretation:

Caritas (Religious NGO)

It is not fully understood at this point why migrant workers are not utilizing Caritas’ services. We have speculated that due to the working schedule of migrant workers this is a factor that is hindering them from partaking in the free courses. There is also the issue of pride as in the case of the Polish men from the story. Additionally, the migrant workers may feel more motivated to utilize these services when the information is provided in their native language or there is a person on staff who is from their home country. Migrant workers seem less likely to reach out for assistance than other groups of refugees and immigrants. This is for a variety of reasons including the fact that they see themselves as being there temporarily.

SUA

It is important to note that at this interview the employee is Polish and most of the migrant workers are from Poland. We understand there could be bias in the perspective. In the interview it was shared that when the worker is alone, without the family, it is less attractive to learn the local language and integrate in the culture. From this perspective, communi cation and language barriers are the main cause for migrant workers not finding proper housing options. Therefore, the recruiting companies should assume responsibility for proper housing conditions since they are the ones bringing the workers into the country. The problem is that the recruiting companies feel indifferent.

Staffing Company

The workers that were willing to talk to us tended to be better at speaking English and more educated. Most people are only staying in the barracks short term and they say it's good enough for temporary. We observe that even though acknowledging the importance of workers and their need for better living conditions, the representative contradicts own speech and shows indifference to worker’s comfort and wellbeing. Showing that there is a disconnect between acknowledging that the workers need a proper resting place after a tiring day of work and not caring about where they are living. Also, the staffing companies are interested in the best possible deal for providing housing. The current ar rangement with the barracks near the Brundalen school is not profitable for the staffing companies. In fact, if they can’t keep every room occupied they lose money on the deal.

Other Stakeholders

Language barrier

Mistrust in authorities

Do not want to integrate in culture in culture

High acceptance of risk

Low standards for temporary housing

Workers

Workers are not required to be proficient in Norwegian, and they do not have their English tested.

Workers usually come from countries with bad socio-econom ic/ political situations where the authorities are not trusted.

They have their home country as the one and only home, they are focused on work only.

If they have problems, they do not know who to trust as well as availability to seek help, as their working hours are usually longer than the Norwegian office hours.

From the questionnaire:

The low number of respondents led to two kinds of anal ysis: the answers and the absence of them.

• The answers showed a considerable level of satis faction, and little complaints.

For that and the absence of answers, we had a few hy pothesis:

• The questionnaire was too long;

• The participants were not the target group;

• The workers did not want to get involved with something that could compromise their work/life;

• The workers were not interested;

• We were asking the wrong questions.

• The questionnaire #1 and #2 can be found attached to this report.

Based on our findings and interpretations of the is sues we have identified different problems facing the migrant workers in Trondheim.

First, there is a lack of social spaces that are safe/ relaxing.

Secondly, Isolation and segregation from the local environment, in addition, poor housing options.

Thirdly, few government services aid in integration, also as if this is an “invisible” group in society. Once they are hired here in Trondheim, the lodging and du ration of their stay is not well documented (Rishi, un published). Ultimately, it seems that the living condi tions of migrant workers are in need of improvement.

5.3 Search for Policies and Regulations

During research on the topic of temporary housing for work ers, we found house renting regulations for other groups/ temporary situations in The Tenancy Act (Husleieloven). But nothing supporting regular workers (only army or govern mental positions), those being migrants or locals. The law which can serve as a support for migrant workers is the gen eral working law, not specific to migrant workers.

The General Application Act (Allmenngjørningsloven) states that every worker should be paid fairly, equally independent of one’s nationality. This act also contains details of tariff-agreement (Tariffavtale), which is an agreement with a company and a trade union, defining what are the benefits a worker is entitled to have when working for that company. It is important to note that Norway does not have a national minimum wage, it is, in most sectors, determined through those agreements between companies and trade unions.

Aligned with that is the exclusion of responsibility from the employer’s side when the accommodations were not pro vided and connected with them. “ In order for the employer to have or take responsibility for the accommodation, he or she must have some connection to the accommodation or to the landlord.” Based on that, if a second company is providing the accommodation to the worker, or if the work er rents a space that is not up to the given standards, the employer is exempt from being reported by authorities. During our research we came across dwellings provided by a hiring company which at a first sight fulfilled all the requirements from the labour inspection authority, but af ter further analysis some problems appeared, such as im proper relaxing areas, lack of privacy (thin walls) and fire alarms not working. It shows a gray zone on the respon sibility, is the employer in this case the hiring company or the construction company for whom the residents work?

Another regulation that involves workers is the one found at the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority website (Ar beidstilsynet), this organization as previously mentioned at Stakeholder Analysis section, inspects the labour situation on the working sites, and possibly the accommodations. It is important to stress that there is no evidence of how regular those inspections take place, nor if there is an existent data base of working sites/ accommodation to visit, it seems that it only happens when the authorities or others are tipped off. Leading the workers to a vulnerable situation, because most of the ones new in the country are not aware yet, of their rights and which is the authority to contact.

This lack of transparency and specific definition leave the workers in a vulnerable situation. Those migrants come to the country at first, being dependent on their employers, with little knowledge of the local language, and their rights and obligations. And because of authorities’ limitations the audits do not happen in every needed place, keeping the migrant workers living in inappropriate and demeaning places. In the next section we share some of our proposed solutions to this very complex issue.

6 Proposals and Solutions

6.1 Housing Policy and Regulations proposal

In this section we explore how to fill the gaps in com munication between stakeholders and propose stan dard procedures on recruitment process and interac tion with workers. One of our findings is that workers have no or very little information before/after arrival in the country. So as the first step of their journey in the new country, the proposal starts with the first contact: Recruitment company, it is the one connecting work ers with construction companies. It works according to the labor’s demand and we did not find any regula tion binding their responsibility on workers wellbeing, as well no responsibility on the workers housing situ ation. It is also the one we found during our research, that assigned workers to live in barracks.

Although living conditions highly affect a worker’s wellbeing, we did not see any trade union participat ing in the hiring process. And according to the FAFO report workers from Poland and Lithuania are gener ally not part of the trades’ union, and at least 34% of them are not even asked to participate in it; the report also leaves a question whether the unions care or not about the migrant workers (Ødegård & Andersen, 2021 pp 52-53). A participation during the hiring process without demanding any payment could change that feeling. If it is the role of the union to represent the workers, advocate for their rights and ne gotiate better conditions at work, it is reasonable that the trade unions participate during the hiring process.

That way they can expose all the advantages of being part of the union, and show all the improvements they made so far.

Similarly to the Student Welfare Organization in Trondheim SIT (Studentsamskipnaden i Trondheim). When a student registers for a new semester, he/she has the option to contribute to SIT when paying for the registration fee, it is then, when SIT is briefly

explained and introduced to a student, who decides if it is fair or not to contribute. Ideally when a worker receives the job information and previous contract/working conditions he/she should be briefly explained about the trades’ union, with enough data and a contact which it is possible to ask questions and get more information.

Following the introduction and inclusion of trades’ unions during the hiring process, we included the reli gious Non-Governmental Organization NGO Caritas. They showed high interest in the workers’ wellbeing and are willing to help their integration and ease their stay in the country. They have limited resources and have no con nection with this group yet (migrant workers from eastern european countries). The reason for this gap is not clear, but it is possible that: the workers do not know such assis tance exists, they have conflicting schedules, and there is a language barrier. To fill this gap, during the recruitment process the organization should be introduced with con tact information and brief explanation of their work.

Moving to the second step of the process: the physical space. Housing is a common issue in the present time in different locations worldwide. Considering the demand of migrant workers in the city/country it is our understanding that the local authorities should take part of the respon sibility. There are unused areas in different parts of the city, privately or publicly owned. When a new construction is about to begin and will require workers from other places to live temporarily in the city, the government should provide space either owned by the state or in an agreement with private owners for temporary accommodation.

General Recommendations:

Workers Welfare

Another takeaway from our research is that migrant workers are isolated from the community they are living in and may not have many social connections outside of their coworkers here in Norway. We suggest that there be more effort put into community building for migrant workers. The form of community building can also serve as a network where workers can be directed to any administrative assistance they may need with their living situation as well as reliable information. This can be done through a welfare organization similar to SIT. The welfare organization can be responsible for facilitating community involvement and assistance.

Religious NGO

The services already exist for foreigners in Norway and they showed great interest in reaching migrant workers. One possibility for facilitating this connection is having volunteers focused on this group and working on different hours. Vol unteers from an eastern european country are favorable for this purpose, the use of social media to find those could be the starting point. Secondly, it is of high importance for a foreigner to be able to communicate and be confident in the country where one lives, more availability of Norwegian language courses can have a very positive impact on their integration and wellbeing. To achieve that, more volunteers are needed to teach Norwegian.

Government Interventions

We suggest stronger government interventions during the on-boarding process and permitting or regulating more fixed housing that is intended for transitory migrant workers. The workers are required to go through SUA as part of the hiring process, however they are not often provided with much information on where to find resources and their contracts are not always checked at this point for validity to prevent human trafficking. Since moving more to barrack housing, companies have better been able to stay on the right side of the law with housing (SOURCE, interview from Gunika), but the standards for housing should be set higher by laws. As well as their inspection, during their visit to SUA, this governmental agency should verify the legitimacy of the worker’s contract and check the address on the database, if it is recurring or not (combination employer x address). Then there should be audits of this place as well as the working environment with more interaction with workers.

Housing Options

Currently, the housing options provided by staffing companies for migrant workers are very minimal and often do not provide for a sense of connection or comfort. We suggest broadening the options for temporary housing while main taining financial sustainability, for the resident and for the landowner. The housing options we explore in the following sections are envisioned as being roughly the same cost to workers as the housing currently available, but with much higher standards for living. The housing options should include more communal spaces for those who would prefer a more social setting and then more private options for those who favor privacy in their down time. The main focus of the housing options should be considering human needs and dignity.

Recruitment Process

According to our stakeholder interviews and the review of secondary information, the recruitment process in the workers' home countries is somewhat informal and done through work of mouth. Recruiters will use facebook or other informal con nections to find workers to come to Norway. As a result, the information that the workers receive during the recruiting process can be varied and a bit scattered. We recommend that recruiting companies and another stakeholder work together to provide more reliable and consistent information. Since social media is already widely used in this process, the stakeholders can team up as administrators on a facebook group for migrant workers. That way, the workers can ask questions and get answers from the relevant stakeholders themselves. Additionally we suggest a standard policy to be applied by recruitment companies in general.

When the job applicant gets a job offer, it is the role of the recruiter to inform the first steps in the new country.

Those are:

1. Information

1.1. All the information must be on the language that the applicant interacted with. If the application was done in English, all the forms of communication and information should be with that same language.

1.2 The workers should be informed about the Norwegian taxes system and how to open a bank account and all the processes that a citizen from the EU should do, together with a follow up during those processes.

1.3 Work organizations must be introduced with a brief explanation about how they can be useful for the workers and have their contact available, as well as the option to contribute automatically monthly.

2. Accommodation.

2.1 The accommodation options are to chosen by the worker and should be presented with informa tion about the following

• Location, proximity to the work site;

• Shared accommodation or not, if so the number of people should be informed;

• Brief description of the space with pictures, number of appliances and rooms, ratio of them e.g., 1 fridge for 4 people;

• What is included on the rent, how the rent is charged and how much is it.

2.2. Other options of housing should be mentioned also with clarification that if the worker opts for finding the house alone the worker loses the preference on the accommodation queue and that the company is not responsible for helping in the process.

3. Work contract

3.1 Must specify the job position and the limit of hours that the employee can work

3.2 It should be sent to the worker before the arrival in Norway both in Norwegian and in the commu nication language previously defined.

4. After contract

4.1 The Norwegian culture should be introduced, information about friluftsliv, incentives to enjoy the Norwegian nature and offer ideas and inspirations to have a leisure time that is not costly;

4.2 Share information about Organizations that provide integration to foreigners, Norwegian course and språkkafe.

The policy draft on the previous page, has the intention to be transparent during the hiring process. Regarding documentation and steps necessary for the newcomer to have a hassle free start in the new job and new country. It is also fundamental that the transparency continues during the accommodation, once more SIT is the model, when new students know they will study in Norway, they are entitled to apply for housing provided by the student association. It is shown on a website, with information about location, price, if it is a private room or not, shared facilities, etc. The recruitment company ideally should have such a system, either alone or in partnership with another stakeholder. Currently, workers are funneled into the barracks as the main option for employer provided housing. There should be higher standards of housing options and the workers should be given an opportunity to give their preference for the housing type they would like.

We have prepared recommended expansions of the housing options for workers that will be elaborated on later on in this report.

The living area is minimal, this barrack also has no common area or sitting area to socialize.

The space has a very small kitchen, hardly enough space to prepare food and no oven.

The following photos are from the interior of the Brundalen barracks and provide one example of the current living situation:

Figure

Private bathroom at the Brundalen barrack

Figure 6.4 - Private bathroom at the Brundalen barrack shower

Figure

- Overall room at the Brundalen barrack

Figure 6.5 Small kitchenette at the Brundalen barrack

Source:

Uropatruljen Group

UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.2 Proposed Locations

In order to find some places that could improve the living quality for migrant workers and to locate our design pillars, we design a methodology that could be used to find some eligible places. And we then come up with two potential areas, which are Utleira and Brøset.

6.2 Methodology

To choose some locations that the proposals can fit into, an analysis of available space has been done through ArcGIS Pro (Geographical Information Systems). This process was done by running through four steps, from choosing layers in GIS to

6.2.1. Factors

When deciding on locations, this was done through evaluating factors such as proximity to available infrastructure, nearby bus stops and grocery shops. In order for the area to be eligible, the housing should not be located further than 15 minutes in a walking distance from these elements. Another factor that was evaluated was how far away outdoor areas were. To comply with policy proposals that we have created, it would be preferable to have the location in close proximity to outdoor areas. We consider it very beneficial to the worker and a key factor to integration in Norway. This is because we want the workers to have the availability of friluftsliv enjoyment close by. Also considered are other cultural aspects, such as sports fields and nearby cafes/restaurants. Price is also a big consideration to make here, the fact that the price of rent is way too expensive, makes a location that is less central more relevant, due to the possibility of lower rent. Cheaper rent will also release more funds to spend on other desirable activities.

6.2.2. Layers

For analyzing Trondheims eligible locations, GIS (Geographical Information Systems) has been used to create maps that reveal these factors. As our model suggests, we used the factors from the last section to determine what the eligible spots were. Data set used was Proximity to infrastructures such as shops and bus stops (from OpenStreetMap). After that the available space was considered (buildings from Geonorge). This created a map with all the eligible areas available.

6.2.3. Area proposals

When the GIS-analysis was finished, we ended up with a few locations that were available, and could be a potential spot for our proposals. It still needed further analysis on the zoning plan (Kommuneplanens arealdel 2012-2024) to ensure the eligibility of a location. By comparing each area with current zoning plans, we chose the ones for our proposal. The reasoning for this com parison is the amount of municipality-owned land in Trondheim, and numbers of building projects on these lands. This process could, in the future, benefit from being completed by Trondheim Kommune.

Location Proposals

In this section, we present our two proposals for plots to put the buildings. As shown in the first map, there were a lot of eligible spaces to consider. In the second map, our two chosen spots are shown.

Figure 6.8 - Location map of selected land area with accaessible surrounding.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.9 - Available land in Trondheim.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.2.4. Utleira

Utleira is our first proposed location for hous ing. This area is located 12km (travel distance) south of Trondheim city centre. Considering surrounding areas, this location fits our poli cy-proposal of introduction to the Norwegian “outdoor style” living as it’s proximity to the nearby woods and forest areas of Strindmarka. Together with this, the location further facili tates activities amongst the residents due to the closeby “Utleirabanen” football pitch and “Utleirahallen sports hall.

Looking at the zoning plan from Trondheim kommune for this location, we can outline that this plot is zoned for housing and public service spaces. This can mean that a shared spaces building can be temporarily built in the area, to present a housing option for the work ers that will work on the area for the future. If a longer timespan building was to be allocated, the building could serve as an alternative for contributors to future projects in nearby areas like Sluppen and Sorgenfri. One fundamen tal aspect for this proposition is that the new buildings will be close to shops, and bus-sta tions that can bring residents to and from work efficiently, on public transport.

Land ownership and future opportunities

In the zoning plan for this area we can see that most of the land is privately owned, by different landowners. A little bit of the land is also owned by Trondheim Kommune. Even though we are not sure exactly who owns the land, we can assume it belongs to one or more of the nearby farms. Exploring the zoning plan even further, we see that around 30 apartment buildings and townhouses are planned. That makes this a large project that probably has quite a long building time. Later in our report, you will see a proposition for a layout of buildings on a part of this land, where there is not anything planned. That means that this area can be considered temporary as of now, but that all depends on whether something is due to be built on the remaining land, or whether it is due to be used as an open green area. If there are no plans for future development, this could be an opportu nity to make the housing permanent.

Figure 6.10 - Utleira Location with nearest Retail Store and Bus Stop. Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.11 - Utleira Location Map. Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.2.6. Municipality-owned land

As we mentioned in section 6.2.3, we would like Trondheim Kommune to be a part of the locating process where the municipality could benefit from decision-making on areas, or at least assist on proposed areas. We can also inquire that if the municipality owns any empty appropriate land, we can recommend them to use this space for housing for migrant-workers.

Figure 6.12- Zonning Map of Utleira Land.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Total Land Area= 78,000.00 m2 (19.27 Acres) Site Area=10,800.00 m2 (2.66 Acres).

Figure 6.13 - Utleira Land

6.2.5. Brøset

Our second proposed location is Brøset. This area is located closer to the city centre, with approximately 5,5km of travel distance. This area also has a higher density, and more diversity of bus-stops and shops than what Utleira can offer, so this location is probably more attractive to live in. On the other hand, this area is already zoned in detail, empha sizing that construction will soon be on its way, compared to Utleira. One factor to con sider is that this area is bigger in size than Utleira, so we can assume that the construc tion time will take longer. Therefore meaning that the proposed working housing could stay for longer, but still be temporary. This area does not facilitate outdoor living to the same degree that Utleira does, but focuses on other aspects of integration to Norwegian society. For example, in this area it is easier to get to the city centre, where the options for socialization are greater. Other wise, this area is close to Valentinlyst Sent er, which is a shopping mall with cafes and other services. Another example is Leangen sports park, with an ice rink and other sports facilities.

Figure 6.14 - Brøset Location with nearest Retail Store and Bus Stop. Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Plan

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Land ownership and future opportunities

The Brøset-area was recently sold from Statsbygg and Trøndelag Fylkeskommune, to Fredensborg Bolig, Heimdal Bolig, Trym Bolig and Byggteknikk Prosjekt. These com panies are real estate developers that will be responsible for construction in the area (Lynum, 2020) . The zoning for this area con tains a huge building project. In the end, this area will contain housing for roughly 4.000 persons, together with a school, kindergar tens, sports hall and a health and welfare centre (Trondheim Kommune). What this means is that the building process proba bly will last for a long time, which can mean that the buildings can be on that area for longer than where there is smaller building projects. If the buildings are allowed to stay permanently, which is unlikely, the migrant workers could also benefit from the cultural offers the new district will provide.

Zoning map – Brøset

Official zoning map from Trondheim Kommune, written in Norwegian. Different colors represent allocations for different land use purposes. Yellow represents housing, green represents nature areas and walkways, brown represents city purposes (shops and cafes), and red represents services like school, kindergarten, and health center.

Trondheim Uropatruljen

Figure 6.16 Zonning Map of Brøset Land. Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.15 - Brøset Location Map. Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.3 Design Pillars and Spatial Functionalism

6.3.1 Design Pillars

For the development of this urban ecological planning housing project, six design pillars are set out to be followed in order to have a functional, reliable and impactful long term architectural project regarding the living conditions of the workers. These design pillars were developed in regard to the opinions and comments from the stakeholders as well as the migrant workers. Furthermore, they set out an architectural example of how we want to envision the workers to live in a more comfortable and functional space according to the laws and regulations of Norway.

Pillar four: Equal Opportunities - This project seeks out to have equal housing opportunities for migrant workers where they can have a more comfortable living space with more communal space, similar to how student housing works with students deciding where they want to live depending on housing conditions. This concept emphasizes the right and transparency workers should have when deciding where to live, giving them a catalogue of offers to choose from. Furthermore, having a bigger home to do activities but also to interact with fellow living companions, in order to create a sense of community, creating equal op portunities for everyone.

Pillar One: Development of a modular building - This refers to having a housing solution which has the necessary areas to create an efficient and functional building in terms of connections between public, semi public and private spaces, for workers to feel comfortable in. In addition, being able to disassemble and assemble quickly the spaces between the migrant housing, in terms of mobility but also the inside configu ration of the living spaces, to allocate different architectural spaces if needed.

Pillar five: Ecological Housing - This project also seeks out to have an ecological impact, this will be done by implementing passive architecture but also a rain and snow collection system in order for users to have potable water. The ecological impact will mainly be emphasized with proposals that can be assembled and disassembled for them to be transported to different locations when needed. This creates an ecological impact on the environment as materials are being reutilized and recycled. Recycled wood materials as well as biodegradable paint can be utilized throughout the projects. Finally, a proposal could be added regarding the electricity consumption of the project. This can be emphasized by researching the possibility of solar panels or motion type electricity.

Pillar two: Establish a sense of community - This is important as the approach we are undertaking is having workers share communal spaces within their living conditions in order to create a community in their hous ing. This is intended for workers to have interactions with other people and do not feel segregated or alone. These spaces should have all the necessary and sufficient furniture and equipment for the sharing of space.

Pillar three: Future replicability example of housing - This project should be established as an example for future migrant housing architecturally. Likewise, this project should be innovative and meet the needs and demands of the users, this by being practical, functional and comfortable to inhabit.

Pillar six: Affordability - The project should showcase a sense of affordability in the building process as well as for its users. This pillar needs to be taken into consideration as migrant workers look for cheap housing solutions with all necessary living facilities, and the project should serve as one of the cheapest options for workers to inhabit. Furthermore, adding ecological aspects should be a solution to reducing housing costs. On the other hand, having a more comfortable living space to what they have as of now.

6.3.2 Spatial Functionalism

A functionality diagram is drawn up in order to understand the connections between spaces. This is also done in order to organize the space and understand the public, semi-public and private spaces within the housing typologies. The spaces are connected with arrows to demonstrate the relation they have between them.

A necessities program is drawn up in order to meet the following guidelines as a minimum to establish a functional, efficient and comfortable housing space for workers to live in. The spaces are divided into three colours, orange for private, blue for semi-public and green for public spaces, in order to emphasize the level of intimacy between the architectural spaces. Further more, this necessity program outlines the functions of each space as well as its necessary furniture and appliances to create a better livable space for workers from what they have as of now.

6.4 Concept Design

Based on the six design pillars, two concepts are drawn up. The first one, materialising into a shared livable space for workers to create a community. On the other hand the second concept focuses more into the private life of the worker but taking the Norwegian concept of a Hytte.

6.4.1 Shared Space - Modular, Community, Future Example & Affordability

The concept is based on centrally common shared spaces, where container dimensions are used for housing rooms. Rooms are placed separately to give users privacy, and a central common space where a kitchen, living room and facilities are placed to create a semi-public space for workers to interact with one another and create a small community between them. This con cept seeks out to be a future example when constructing shared spaces where people can live comfortably in a community. The affordability design pillar also emphasised as creating shared spaces could decrease the construction costs and therefore the rent for workers.

6.4.2 Cabins - Modular, Equality, Ecological

This concept is based on having a modular example in terms of equality of spaces through developing the idea of “living comfortably in a tiny house”. This concept will be emphasized through the construction of small cabin like rooms as Norway is characterized for their outdoor living in nature. These cabins, adapted to an urban context, are designed by taking the same amount of space of a con tainer barrack and creating a more functional, minimal istic space where it is utilized better but also keeping it comfortable for its users. Furthermore, a central common space featuring a bigger kitchen and a living room area, as well as a washing machine room will be allocated as an option for users to use.

Figure 6.21 - Concept Design Cabin 1.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.22 - Concept Design Cabin 2.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.19 - Concept Design Shared space

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.20- Concept Design Shared space 2

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.23 - Concept Design Cabin 3.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.5 Design Proposals

6.5.1 Shared Proposal 1- DESIGN OPTION- 24/7 heaven

24/7 Heaven is based on the concept of centrally common shared spaces, where modules of 13.5m2 private rooms are used for housing. Rooms are placed separately to give users privacy, and a central common space where a kitchen, living room and common facilities are placed to create a semi-public space for workers to interact with one another and create a small community among them. In addition, a mini meeting space on the first floor is provided so that workers who want to hang out in smaller groups with friends or relatives, can have their own privacy. This concept also emphasizes affordability as creating shared spaces could decrease the construction costs and therefore the rent for workers as they like to save money in order to send it back to their home country. The double height ceiling central space gives the workers a sense of openness. The idea for this derives from workers having to work under lots of pressure for long hours during the day in a tight space full of demolished materials around them and no one actually dares to care about their mental health.

User type: Multi-users

Design Pillar concern Affordability -maximum usage of utility in compact shared living. Also community and equality pillars were considered.

Construction Type: Fixed

Primary Material : Wood

Total Floors: 2

Amenities: 24 units, 12 wc, 8 showers, 12 washing machines 8 refrigerators

Figure 6.25 - Typical Section

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.24 - Ground Floor Plan.

Special facilities:

Double height common space to accom modate the functions like dining hall, living area,kitchen with adequate storage and indoor game facility for recreation at the ground floor

Private room with basin cabinet

Small meeting room in 1st floor Quality outdoor space

Estimated Cost 27,992,483 NOK

Surface Area : 1,020 m2

Living Area Per Person : 42.5

Cost Per Person 1,166,353 NOK

Payback (years) : 20

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.26 - First Floor Plan.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure

Aerial View of

Heaven.

Uropatruljen

Figure 6.28 - Common Kitchen Rendered View.

Figure

- Exterior Rendered View of 24/7 Heaven.

Source: UEP Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP Uropatruljen Group

6.5.2 Shared Proposal 2- DESIGN OPTION- Åtte Flate

The “Åtte flate” name is based on the layout of the design and the existing container barrack is used and modified from inside in order to create more efficient and functional space within the container module. This is done in the size of a twenty feet long container (Length-6.058m, Width-2.438m, Height-2.591m) which will be recycled containers and refurbished from the inside. The rooms have been designed by considering environmental aspects such as heating installation, thermal insulation, acoustic ceiling panels and double glazed windows in order to maintain a comfortable temperature inside, especially in the winter months.

Figure 6.30 - Ground Floor Plan.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

User type: Multi-Users

Design Pillar concern : Future example- as it emphasises how the same amount of space can be rearranged differently to create a more functional and comfortable space.

Ecological- The use of containers creates a lower impact on the environment. Also passive architecture techniques are used in terms of lighting.

Affordability -maximum usage of utility in compact shared living.

Construction Type: Movable

Primary Material : Recycled Container and Wood Total Floors: 2

Amenities: 16 units with attached toilet, 4 common kitchens with Common living room area, 2 Laundry rooms.

Special facilities:

A Wall-hung bed with a small couch and that will create more space in the room.

A flexible design layout to split into two separate flats on each floor.

Rooms have their own toilet and washroom.

A terrace has been provided in the common areas.

Estimated Cost 14,380,451 NOK

Surface Area 524.00 m2

Living Area Per Person 32.75 m2

Cost Per Person : 898,778 NOK

Payback (years) 14

Figure 6.31 - First Floor Plan.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

The furniture layout inside the con tainer rooms are flexible and re arranged in order to create more space; such as a wall-hung bed so that the space below can be used as a multi-purpose space. This Åtte flate scheme has the flexibility to split into two flats, having four rooms in each as well as its own kitchen and living room, this is done by adding a small partition wall in the common areas (Refer Figure no.). The kitchen, living space and laundry room are com mon and centrally designed to be easily accessible for everyone. This concept also emphasizes the de sign pillar of affordability as creating shared spaces could decrease the construction costs and therefore the rent for workers as they like to save money in order to send back to their home country.

Figure 4.24 Exterior Rendered View 1.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.5.3 Cabin Proposal 1- DESIGN OPTION- The Cozy Block

The Cozy block takes the idea of the existing container barrack and is modified from the inside in order to create a more effi cient, functional space within. This is done by raising part of the floor, 45 cm, to create a compartment underneath the kitchen to accommodate a double size bed that can be rolled out into the living room space. This idea increases the overall space of The Cozy Block so a bigger kitchen and bathroom area can be designed and this gives the user a bigger sense of space. Fur thermore, the idea of raising the floor gives the possibility to create compartments for storage through trap doors that can be placed in the kitchen floor. This proposal is developed through the idea of “living comfortably in a tiny house” as right now the configuration of the current barracks loses a lot of space for workers to use. In addition the implementation of large windows amplifies the space and allows the low winter light to access the 24.3 m2 space.

User type: Single

Design Pillar concern Future example- as it emphasises how the same amount of space

rearranged differently to create a more functional and comfortable space.

Ecological- The use of containers creates a lower impact on the environment.

Also passive architecture techniques are used in terms of lighting.

Construction Type: Movable

Primary Material Recycled Container

Total Floors:

Amenities: Big Kitchen, Bathroom, Big Bed, Small living room area.

Special facilities: Roll-out bed that can also be used as a couch.

Big window and entrance door

Uropatruljen

Figure

Rendered View

Figure 6.41 - Interior Rendered View 1.

Figure

Exterior Rendered View

UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Uropatruljen Group

6.5.4 Cabin Proposal 2- DESIGN OPTION- Hexahus

Hexahus explores the idea of creating a modular stackable solution in order to accommodate the maximum number of users in an area. This is done by creating an organic hexagonal shape for housing but that still has the necessary space for users to feel comfortable living there. Similarly this shape concept can be assembled and disassembled into different parts in order to be transported to other sites when they are required. Given its unique shape, it can be configured to create a conjunction of different buildings.

User type: Single

Design Pillar concern Modular - Having a unique shape, makes it stackable and it can be reconfigured for different purposes.

Construction Type: Movable

Primary Material Wood

Total Floors:

Amenities: Kitchen, Big Bathroom.

Special facilities:

Explores the arrangement of the spaces within the shape, unique living space.

Could be stackable to even create 3 -4 floors.

Estimated Cost 791,085 NOK

Surface Area : 26.2 m2

Living Area Per Person : 26.2

Cost Per Person 26.2 NOK

Payback (years) : 14

Figure

Source:

Source:

Figure

Source:

Figure

Figure

Uropatruljen

Figure

Figure

- Exterior Rendered View 2.

Figure

Exterior Rendered View

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.5.5 Cabin Proposal 3- DESIGN OPTION- Egghytte

Egghytte concept idea is derived from Norway’s cabin life typology. This is developed by proposing a unique shape in order to create a two floor studio to give users a bigger sense of space, as well as creating a picturesque living space for migrant workers, moreover its angled shaped roof makes it easier for snow and rain to slide off, reducing maintenance costs. This idea was developed as a way to rent to tourists or students during the periods when there is lower demand for housing for migrant workers. This is because we learned from our research that money is lost when a barrack is emptied for several months, so by having this housing concept it is also attractive for other types of users like tourists that could rent Egghytte for a period of time. This creates a standard of living conditions and equality between workers, students and tourists. Finally, this cabin can also be assembled and disassembled into different parts for transportation.

User type: Single Design Pillar concern: Equality- It can be rented out to tourists and students as well, keeping an equal opportunity statement and it increases the quality value of the house.

Affordability- For the stakeholders as it can be rented out to other users.

Construction Type: Movable

Primary Material: Wood Total Floors: 2

Amenities: Studio space, Kitchen, Bathroom, Big Bed

Special facilities:

Pull down Staircase to access second floor

Egg shape and increase height in ceiling gives user a bigger sense of space

Rounded windows to create a unique living space

Estimated Cost : 758,447 NOK

Surface Area 39.4 m2

Living Area Per Person 39.4

Cost Per Person : 758,447 NOK

Payback (years) 13

Figure 6.50 - Room Layout Plan.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.51 - Mezanine Layout Plan.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.52- Typical Room Section C-C’.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.53 - Egghytte Exterior

View 1.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Uropatruljen

Figure

- Egghytte Exterior Rendered View 2.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Figure 6.55- Egghytte Exterior Rendered View 3.

Figure 6.56- Egghytte Exterior Rendered View 4. Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.5.6 Assemblage

For the cabin proposals as well as the second shared proposal, we aim for these units to be disassembled and assembled to create a modular project. The modular aspect is very important as we are trying to establish a housing typology example that can be used across all of Norway and maybe in other parts of the world. These types of housing are also meant to be placed in remote areas of construction sites so that the workers are near to the project they are developing. These pieces will be carried in a Flatbed trailer with the following dimensions:

6.5.7 Site plan-1 - Working Hexagons

Proposed Site Location for Migrants in Utleira, Trondheim.

The Working Hexagons complex consists of both shared and cabin type of housing designed in a way to give workers the choice of selecting their own type of living place. There are two separate entrances to the site, both through surface parking facilities with green spaces surrounding them. One entrance leads to the ‘shared 24/7 heaven’ while the other one sits behind one of the Hexa Hus buildings. The site comprises two 24/7 Heaven buildings as well as 4 Hexa Hus buildings each having 18 living spaces. The site can allocate 120 users

As seen on the plan, the proposal includes three common rooms along the Hexa hus complexes that will serve as a space for social interaction for the migrant workers. These spaces will have a common sofa area, as well as a big kitchen. Two laundry zones will be placed in the last Hexa Hus block located on the ground floor next to the common areas for users to use.

Figure 6.57 - Detail of Freight Trailer.

Source:

Figure 6.58 Idea for Tranporting Module on Trailer.

Source:

As of now, the barracks are transported in ships and via trailers across Norway as they are containers and they are very movable. This method will also be used for The Cozy Block as well as the container rooms in the Åtte flate as shown in the diagram. On the other hand, the Hexahus and Egghytte can be totally disassembled into various components and this gives the possibility to transport more components in less space. These cabins will be made out of wood, so they will be assembled by intersecting the wooden panels with rods like lego.

Figure 6.59- Assemblage of Hexahus Cabin.

Source:

Figure 6.60- Assemblage of Egghytte Cabin.

Source:

Figure

- Aerial View of Working Hexagons Complex.

Source: UEP Uropatruljen Group

Future Expansion

UEP - Uropatruljen Group

The connection with a public green space creates a sense of belongingness, allowing the user/resident to experience not only the indoor space but also the outdoor.Design elements such as - soft pavements, gravels and pebbles where the outdoor sitting areas are arranged, peripheral walkways and trees in portable planters are also implemented. Favoring the interaction with other residents that will experience the same. With this approach, the residents can easily be switched between different groups, not limited to the migrant workers. Could be for long or short-term stays, for tourists, or one-day visitors, functioning as a hostel. The main idea was to provide the users with a space where they relax after getting back from a long day of work. The complex is designed in a way so that all the movable elements, except for fixed shared houses, can be shifted to another place when needed. The back part of the site was left unused for future expansion and also in thought of it can be used for setting up temporary single cabins (as proposed) later when more workers are needed to be accommodated. Some extra activities and services like Bbq space, sport facilities, designated recyclable garbage disposal space could also be proposed. This is a great way to improve Return On Investment (ROI).

Figure 6.62 - Site Plan of Working Hexagons Complex.

Figure 6.63Exterior View 1 of Working Hexagons Complex.

Table 3- Site Area Description of Working Hexahus Complex. Table 4- Ground Coverage Area Description of Working Hexahus Complex.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

UEP - Uropatruljen Group

UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.5.8 Site Plan-02 - Åtte Symmetry

Proposed Site Plan for Migrants Housing in Utleira, Trondheim. The Trondheim Kommune has a plan to develop the Utleira location for future housing and private services. We decided to choose this location by considering it would need construction workers in future. The Åtte Symmetry complex consists of both shared and cabin type of housing designed in a way to create a sense of commu nity and home feeling. There are two separate entrances to the site, both through surface parking facilities with green spaces surrounding them. One entrance is beside some “Cozy Blocks” while the other one sits beside one of the “Åtte flate” buildings and a cluster of “Cozy Blocks”. The site comprises two “Åtte flate” buildings as well as 32 “Cozy Blocks” and 14 “Egghytte”. The Cabins “The Cozy Block” and “Egghytte” housings are planned at the back to provide more privacy for single cabin units. The site can allocate 76 users.

Figure 6.66 - Aerial View of Åtte Symmetry Complex. Source: UEP Uropatruljen Group

Future Expansion

UEP - Uropatruljen Group

As seen on the plan, the proposal has a common room in the middle of the Egghytte as this will serve as a space of social interaction for the migrant workers. This space will have a common sofa area, as well as a big kitchen and the laundry area will be placed here for the users from Egghyte and The Cozy Block can use.

For this proposal the green public space is an approach, to give users the possibility to switch between different groups, not limited to the migrant workers as these designs can be rented out for long or short-term stays, for tourists, or one-day visitors, functioning as a hostel. The main idea was to provide the users with a space where they relax after getting back from a long day of work. The complex is designed in a way so that all the movable elements, except for fixed shared houses, can be shifted to another place when needed. The back part of the site was left unused for future expansion and also in thought of it can be used for setting up temporary single cabins (as proposed) later when more workers are needed to be accommodated.

Figure 6.67 Site Plan of Åtte Symmetry Complex.

Figure 6.68 - Exterior View of Åtte Symmetry Complex.

Table 5- Site Area Description of Åtte Symmetry Complex.

Table 6- Ground Coverage Description of Åtte Symmetry Complex.

Source: UEP Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

6.6 Design Proposal Comparison

For the design proposals, some charts were developed in order to compare them side by side in terms of their advantages and disadvantages we found for each. Additionally, data such as living area per person as well as a rough estimate cost for building each proposal was analyzed.

In the first chart (Table 7), the proposals are placed side by side and you can see that 24/7 Heaven is the biggest architectural space with a surface area of 1,020 sqm, this is because it can accommodate the most people, 24 users. On the other hand, the cozy block represents the same size container where the workers live as of now, with a surface area of 24.3 sqm. In Table 7, this point is emphasized even further by how the proposals increase and provide the workers with a higher living area per person.

With Hexa Hus and Egghytte having 26.2 and 39.4 sqm respectively, while 24/7 Heaven provides the highest at 42.5 sqm per user.

Table 7- Table of Design Proposal Comparison.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

As stated above, a rough estimate cost was developed in order to find out how much the proposals would cost to be built here in Norway. The estimated costs were developed by a student taking their knowledge of material, labour and equipment costs from their country, in this case Mexico, and then multiplying it by a standard of living factor and converting it to Norwegian Krone to get the cost. For this exercise the proposal with the highest cost to build came out to be 24/7 Heaven unsurprisingly, as it has the biggest surface area, as seen in Table 8. While Atte Flate halved the price with a rough estimated cost of 14,380,451 NOK. Furthermore, the cabins all fall below the 1 million NOK cost with The Cozy Block having the lowest cost as seen in Table 8. This is because the idea is to get a recycled container and refurbish it from the inside.

7 Conclusion

Table 8- Table of Payback Years and Estimated Cost Comparison.

Source: UEP - Uropatruljen Group

7. 1 Reflection on methods, reflect on each individual methods

The questionnaire was at first a ‘leap in the dark’, the project began with a challenge and this was that we didn’t get a transect walk to get to know our site. The project started when the first pandemic restrictions were about to be lifted; however, the field introduction to our project was postponed, due to the risk of COVID19 transmission. The first contact with the subject of our project was through a presentation of a study which talked about the housing situation for transitional migrants. After this first contact, the group was able to get the address of the site and were able to walk around the area, doing informal research. While investigating about the site and project, it was still not clear what was the exact place for the project to be developed, so the research got extended to the rest of the city and similar sites were found. The group was divided, some focusing on research of the areas physically and digitally, while others looked for ways to connect with the workers. Establishing a connection with the workers brought more challenges to the table: The language barrier, defining the focus group, the relevance of questions, and the short time the group had to gather information.

At the beginning of the project, the group had almost no data and had no sense of direction of how to collect more. The group felt a need for urgently obtaining information, so, with the information available, a questionnaire was made, trans lated, and distributed on social media. With the objective to understand what the purpose of the Uropatruljen project was. When the results were analyzed, discussed, and compared with the field visits, it showed incoherence, therefore, the team supposed that the respondents of the questionnaire could not be the group the project should be focusing on, as not all the questions and answers could be used to analyze the situation.

Consequently a one-on-one strategy appeared to be a good solution, some new questions were included and others re moved. The idea of having the questionnaire complemented by an informal talk gave the group a possibility to gather more information about the topic, but the language barrier was too large, and the workers living in the barracks were hard to approach as the team could not explain the purpose of their presence at the barrack site. This assigned project was differ ent from our peers’, it was complex to define a priority on the methods and agree where to commit. Time was a key factor as this reduced the amount of information gathered. It was not clear the relevance of the workers’ stake in the proposal development, as well as the role of the other stakeholders.

7.2 Reflection on problems encountered

Throughout the research involving housing for migrant workers, we encountered many different problems, not only from the different interviews that we were able to manage to get from the different stakeholders but also trying to understand how the workers actually lived. Two major problems arose that made our research difficult to encapsulate in terms of ac quiring basic information about the workers; these consisted in a language barrier and the idea of temporality.

Language played a major part in our field research as it was difficult acquiring the right information from our main stakeholders that were the migrant workers themselves. This proved difficult as not many spoke Norwe gian or even English as we later found out that this was not a requirement when travelling to work here. Many migrant workers spoke their native Eastern European language and basic English. We were able to talk and interview a total of 7 migrant workers that gave us valuable information but also shared personal stories of their journeys to Norway and where they used to work before and how life was before arriving in Trondheim.

The topic of temporal living also played a major problem in our field research as the migrant workers at first when approached to ask different questions believed that their living conditions were “fine” as their term here in Norway was only temporary so they did not mind the living conditions of their rooms. But as we started talking to them and gaining their trust, they started opening up and giving critiques about how they really felt when living in the barracks and rigs. We were able to gather knowledge about how migrant workers think that work and living here is temporary but in reality many have stayed here for years and in their mind their ideas do not change regarding this topic. For this reason they were not very helpful when asked about what they would change about the barracks and rooms they were living in. Also what they thought about them in the sense of design, in order for us to come up with design strategies in order to improve their living conditions.

7.3 Reflection on strategic interventions

The major problems encountered in deciding locations to put our designs, was finding spaces that could be emphasized by our policy proposals. Originally our thought was to locate the buildings in places without any future plans. This however turned out to be difficult due to the land in Trondheim that is already zoned for future use. We looked at a few different locations, where we were not able to meet the requirements of our policy, or other demands, such as noise (too close to a main road). That meant we had to think of a different approach, which led us to utilize the necessity of construction workers in large urban development projects. This decision made the selection more narrow, but still difficult, as new questions emerged. How far away from the city centre can we locate them, and for how long do they have to stay? The decisions fell on our two chosen locations due to the feeling of how much the location would comply with policy proposals, and proximity to other building projects, together with evaluation of possible time-span for utilization of that ground.

The research on housing for migrant workers is a unique project in terms of it’s requirement as it’s not the same as others. Here, only changing policies or developping planning proposals were not adequate enough based on the data we collected from interviewing workers. Ultimately the workers required a better living condition along with policy changing proposals. In order to improve the living conditions it was the responsi bility for the team ‘Uropatroljen’ to come up with some strategic interventions in the design sector.

While we first started analyzing the needs of users and incorporated into a built environment a few ideas came from the designer group. Every proposal had its own attribute, but also each had its advantages and disadvan tages. Based on that we mixed up buildings into two site plans that we selected through data analysis via GIS mapping.

Throughout the design process, we considered that affordability was highly important as this topic was dis cussed among workers in terms of how much they paid to live in the barracks. Therefore, our design process evolved through the course according to the design pillars, emphasizing affordability the most. In our share space proposal the main focus was to give equal private spaces to all users while having a shared common space where workers who like to socialize could interact with each other. Also after getting feedback from the ARK 5 students we made some corrections in our Fixed-shared building ‘24/7 heaven’ like introducing a mini-meeting room for workers who would like to interact within smaller groups or need privacy for small talk. Furthermore, we received good responses from the AEK 5 students on the “Åtte flate” housing design as they thought this idea felt more like a home with appropriate privacy and with efficient shared spaces concerning kitchen and living areas. On the Åtte Symmetry Site-Plan, we choose to design a mix of housing options with Åtte flate, The Cozy Block, and Egghytte with equal opportunity to live in this community for migrant workers. The weather conditions in Norway made an impact in our terrace and staircase designs as these could not be outdoors. In our proposal we also kept the fire safety in mind by giving maximum fire distance between stairs. The proposals were not regular residential buildings, as we had to consider providing special facilities like - placing a closet in the foyer near the entrance so that workers can leave their shoes and clothes (used during construction and during winter) before entering the main activity area. Additionally, accommodating enough storage/lockers in the common space, dividing the kitchen counter into two different spaces and giving enough space within the common areas so that the users can work and feel free while using the facilities.

The private rooms have a bed, study table, basin cabinet, storage space, and a fixed closet. 24/7 Heaven was de signed in a way to give the workers a sense of breathing space. For instance, the circular double height area in the centre and round balcony following that area in the first floor overlooking the common space gives the user a sense of living in grand space. The proposals were designed in order to be rented to tourists during off-season, so efficient and functional spaces were created to elevate the standard of living. During the process of designing ‘The Working Hexagons’ we incorporated shared and cabin proposals in one complex. After placing both of the fixed-shared housings ‘24/7 heaven’ and ‘hexahus’ cabins in the site plan we realised there should be an empty allocated space for future expansion. This was also done for the ‘Åtte Symmetry’. We decided to give that empty space for future development via a group discussion we had.

Furthermore, the group faced challenges regarding choosing materials for our designed buildings and perspec tives. After intense debates and discussions we were able to come up with solutions by providing ‘movable or reusable’ housing including - movable outdoor benches, flora, recyclable hard and soft pavements, and building surface materials. As we mentioned above, it is a unique project as it’s based on policy and regulations as well as housing planning and research. We had difficulty while designing the proposals due to the demand for both; separate private rooms and shared room spaces by the migrant worker’s comments received during our fieldwork study. During our workshop, it was a great opportunity to learn about their basic needs and demands in terms of housing in order to improve their living conditions in search of a home in another country. It was challenging for us to choose the right direction for housing for a migrant worker but our design pillars, such as establishing equality, and a sense of community helped and guide us to design, functional, affordable and comfortable housing options for them.

7.4 Future Study

This report only touches the surface of a complex and wide topic regarding migrant workers not only here in Trondheim and Norway but across the world as this topic is often disregarded and put under the rug, especially when talking about the living conditions agencies and governments give to the migrant working population.

These findings allowed us only to get a glimpse of a better understanding on how the topic of housing for migrant workers is dealt with here in Trondheim and we developed ideas in order to satisfy the necessities and demands for improving the living conditions for them. This research emphasizes different topics such as identity, inequality and a lack in the sense of belonging. Therefore, the ideologies of the migrant workers and their perspectives per ceive their lives here as “ok” and nothing more, hoping to only stay here before returning home and being reunited with their families.

Further studies can be explored as this topic is very extensive and each focused group of migrant workers have their own opinions, needs and demands, regarding their background and experience in the field. There are several unanswered questions regarding stakeholders as well as policies and regulations, and other participatory methods could be introduced to collect more data. Finally, and most importantly, this project can be used in collabo ration with the stakeholders identified to develop a physical outcome regarding migrant housing and regulations which would lead to in-field changes.

References and Bibliography

Arbeidstilsynet. (n.d.). Arbeidstilsynet: Accommodation of workers. Arbeidstilsynet.no., https:// www.arbeidstilsynet.no/tema/innkvartering-av-arbeidstakere/#Kravtilordin%C3%A6rinnkvartering, [Online], Accessed on 09.09.2021.

Arbeidtilsynet (n.d.), The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/ en/, [Online], Accessed on 11.09.2021.

Caritas Norge. (n.d.). Om Caritas Norge. Caritas Norge, https://www.caritas.no/om-caritas-norge/, [Online], Accessed on 04.09.2021.

Caritas Trondheim (nd),Natasza Bogacz, Caritas Trondheim – Compasion, https://caritastrondheim. no/, Accessed on 12.05.2021.

Byggebransjens uropratulje. (2021). Om oss. Byggebransjens Uropatrulje, https://uropatruljen.no/ om-oss/, [Online], Accessed on 05.09.2021.

Dagens Næringsliv. (2017). Færre unge velger byggebransjen. Dn.no.,https://www.dn.no/bygg-oganlegg/byggebransjen/farre-unge-velger-byggebransjen/2-1-31106, [Online], Accessed on 10.09.2021.

Haugen, M. O. (2019). Trøndelag i Store norske leksikon. Store Norske Leksikon. https://snl.no/, [Online], Accessed on 10.09.2021.

Jobzone. (n.d.). Jobzone - Rekruttering og bemanning. Jobzone.no. https://jobzone.no/en/, [Online], Accessed on 11.09.2021.

Johansen, M., (nd), HENT ER En Prosjektutvikler Og Entreprenør MED Nordisk Nedslagsfelt: HENT AS, https://www.hent.no/, Accessed on 13.09.2021.

Kajka, A. (2014). Mieszkają w barakach – pracodawca nazywa je „domem”. MojaNorwegia, https:// www.mojanorwegia.pl/polacy-w-norwegii/mieszkaja-w-barakach-pracodawca-nazywa-je-domem-7261. html, [Online], Accessed on 15.09.2021.

Lynum, S. (2020). Nå er det klart hvem som skal bygge ut ny bydel. Adressa. https://www.adres sa.no/pluss/okonomi/2020/01/08/Nå-er-det-klart-hvem-som-skal-bygge-ut-ny-bydel-20777585. ece?rs2241621638792967326&t=1, [Online], Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Lo Norge, (nd), LO På Din Side: Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, https://www.lo.no/, Accessed on 12.09.2021.

NV (nd), Nye Veier: Nye Veier AS, https://www.nyeveier.no/en/, Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Project Management Institute (PMI®). (1996). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Ødegård, A., & Andersen, R. (2021). Working and living conditions among resident migrants from Poland and Lithuania Faforeport. In Fafo., https://www.fafo.no/zoo-publikasjoner/fafo-rapporter/item/ working-and-living-conditions-among-resident-migrants-from-poland-and-lithuania, [Online] Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Øien, C., & Sønsterudbråten, S. (2011). No way in, no way out? A study of living conditions of irregu lar migrants in Norway. In Fafo., https://www.fafo.no/media/com_netsukii/20194.pdf, [Online] Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Regjeringen.no. (2007). The Tenancy Act. Government.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokument er/the-tenancy-act/id270390/, [online] Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Rishi, G. (2021) Between housing and home: Housing experiences of transmigrant labour work ers in Trondheim: A narrative enquiry. Master’s thesis in Urban Ecological Planning, Norges Tekni sk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheim, Norway.

Roden, R., (2020), Hope for Justice OFFERS Anti-Slavery Advice to NORWEGIAN Government: Hope for Justice” Hope for Justice | Change Lives. End Slavery, https://hopeforjustice.org/news/2020/03/ hope-for-justice-offers-anti-slavery-advice-to-norwegian-government/, Accessed on 14.09.2021.

RVO (nd), Regionale Verneombud (RVO).” RVO, https://rvofond.no/, Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Startpage, (nd), Fellesforbundet, https://www.fellesforbundet.no/en/, Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Standar Kart, Trondheim Kommune (2021), https://kart5.nois.no/trondheim/Content/Main.aspx?lay out=trondheim&time=637744032009384278&vwr=asv, Accessed on15.11.2021.

SUA (Servicesenter for Utenlandske Arbeidstakere) (n.d.). Hva er Servicesenter for utenlandske arbe idstakere? SUA, https://www.sua.no/om-sua/, Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Slettebak, M. H. (2020). Labour Migration and Increasing Inequality in Norway. Acta Sociologica, 64(3), 314–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699320930261, [Online], Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Statistics Norway, S. sentralbyrå. (n.d.). Immigrants by reason for immigration. SSB., https://www.ssb. no/en/statbank/table/07113/, [Online], Accessed on 19.09.2021.

Statistics Norway, S. sentralbyrå. (2021). Municipal Facts Trondheim. SSB. https://www.ssb.no/kom

munefakta/trondheim, [Online], Accessed on 13.09.2021.

TOBB, B. (n.d.). Brundalen Borettslag. Tobb.no. Retrieved September 2021, from https://tobb.no/ boligselskap/brundalen-borettslag, [Online], Accessed on 12.09.2021.

Trøndelag brann- og redningstjeneste iks. (n.d.). Trøndelag brann- og redningstjeneste - TBRT.no. Tbrt. no., https://tbrt.no/, [Online], Accessed on 18.09.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (n.d.-a). Brøset - En grønn by. Områdeplan for Brøset; Trondheim Kom mune, https://www.trondheim.kommune.no/globalassets/10-bilder-og-filer/10-byutvikling/byplankontoret/ temaplaner/omradeplan-for-broset/endelig-versjon-broset-flyer-cs6.pdf, [Online], Accessed on 02.12.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (n.d.-b). Standard Kart, Trondheim Kommune [Map]. Trondheim Kommune, https://kart5.nois.no/trondheim/Content/Main.aspx?layout=trondheim&time=637746608284079176&vwr= asv, [Online], Accessed on 12.10.2021.

Trondheim Kommune (n.d.-c), Byggesak, Trondheim Kommune, https://www.trondheim.kommune. no/bygging/, Accessed on 09.09.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2012a). Trondheim Kommune: Kommuneplanens Arealdel 2012-2024. Trondheim Kommune: Kommuneplanens Arealdel. https://kart5.nois.no/trondheim/Content/Main.aspx?layout=trond heim&map=kommuneplanensarealdel2012-2024&mode=plandialog&time=637732705120698158&vwr=asv, [Online], Accessed on 12.10.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2012b). Detaljregulering Brøset (Zoning plan Brøset). Trondheim Kom mune., https://www.trondheim.kommune.no/globalassets/10-bilder-og-filer/10-byutvikling/byplankontoret/ temaplaner/omradeplan-for-broset/vedlegg-2a---plankart-sist-endret-04.04.13---del-1---r20100026-040413. pdf, [Online], Accessed on 12.10.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2017a). Detaljregulering av Granåsen gård, østre del, gnr/bnr 49/1 m.fl. detalj regulering Planbeskrivelse til sluttbehandling. Trondheim Kommune; Trondheim Kommune, Byplankontoret. https://www.trondheim.kommune.no/globalassets/10-bilder-og-filer/10-byutvikling/byplankontoret/1c_ved tatt-plan/2017/granasen-gard-ostre-del-gnrbnr-491-1661-m.fl_r20130067/planbeskrivelse_r20130067.pdf, [Online], Accessed on 12.10.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2017b). Leistadvegen 1, detaljregulering, Planbeskrivelse. Trondheim Kommune; Trondheim Kommune, Byplankontoret. https://www.trondheim.kommune.no/globalas sets/10-bilder-og-filer/10-byutvikling/byplankontoret/1c_vedtatt-plan/2018/leistadveien-1_r20140036/plan beksrivelse-r20140036.pdf, [Online], Accessed on 12.10.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2017c). Trondheim Kommune: Detaljregulering av Vestre Utleira (Zoning

plan). Detaljregulering Av Vestre Utleira, Gnr/Bnr 85/3, 90/186 M.fl., Offentlig Ettersyn - PDF Free Download. https://docplayer.me/65268140-Detaljregulering-av-vestre-utleira-gnr-bnr-85-3-90-186-m-fl-offentlig-etter syn.html, [Online], Accessed on 10.10.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2018a). Trondheim kommune: Levekår og folkehelse 2021: Personinntekt. Levekår Og Folkehelse I Trondheim Kommune 2021. https://sites.google.com/trondheim.kommune.no/ levekar-og-folkehelse/inntekt/personinntekt, [Online], Accessed on 10.11.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2018b). Trondheim Kommune: Living conditions and public health: ‎Immi grant population‎. Levekår Og Folkehelse I Trondheim Kommune 2021. https://sites.google.com/trondheim. kommune.no/levekar-og-folkehelse/befolkningssammensetning/innvandrebefolkningen, [Online], Accessed on 12.11.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2018c). Trondheim Kommune: Living conditions and public health: Cramped living (2018). Levekår Og Folkehelse I Trondheim Kommune 2021. https://sites.google.com/trondheim.kom mune.no/levekar-og-folkehelse/bolig/trangboddhet, [Online], Accessed on 12.11.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2018d). Trondheim Kommune: Living conditions and public health: Housing prices (2018-2019). Levekår Og Folkehelse I Trondheim Kommune 2021, https://sites.google.com/trondheim. kommune.no/levekar-og-folkehelse/bolig/boligpriser, [Online], Accessed on 12.11.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2021a). Population forecasts. Trondheim Kommune. https://www.trondheim. kommune.no/aktuelt/om-kommunen/statistikk/prognoser/, [Online], Accessed on 10.11.2021.

Trondheim Kommune. (2021b). Samlet befolkning og antall med utenlandsk landbakgrunn* etter verdensregion og bakgrunnsland pr 1. https://www.trondheim.kommune.no/globalassets/10-bilder-og-fil er/10-byutvikling/byplankontoret/statistikk/folkemengde-bakgrunnsland/personer-med-utenlandsk-landbakgrunn-etter-bakgrunnsland-2010-2021.pdf, [Online], Accessed on 10.10.2021.

Trondheimsregionen. (2019). Commuter statistics - Trondheimsregionen. Trondheimsregionen, https://trondheimsregionen.no/statistikk-og-prognoser/transport/pendlerstatistikk/, [Online], Accessed on 12.11.2021.

UDI, T. N. D. of I. (2019). UDI 2011-037 Residence on an independent basis for EEA nationals. Udire gelverk.no, https://www.udiregelverk.no/en/documents/udi-guidelines/udi-2011-037/, [Online], Accessed on 18.10.2021.