architecture as intervention in economic and political power
TRANSCRIPT
ARCHITECTURE AS
INTERVENTION IN POLITICAL
AND ECONOMIC POWER
Fernando
Murillo
University of
Buenos
Aires
N.Y. March
6th 2017
ARCHITECTURE VS HOUSING?
Architecture:Art and Science
reflecting the
highest values of
a Culture
Housing:Response to critical
habitat social needs
according to
minimum standards
Political and
Economic Power
I. Approaches
evolution
II. Participatory
design?
III.A way
forward!
Agenda
I. APPROACH EVOLUTION
Periods. Approaches and tools
1900-1950. I-II WW Classic-
Philantropy
Cheap houses for urban workers.
Industrial firms helping their workers
1950-1970. Post-war.
Human rights. Modernism
Industrialized massive complexes.
Land use and densities zonning .
1970- middle 80.
Hábitat I 1976. Oil crisis
Critics of modernism
Site & services, self-build suburban
areas to settle evicted people.
Bioclimatic architecture
Middle 1980-2000.
Environmental crisis Hábitat
II 1996. Sustainable
development
Smaller housing complexes (up 3
stories) , land regularisation,
environmental impact assessmens.
2000-2016. Climate change
and migration. Hábitat III
2016. The right to the city
Renewal housing complex. Mix
densities, land uses. Slum upgrading.
Disaster risk reduction
CLASSIC PHILANTROPY. 1900-1950.
BUTTELER NEIGHBORHOOD. PARQUE
CHACABUCO. 64 HOUSING UNITS
(1907). BUENOS AIRES
Modern architecture: Plan Voisin (1925). Paris
CRITICS OF MODERNISM: HÁBITAT I. (1976) JANE
JACOBS. OIL CRISIS.
PRUIT-IGGOE (1972)
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: BIO-
CLIMATIC ARCHITECTURE.
The enabling approach: People, markets and social housing
Sustainable development vs. Globalization
Best practices promoting new search for affordable housing
HABITAT II (1996) “SHELTER FOR ALL”
Singapur sustainable housing
BIJLMERMEER REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT. AMSTERDAM.
NETHERLANDS OMA, 2000
THE RIGHT TO THE CITY. HÁBITAT III
CITY-WIDE SLUM UPGRADING
PROGRAM (MEDELLIN, 2010)
HOUSING APPROACH
IQUIQUE. CHILE
(ELEMENTAL. A. ARAVENA)
Challenges ahead
1. Slum upgrading promotes
gentrification
2. Housing continue being
unaffordable for the most
vulnerable
3. Self-help housing continue
being the only option
4. Low density without services
leads to city sprawl
5. Massive high densities
creates social allienation
6. Job creation continue being
disconnected from plans.
Can participatory
planning make a
difference?
II. Participatory design?
Social
Economic
Environmental
Cultural
Location in the urban fabric
Need for jobs and better income
Socio-territorial segregation
High vulnerability to
disaster of slum
dwellers
Low self steem and
identity loss in
public housing
“Compass”. Community self-organization to define priorities for public works and regulationswith a human rights approach
“Migraplan” impredictablemigration corridors expandingcities and informal settlements
“Participlan”: Pactbetween neighboursand municipalities to implement projects
Design by Research
80 80
80
80
60
60
60
60
40 40
40
20
20
20
20
Diagnosis
Action plan
Human rights
RegulationsWorks and publicservices
40
The«Compass»
Community organization
0
5
10
15
20
25Derechos
Obra
Org. Social
Regulaciones
1) Suelo y vivienda
2) Infraestructura
3) Equipamientos
4) Accesibilidad
5) Sustentabilidad
Soldati: Barrio DormitorioZagala: Barrio concentrador de pobres
Varela: Asociación público-privado (Iglesia) San Carlos: Banco de tierra y auto-gestión
Participation challeng public policies
Suacha, Colombia
City-wide slum upgrading in Kigali (Rwanda)
REFUGEE RE-HOUSING
PLAN IN GAZA STRIP
Architecture is a powerful toolto build communityempowerment and identity
Participatory design is a way to find community based solutionsto housing challenges
Implementing participatoryarchitecture in concrete projects is a way to challengetop-down urban planning
Overcoming individual solutionsfor community and city -wideapproaches is a feasible way to achieve the right to the city.
The right to the city goesbeyond to ensure all peoplespeak up to decide on thehabitat and city where theywant to live .
III. A WAY FORWARD!