Emergency accommodation Paths to reception and hospitality

Francesca Santaniello

Politecnico di Milano,Department of Architecture and Planning

fsantaniello@irsonline.it

The story

Fondazione Cariplo: important grantmaker in Italy [Lombardy]supports housing intervention from the fist half of 90s though:

• no profit sector: accomodation for low income people [socalled ‘second reception’]

• promotion of a ‘social real estate fund’: housing - low rents [socalled ‘third reception’]

[datas about homelessness in Lombardy] in 2006 Fondazione Cariplo:

• Identifies a new target: homeless people in urgent need • Giving a new interpretation of old response: hostel

Promotes an experimental projectIn 2 territories: Milan [+Varese] and Bergamo

[support: Architecture and Planning Department of Politecnico di Milano]

Aims

1.• ‘concentration’ [shelters, dormitories..] = no effectiveness: • micro-facilities [local roots/specificity]

2.

• focus on individual projects, support to autonomy • [area based social and individual networks]

3.• [but?] in a perspective of temporary night accomodation • [‘ready response’ for urgent needs]

4.

• ‘light’ management models • [reducing costs through local communities involvment]

5.

• re-insertion paths based on local networks of services • [social, health, employment, housing…] + local communities

Main features

1.Context as a variableOne ‘model’ but different projects: characteristics change!

2.Experimental approachThe project is not meant as a ‘sure response’ but a possibility to be

verify in its impacts and effectiveness

3. Project as a processProjects can construct products but above all processes: what is the

outcome in term of ideas, networks, other projects triggered [interests by other operators/partners to construct other possibilities…]

Resoureces

1. MaterialUnused buildings owned by different actors [Curia, Charities, Foundations…]

that can be given for a period [no rent]

2. FinanciaryFondazione CariploFunding to restore buildings and fornitures [promote flexible spaces/flexible

uses]Funding for management start up for 1 year [self-sustainability oriented]

3. Capacities and competenciesLocal organizations NGOs, Charities, Parishes – madiated by Caritas and local

networks in Social Plans define projects [social profile of beneficiaries, objectives, strategies of intervention…]

4. Technical and creativePolitecnicoExperts/workgroup concentrated on the construction of specific, quality oriented

and innovative solutions

5. Relational [in perspective] Local network involved to support projects and reinsertion paths

2 contexts/2 modelsElements [from context analysis] for ‘models’ porposed

MilanContext• Weak [not existent] public policies in fight against homelessness• Organizations: closed and limited networks• High percentage of big structures [shelters and dormitories]• Reinsertion paths not planned or difficoult to be planned or implemented

Model• Immediate response to the ‘urgent need’• No ‘filters’ [no intermediaries]• Neighbourhood basis• Activation of local communities [volountaries] in social support

2 contexts/2 modelsElements [from context analysis] for ‘models’ porposed

BergamoContext• Strong network public/private partnership• Cooperation [even if very weak] between social policies and urban policies • Trend: little structures [collective housing]• Reinsertion paths: outcome of public/private partnership and cooperation between

organizations [‘system’]

Model• Integration of existing ‘reception system’ [improving of the ‘system’]• Filter [intermediaries: other organizations of local ‘system’]• Professional approach to social support

Projects and territories

1. Analysis and strategiesPolitecnico supports the process [2006/2007]: 2 work groups to define project for spaces and fornitures + facilities and management model

2. Involvment of organizations [with different backgrounds and experiences!]

14 buildings identified [relationships with owners: Curia, Fondazione Misericordia Maggiore]

> 14 groups involved in construction of stretegies [filter: Caritas, Social Area Plan l.328/00]

3. ‘Enabler’ position [Fondazione Cariplo]Very temporary + very light management

4. Construction of solutionsIn action: rise of problems • for buildings: physical and legal constrains • for facilities: adjustments [social profile, organizational models, specific

strategies…]

5. OutcomesSelection of buildings/organizations > reduct ‘social impact’ But Fondazione Cariplo has a role of promoter for a new model of

intervention!

Different projects for different contextsfour examples [not all of them will be implemented, but will found new funding]

1. Bovisasca, MilanoPresentParish > group of volountariesDeveloped experience in social reception [little shelter for homeless people]Weak relationship with public policies and other organizations

ProjectSocial profile not defined [all those who are in need]Positive reaction to temporary solutions [asked for the strong demand]No physical, legal constrains on building

Different projects for different contextsfour examples [not all of them will be implemented, but will found new funding]

2. Caronno Pertusella [Varese]PresentParish > social cooperativeMore structured experience in social receptionWeak relationship with Municilaity, strong with public policies and other

organizations

ProjectSocial profiole strongly defined [refugees]Quite positive reaction to temporary solutions [already developed more long term

ones]High physical and legal constrains on buildings [700s]

Different projects for different contextsfour examples [not all of them will be implemented, but will found new funding]

3. BergamoPresentHistorical reception facility, long experience [but also innovation] Network linked to Local Social Plan [public/private coordination] + volountary

sectorOrientation to social support to authonomy

ProjectSocial profile not defined Negative reaction to temporary solutions [do not allow reinsertion paths]Physical constrains on building [other flats]

Different projects for different contextsfour examples [not all of them will be implemented, but will found new funding]

4. Sesto San Giovanni [Milano]PresentParish > no organizationNo experience in social receptionWeak relationship with public policies and other organizations

ProjectSocial profiole strongly defined [women who attend elders]No reaction to temporary solutions [weak experience]Process limits in planning of physical intervention

Conditions for success [‘system’ perspective]

1. Networks already working in an integrate perspective > if not?

2. Availability of affordable solutions [more stable and adecuate] > if not?

3. Length of stay: short if meant in a wider system of responses [period to understand the problem and set solutions] > if not?

Conditions for success [project perspective]

1. Other functions can help local community to develop a ‘relationship’ with new facilities and contribute to financial sustainability > how?

2. NGOs and local communities able to promote positive path develop of capacities and competences > how?

Complementary functions [day/night]

Parallel functions [day/night]