Participation experiences

Participation experiences Commentary on the UNESCO prize 1984

Enrique Ortecho, S. Sabagh de Pipa and Maria Cristina Bosio de Ortecho

This article describes the experiences of a participation project for cheap housing in Argentina. The methods used to stimulate participation, the role of the architect in this process, and the results of the Assessment Area of the Experimental Centre for Cheap Housing (AVE) project are outlined. AVE staff acted as the teaching team of the group of students of architecture that won the UNESCO prize 1984. Keywords: Urban planning; participation; Argentina

Community

Other AVE teachers were Silvia Grifone de Martinez, Marta Mendiz&bal de Berretta and Anibal Uboldi. The authors may be contacted at Asociacion de Wvienda Economica, lgualdad 3585 Villa Siburu, Estafeta 14, 5000 Cordoba, Argentina.

is not an end in itself but a means for the exercising of rights and duties; for claiming them if they are not yet won; for beginning to exercise them if they have already been obtained; or for strengthening and developing them if they are already a part of LIS. From II political viewpoint. participating is contributing to and drawing from a permanent exchange with the other ingredients of a whole that belongs to us and transcends us. When participation is transferred to the subject of dwellings. it must respond essentially to these principles. This is even more the case when dealing with disadvantaged social sectors whose deficiencies and needs are the result of particular political and economic systems. With this approach we soon come to an apparent dead-end with regard to the subject of housing. How is it possible to develop participatory attitudes from marginal groups in a society in which housing is probably the firmest consumer and individual status symbol? Our work is an attempt to reach a majority sector of Latin America the rural settlers who are either still in the country or already in the city. These huge destitute masses claim their rights to dwell in the city: their aim is to remain there and with that sole fact - that of remaining. of being present - they arc a part of the whole. Participating

Role of the architect Planners and arhitects have the difficult task of accepting that they are faced with :I user suffering from ;I cultural shock, resulting from the collision between his vital rural experience and his anxiety to become an urban dweller. What is more, as his economic circumstances are precarious, when he attempts to solve his housing problem he comes up against the rigidity of the formal financial system which. on the one hand. prevents him from incorporating unconventional resources and. on the other, does not legalize the dwelling he builds himself because it does not comply with legal requircmcnts.

580

0264.2751/84/060580-05$03.00

Q-)1984 Butterworth

& Co (Publishers)

Ltd

Purticipation experiences:

The UNESCO prize 1984

But what is hardest to accept is that there also exist sectors of extreme poverty, in which lodgings are reduced to denaturalized and inhuman levels, because in the framework of survival there are other priorities work, health, education etc. In these cases it is just not enough to make production systems or sets of requirements more flexible; instead, it is necessary to implement integral rehabilitation operations. Within this context, it is essential to dismiss professional academic patterns of analysis, to surpass the strictly technical questions and to place the resources needed for solving the problem -which at present is more serious than the decision makers can cope with - at the disposal of not only the users but also all those levels involved in the problem, from politicians through to public officials and technicians. Solely because professionals have not borne sufficiently in mind the fact that popular housing is embedded in a social class whose prior needs and way of life are far removed from the social sector that defines, implements and gives material shape to levels of consumption, serious mistakes have been made leading to the waste of scarce public funds, and in some cases private ones (foundations, charity institutions, etc). Thus those design and construction solutions which have been attempted are not only far from satisfying real needs, but have also caused unsuspected disturbances in individuals and communities. Participating, as noted above, is not only about taking part in an event, but also the give and take of the user should allow him to both generate an autonomous process towards improved standards of living that satisfy basic needs and to interpret his own sets of values. In order to obtain this, we ought to demystify our professional knowledge, which gives us power; we should not analyse but synthesize and simplify for others the comprehension of facts, eg the question of dwelling, through breaking down into simple and essential parts the complex question of human activities in space.

General aspects of a participation The bases that guide the particpation 0 0 0

method

method

are:

awareness of technicians and users (or conceptualization of a reality); identification of needs and assignment of priorities (placement of problems of which housing may not be the greatest); the approach to the housing problem (placement of the theme as a priority).

Once these part in an becomes a becoming community assumptions

stages are over - stages in which technicians and users take open and complementary dialogue - the subject of housing problem to be taken on; otherwise the risk is run of housing more of a need for the technician to fulfil than for the which did not even take part in making the definition of and about its demands.

Awareness of technicians and users This stage requires initial efforts by the technicians to apprehend the users’ reality. The latter become aware of their own situation (political, social, financial, cultural) with the analysing elements and organization provided by the technicians who work on the users’ motivations, expectations, needs and resources. Thus the user becomes the subject of

CITIES November

1984

581

I’rirrrc~rptrrroll (‘r,‘L”‘,“Iw:

T/11,C:.YESC’o [“-ix

I’AW

a process become

instead aware

Irlet~t~fi’t~ritiot~

This stage

of being an object

of ;I reality of nrrrl.v

begins

to G

of study.

technicians

and users

oj’ priorities

rrtirl ussigtltwtit

to users’ much ;IS the potential user defines his set of priorities and acknowledges the nectl to organize himself in confronting problems. becoming aware not onI> of his individual state. hut :IISO of the presence of ;I social consciousness. decisions

In

and technicians’

this.

housing

following

steps

technician physical

or

obtain

dwelling

and

This

reality

should -

- asystematic (demogt-aphic this

aim

of this

and

those

the

perhaps

learn human

real

the

been the main

of (a) direct customs.

spatial etc).

information

or

(sociolevels).

education.

of organization

the utmost

etc).

already

In

or the

achicvcd

participation.

of basic dwelling needs which

and

a communications

the

former

:I

new

stages of this

needs,

stereotypes.

of knowledge

discovering Some

their

etc. without

;I package

integral,

code between

can express

resources.

and committed.

about role

process

the

that

is

can be

;IS follows:

choice of plot

size (should

dear and the user 0

levels for

to incorporate

is more

more

outlined 0

latter

which

The

problem,

organizational

incomes.

is to crcatc in

I).

environmental.

having

by means

resources,

values. contradictions.

limitations. user

method

technicians

as ;I priority

background,

structure.

Method for definition

Table need.

on the users’

(b) demographic

etc):

be put to 11s~. allowing

users

jointly

(natural

information

(SW

is the priority

themselves

(cultural

usage.

in as

reality.

bc compiled

systematic

x~d

the users

asystcmatic

economic)

The

be ;I priority

knowledge

of this

(surveys.

for

not

with regard

it is important

if housing

reality.

systematic

should

may

specific

and discovers

observation

search

participation

has been selected and appears

must

pro\,iclers

may

active

implcmcntation;

are pertinent

housing

Once

with more

Both

modified.

choice

of the

prefers

to

should

places

perform

not necessarily comment

(enclosed, his

respond

to norms,

land is

on the use of the soil):

semi-enclosed.

activities,

open)

allowing

for

in which

he

cultural-spatial

features: 0

three-dimensional

assembly

options

in the previous

Every

option

developed

has

;I monetary

of

value

the

housing

unit

according

to the

stage.

assigned

to it by means

of ;I simple

Table 1. Needs and priorities.

582

Technicians

Users

Provide elements with which to motlvate. exthe mobilize press. stimulate and users

Expresston of ther consuous or subconsclous needs Assumption of a collectwe reality

Arrange and summanze the set of needs

ldentlfy themselves question It

Prowde techniques for the user to qualify the sets of needs wth

Asslgn pnorltles The need to organue themselves to achieve alms may emerge

Provide solwng and orgamzatlonal

Select alternatwes

alternatwes

CITIES

with this set of needs, or

November

1984

representational method which can be operated by the user. Thus every family can exercise realistic control over the relationship between its needs and its resources. This information-gathering from every family (since the process can include the participation of all family members) can be summated by the technician into several representative models, or he can create a framework in which the chosen alternatives can be expressed, this being dependent on the flexibility of the building technique. The building system It is impossible to separate design from the building system in the subject of participation. How can we expect the user to participate in the specification of his spatial requirements if he is then blocked in the ‘how-to-do-it’ stage? For this reason a building system is conceived that will allow: 0 0 0 0

0

l

the use of non-skilled labour; the use of local materials; the manufacture of simple components with minimum equipment; an assembly system to allow intensive labour but with a maximum of man-hours per square metre covered (no more than 15 hours recommended); flexible and open design, which would allow for extensions with either this or other systems, and for the incorporation or removal of elements which improve the housing level; the later appropriation of the building system by the user, making it possible to organize production for others thus creating jobs designed to raise the incomes of the participants.

Results and experiences Like many other systems, this one responds to a local and regional reality, and seeks to be neither a ‘recipe’ for all circumstances nor a closed formula; on the contrary. its aim is to help break down preconceptions and encourage imagination. Even having achieved notable advances, the method requires both greater simplification and the users’ participation in the further elaboration of the methods themselves. It is important also to include collaboration from other disciplines (psychologists, anthropologists, teachers, etc) with the aim of enriching the language between technicians and users. User participation is a subject of interest for AVE (Cheap Housing Association); hence various techniques for working in communities have been developed and applied, and ex post facto studies have been made on experimental plans in which user-design relationships have been studied. Having found maladjustments between these two variables, we infer that a path to their correction is to find suitable techniques towards user participation in the definition of their needs and the programming of their housing. This has inspired the participation of national institutes, and a teaching team has been formed and has worked jointly with six students (three from the National Universitv, three from the Catholic University) and users of the 2.5 de Mayo Cooperative. This led to an unusual event - a rapprochement between the university and the reality of marginal groups, practising a methodology of participation. The balance was positive, since the students developed their own schemes which,

CITIES November

1984

583

when applied, allowed the active participation relevant ohscrvations were the following: 0

The students

of users.

put forward a plan, a proposition;

The

moat

hut they knew that

it was liable to be modified - it was open. 0

By means of a simple elements with which requirements,

0

task

;I

technician. The information

that

provided

ambiguous or arbitrary With

explanatory to dccidc is

scheme. the users wcrc given on and specify their spatial

conventionally

only

that

of

the

by the user was in no way suhjcct

to

interpretations.

regard to the users’ cxperiencc, it was noted (a) that cvc’n with the

code dcviscd, the users felt the need to make &signs architect

might

make;

(h) they quickly

like those which an

understood

the basis of the

scheme and rcmaincd highly involved in its practice; (c) they felt greatly fulfillccl

at seeing the final result

of their work.

Conclusion It sccm4 csscntial kinds

that university

of confrontational

institutes

in

contact with

tcchniciuns in solving countries. WC strongly

students

experience reality

should

he exposed to thcsc

crate

the need to place

and to conceive

a new role

for

the really urgent problems of da/eloping share the anxieties shown hy the jury of the

UNEKO contest about the creation technicians in local communities.

584

that

of an international

CITIES

centre for

November

1984