Design Activism
Area: Community participation
Activism as a term illustrating the urban phenomena of citizen mobilisation and direct action(s) towards political, social and environmental change that emerged during the early 20th century (Hornby, 1995). Seen also as a “means of overcoming alienation” (Graeber, 2009, p. 231), numerous forms of activism were significantly influenced by the Situationist International, which advocated the creation of spontaneous, subversive “situations” as a response to the increasing commodification and individualisation of everyday life (Debord, 1992). In this sense, activism can be seen as a means to repoliticise and breathe meaning into an everydayness[1] characterised by passive bystanding and to create instances where people are able to redefine their agency as urban dwellers and political subjects[2] (Graeber, 2009).
Design activism has been defined as any practice that “draws attention to change in the context of design through positive experimentation and action, introducing a designerly way of intervening into people’s lives” (Mallo et al., 2020, p. 102). According to Markussen (2013), it reflects the role and potential of various design fields in (1) promoting social change, (2) express values and beliefs in a tangible way and (3) question the systemic constraints that impact people’s daily lives. Due to the rising levels of precarity, caused by the increasing neoliberalisation of politics, policies and everyday life on a global scale (Brown, 2015), design activism in architecture and urban planning (often associated with DIY urbanism) has been gaining traction over the past decades among scholars and practitioners, as a transformative means of renegotiating the role of architecture and planning within the mechanisms of spatial production, as well as reasserting citizens’ agency over their urban environment (Markussen, 2023).
Design activism in architecture may operate both symbolically, in order to illustrate and highlight socio-spatial injustice (e.g. Santiago Cirugeda’s[3] insect house) and pragmatically, through the creation (disruptive) of spatial configurations “across a number of people and artefacts” (Mallo et al., 2020, p. 102), in a direct-action manner, with the aim of improving people’s livelihoods. Direct action can be “any collective undertaking that is both political in intent and carried out in the knowledge that it might be met with hostility […]” (Graeber, 2009, p. 359). The element of direct action emphasises both the immersiveness, the astute responsiveness to actual circumstances and the moving away from a general, pre-defined, vague and ultimately co-opted “social good” (Fuad-Luke, 2017), towards a more situated understanding of urban space and people’s needs. Collaborative, “unalienating” acts of urban creativity, connect (architectural) design activism to practices such as participatory design, co-creation and concepts like spatial agency, all of which employ different means to reassert urban dwellers’ position as crucial and indispensable parts in decision-making processes.
Scholarly criticisms towards design activism focus on its temporal and experimental nature, which renders quantifying and crystallising the long-term effect on urban landscapes and dwellers difficult (Mallo et al., 2020). Arguably, its situatedness may also pose an obstacle towards the creation of any universal toolkit, strategy or course of action that could be transferable to different contexts and employed to tackle varying circumstances. It remains, however, a vital phenomenon towards fostering agency and a shared sense of citizenship and camaraderie, repoliticising architecture and planning practices, as well as nurturing a culture of working (ant)agonistically towards incremental change in the cities, one intervention at a time.
[1] Georg Simmel described and everydayness where bystanding and lack of concern are primary “symptoms of what he called “blasé attitude”. This term emerged so as to illustrate the overstimulating everydayness of the sprawling capitalist metropolises of the late 19th - early 20th century that renders individuals idle (“The metropolis and mental life”, first published in 1903). Contrary to Simmel, Michel de Certeau posits that individuals operating under imposed regulations and conditions, may find ways to interpret them differently, even subvert them, often by unconsciously utilising systems of socio-cultural references that may deviate from the dominant one(s) (De Certeau, 1984).
[2] “A subject develops an understanding of itself as a political subject only by executing decisive political actions” (Calcagno, 2008)
[3] More information on this project can be found here: https://unprojects.org.au/article/architecture-on-the-fringes-of-legality-santiago-cirugeda-kyohei-sakaguchi/ & here: https://www.cca.qc.ca/actions/fr/node/82
References
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing Democracy - Neoliberalsm’s Remaking of State and Subject. In Undoing the Demos, Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (pp. 17–45). Zone Books.
Calcagno, A. (2008). Alain Badiou: The event of becoming a political subject. In Philosophy and Social Criticism (Vol. 34, Issue 9, pp. 1051–1070). https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453708098537
Debord, G. (1992). Society of the spectacle. Rebel Press.
De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press.
Fuad-Luke, A. (2017, January 4). Design Activism’s teleological freedoms as a means to transform our habitus. http://agentsofalternatives.com/?p=2539
Graeber, D. (2009). Direct Action: An ethnography. AK Press. www.akpress.org.
Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (J. Crowther, Ed.; 5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Mallo, D., Tardiveau, A., & Parsons, R. (2020). Design activism: Catalysing communities of practice. In arq: Architectural Research Quarterly (Vol. 24, Issue 2, pp. 100–116). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135520000184
Markussen, T. (2013). The Disruptive Aesthetics of Design Activism: Enacting Design Between Art and Politics. Design Issues, 29(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00195
Markussen, T. (2023). Bursting housing bubbles and the agency of urban design activism. In The Routledge Handbook of Urban Design Research Methods (pp. 73–82). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003168621-9
Created on 13-02-2024 | Update on 23-10-2024
Related definitions
Co-creation
Area: Community participation
In a broader sense, co-creation means the joint effort of bringing something new to fruition through acts of collective creativity (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) which can be manifested in both tangible (making something together) or intangible (learning something together) outcomes (Puerari et al., 2018). Recently, the concepts of co-creation or co- production have been applied to describe the processes of participation in urban planning and design. Both terms place particular emphasis on the partnerships formed between citizens and the public sector, in which a high level of citizen involvement is pivotal.
Participation has been defined through its different levels of citizen involvement, ranging from non-participation to greater degrees of citizen control (Arnstein, 1969) indicating the different levels of influence a participant can have on a participatory process.
From the perspective of urban planning, citizen participation is beginning to be described as co-creation when citizens’ roles become more prominent, presenting aspects of self-organisation, increased commitment and a sense of ownership of the process (Puerari et al., 2018). Recent research is exploring new methods of urban planning in which citizens, the municipality and private organisations co-create new planning rules (Bisschops & Beunen, 2019). However, co-creation along with co-production and participation, often used interchangeably, have become popular catchphrases and are considered as processes which are of virtue in themselves. Furthermore, while there is substantial research on these processes, the research conducted on the outcomes of enhanced participation remains rather limited (Voorberg et al., 2015). This highlights the ambiguity in terms of interpretation; is co-creation a methodology, a set of tools to enhance and drive a process, or a goal in itself? (Puerari et al., 2018). There have often been cases where participation, co-creation and co-production have been used decoratively, as a form of justification and validation of decisions already made (Armeni, 2016).
In the provision of public spaces, co-creation/co-production may specifically involve housing (Brandsen & Helderman, 2012; Chatterton, 2016) and placemaking: “placemaking in public space implies engaging in the practice of urban planning and design beyond an expert culture. Such collaboration can be described as co-creation.” (Eggertsen Teder, 2019, p.290). As in participation, co-creation requires the sharing of decision-making powers, the creation of joint knowledge and the assignation of abilities between communities, while urban professionals and local authorities should draw attention to the active involvement of community members.
Furthermore, co-creation does not take place in a vacuum, but always occurs within socio- spatial contexts. This points to the objective of co-creation as a tool to influence locally relevant policy through innovation that is “place-based”.
To conclude, co-creation can be perceived as a process that is both transdisciplinary in its application, and as a tool for achieving transdisciplinarity on a broader scale through a systematic integration in existing standard practices in urban planning, housing design and architecture. Despite the persisting ambiguity in its definition, co-creation processes can provide more inclusive platforms for revisiting and informing formal and informal knowledge on sustainable and affordable housing.
Created on 16-02-2022 | Update on 23-10-2024
Read more ->Participatory Approaches
Area: Community participation
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, participation is “the act of taking part in an activity or event”. Likewise, it can also mean “the fact of sharing or the act of receiving or having a part of something.” It derives from old French participacion which in turn comes from late Latin participationem, which means “partaking” (Harper, 2000).
References to participation can be found in many fields, including social sciences, economics, politics, and culture. It is often related to the idea of citizenship and its different representations in society. Hence, it could be explained as an umbrella concept, in which several others can be encompassed, including methodologies, philosophical discourses, and tools. Despite the complexity in providing a holistic definition, the intrinsic relation between participation and power is widely recognised. Its ultimate objective is to empower those involved in the process (Nikkhah & Redzuan, 2009). An early application of participatory approaches was the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) which exerted a significant influence in developing new discourses and practices of urban settings (Chambers, 1994; Friedmann, 1994). In the late 1970s increasing attention was paid to the concept by scholars, and several associated principles and terminologies evolved, such as the participation in design and planning with the Scandinavian approach of cooperative design (Bφdker et al., 1995; Gregory, 2003).
Participation in design or participatory design is a process and strategy that entails all stakeholders (e.g. partners, citizens, and end-users) partaking in the design process. It is a democratic process for design based on the assumption that users should be involved in the designs they will go on to use (Bannon & Ehn, 2012; Cipan, 2019; Sanoff, 2000, 2006, 2007). Likewise, participatory planning is an alternative paradigm that emerged in response to the rationalistic and centralized – top-down – approaches. Participatory planning aims to integrate the technical expertise with the preferences and knowledge of community members (e.g., citizens, non-governmental organizations, and social movements) directly and centrally in the planning and development processes, producing outcomes that respond to the community's needs (Lane, 2005).
Understanding participation through the roles of participants is a vital concept. The work of Sherry Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation has long been the cornerstone to understand participation from the perspective of the redistribution of power between the haves and the have-nots. Her most influential typological categorisation work yet distinguishes eight degrees of participation as seen in Figure 1: manipulation, therapy, placation, consultation, informing, citizen control, delegated power and partnership. Applied to a participatory planning context, this classification refers to the range of influence that participants can have in the decision-making process. In this case, no-participation is defined as designers deciding based upon assumptions of the users’ needs and full-participation refers to users defining the quality criteria themselves (Geddes et al., 2019). A more recent classification framework that also grounds the conceptual approach to the design practice and its complex reality has been developed by Archon Fung (2006) upon three key dimensions: who participates; how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action. This three-dimensional approach which Fung describes as a democracy cube (Figure 2), constitutes a more analytic space where any mechanism of participation can be located. Such frameworks of thinking allow for more creative interpretations of the interrelations between participants, participation tools (including immersive digital tools) and contemporary approaches to policymaking.
Aligned with Arnstein’s views when describing the lower rungs of the ladder (i.e., nonparticipation and tokenism), other authors have highlighted the perils of incorporating participatory processes as part of pre-defined agendas, as box-ticking exercises, or for political manipulation. By turning to eye-catching epithets to describe it (Participation: The New Tyranny? by Cooke & Kothari, 2001; or The Nightmare of Participation by Miessen, 2010), these authors attempt to raise awareness on the overuse of the term participation and the possible disempowering effects that can bring upon the participating communities, such as frustration and lack of trust. Examples that must exhort practitioners to reassess their role and focus on eliminating rather than reinforcing inequalities (Cooke & Kothari, 2001).
Created on 17-02-2022 | Update on 23-10-2024
Read more ->Community Empowerment
Area: Community participation
Community empowerment appears in the literature of participatory action research (Minkler, 2004), participatory planning (Jo & Nabatchi, 2018), and community development (Luttrell et al., 2009) as a key element of participatory practices, understanding it as a process that enables communities to take control of their lives and their environments (Rappaport, 2008; Zimmerman, 2000). Many argue that community participation becomes meaningless if it does not lead to, or pass through community empowerment. As the term is being used in diverse and ubiquitous ways, it runs the risk of ending up as an empty definition and a catch-all phrase (McLaughlin, 2015). It is therefore important to specify the perspective through which we will view the term and clarify the nuances.
Since its origins, empowerment has been used in two different ways. Firstly, top-down as the power that had been ‘granted’ by a higher authority, such as the state or a religious institution, and secondly, bottom-up, as a process by which groups or individuals come to develop the capacity to act and acquire power. Examples of the latter can be found in social groups such as feminists working in nongovernmental organizations throughout the global south in the 1970s, who found a way to address social issues and inequalities that enabled social transformation based on women’s self-organization (Biewener & Bacqué, 2015). The term was gradually appropriated by welfare, neoliberal, and social-neoliberal agendas whose priority was individual agency and choice. In neoliberal rationality, empowerment is related to efficiency, economic growth, business productivity, and individual rational choice to maximize profit in a competitive market economy. In social liberalism agendas, empowerment is understood as ‘effective agency’, where ‘agency’ is not an inherent attribute, but something that needs to be constructed through ‘consciousness-raising’ (McLaughlin, 2016).
A broader definition sees empowerment as a social action process through which individuals, communities, and organizations take control of their lives in the context of changing the social and political environment to improve equity and quality of life (Rappaport, 2008; Zimmerman, 2000). Rowlands (1997), refers to four types of empowerment: power over, as the ability to influence and coerce; power to, to organize and change existing hierarchies; power with, as the power from the collective action and power within, as the power from the individual consciousness. Using this classification, Biewener & Bacqué (2015), adopting a feminist approach, understand empowerment as a multilevel construct with three interrelated dimensions: 1) an internal, psychological one, where ‘power within’ and ‘power to’ are developed, 2) an organizational, where ‘power with’ and ‘power over’ are strengthened and 3) a social or political level, where institutional and structural change is made possible through collective action. Thus, community empowerment links the individual level, which involves self-determination, growth of individual awareness, and self-esteem, to the collective level, relating critical consciousness and capacity building with the structural level, where collective engagement and transformative social action take place. This view of empowerment, which considers its goals and processes, has a social dimension that is lacking in other approaches that prioritize individual empowerment.
Aside from the feminist movements, the philosophy and practices of community empowerment have been greatly influenced by the work of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator and an advocate on critical pedagogy. Freire proposed a dialogic problem-solving process based on equality and mutual respect between students and teachers; that engaged them in a process of iterative listening-discussing-acting. Through structured dialogue, group participants shared their experiences, discussed common problems, and looked for root causes and the connections among “problems behind the problems as symptoms” (Freire, 1970). The term conscientization, that Freire proposed, refers to the consciousness that arises through the involvement of people in the social analysis of conditions and their role in changing them. This awareness enables groups to be reflexive and open spaces, to enact change or to understand those limited situations that may deter change (Barndt, 1989).
Empowerment can be understood as both a process and an outcome (Jo & Nabatchi, 2018). As a process, it refers to “the development and implementation of mechanisms to enable individuals or groups to gain control, develop skills and test knowledge”(Harrison & Waite, 2015) and it entails the creation of new subjects who have developed a critical consciousness and the formation of groups with a ‘collective agency’ ‚ or ‘social collective identity’ (Biewener & Bacqué, 2015). Empowerment as an outcome refers to “an affective state in which the individual or group feels that they have increased control, greater understanding and are involved and active” (Harrison & Waite, 2015). This can lead to a transformation of the social conditions by challenging the structures and institutionalized forms that reproduce inequalities.
The values and the significance of community empowerment can be further applied in the participatory and community-based approaches of the housing sector. Examples of such approaches in the housing provision are the housing cooperatives, and self-developed and self-managed housing groups. Housing cooperatives aim at promoting co-creation to engage future residents, professionals, and non-profit organizations in all the stages of a housing project: problem-framing, designing, developing, cohabiting, managing, and maintaining. Such organisational models stress the importance and pave the way for community empowerment by uniting individuals with similar interests and ideals, enabling them to have housing that responds to their needs, preferences, and values. The participation of the residents aims to strengthen their sense of ownership of the process, the democratic decision-making and management, and the social collective identity, making community empowerment an integral characteristic of cooperative housing initiatives. With this social perspective, residents can gain individual and collective benefits while contributing to fairer and more sustainable urban development on a larger scale (Viskovic Rojs et al., 2020).
Created on 03-06-2022 | Update on 23-10-2024
Read more ->Urban Commons
Area: Community participation
Urban commons are shared resources in the city that are managed by their users in a collaborative and non-profit-oriented way. The concept is based on the idea that urban resources and services that represent fundamental rights in the city should be accessible to and governed by the urban dwellers, to support the social capital and the sustainability of the urban communities. Hence, their value lies mostly in the social benefit produced during their use and they are therefore different from commodities that follow traditional market principles of profit maximisation and private ownership (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015).
The concept of urban commons is an extrapolation in the urban context of the notion of commons which historically refers to natural resources available to all and not owned by any individual, such as air, water and land. The commons discourse became significantly popular thanks to the fundamental contribution of Elinor Ostrom (1990) and particularly after she was awarded the Nobel in Economics in 2009. Ostrom presented cases and design principals for the collective management of common resources by those that use and benefit from them, challenging the predominant negative connotations that had peaked with Garret Hardin’s (1968) Tragedy of the Commons where he analysed the impossible sustainability of common pool resources due to individual benefits.
During the last fifteen years, a vast body of academic literature on urban commons has been produced, linking the notion to other urban theories, such as the right to the city (Harvey, 2008; Lefebvre, 1996), biopolitics (Angelis & Stavrides, 2009; Hardt & Negri, 2009; Linebaugh, 2008; Parr, 2015; Stavrides, 2015, 2016), peer-to-peer urbanism and sharing economy (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015; Iaione, 2015; Iaione et al., 2019; McLaren & Agyeman, 2015; Shareable, 2018).
The notion of the urban commons encompasses resources, people and social practices (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015):
Commons resources are urban assets of various types, characteristics and scales (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015). Examples of commons resources include physical spaces, such as community gardens, street furniture and playgrounds; intangible elements such as culture and public art; services such as safety; digital spaces, such as internet access. Urban commons literature and practices have attempted to determine several typological categorisations of the urban commons resources, the most notable being that of Hess (2008), who classified them as cultural, knowledge, markets, global, traditional, infrastructure, neighbourhood, medical and health commons.
The commoners are the group that uses and manages the urban commons resources. It is a self-defined and organically formed group of individuals whose role is to collectively negotiate the boundaries and the rules of the management of the commons resources (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015). In a neighbourhood setting, for example, the commoners may be individual residents, or community groups, cooperatives, NGOs and local authorities. De Angelis and Stavrides (2010) points out that commoners might include diverse groups or communities that are not necessarily homogenous.
Commoning refers to the collaborative participatory process of accessing, negotiating and governing the commons resources. The term was introduced by Peter Linebaugh (2008) and refers to the “social process that creates and reproduces the commons” (Angelis & Stavrides, 2010). Commoning is a form of public involvement for the public good (Lohmann, 2016). Commoning implies a commitment to solidarity and cooperation, to the creation of added value to the community, to democracy and inclusiveness and is connected to a hacking culture(Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015). Hence, commoning practices can include various activities such as co-creation, capacity building and placemaking, support through learning, innovation, performing art, protest, urban gardening and commuting.
In contemporary societies in crisis, the urban commons theory is often used as a counter-movement to the commodification of urban life and as a response to complex issues, proving essential for the well-being of marginalised communities and for the provision of affordable and sustainable housing. Urban commons management conveys the re-appropriation of urban values (Borch & Kornberger, 2015) breaking silos of expertise and knowledge by adopting a collaborative approach to defining and solving the problems at stake. The practice of urban commons helps to build values of openness, experimentation, creativity, trust, solidarity and commitment within stakeholder groups.
Created on 14-10-2022 | Update on 23-10-2024
Read more ->Direct Action
Area: Community participation
“Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who laid [their] plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with [them], without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist.”
(De Cleyre, 2009, p. 2)
Overview
Direct action is a term encompassing a variety of grassroots and bottom-up initiatives within the urban landscape. It is described as “a mode of disruptive activism” (Smith, 2018, p. 13) with an inherently political intention that may not necessarily be pacifist or legal -therefore likely to “be met with hostility” (Graeber, 2009, p. 359)- and is often associated with anti-capitalist, leftist and anarchist ideologies. Examples of direct action(s) include squatting, occupations, blockades and general strikes, among others (Smith, 2018; Sparrow, 1997). While definitions across activist and academic circles may vary, there is a convergence of opinions that emphasise two primary aspects: (1) direct action always describes a person or group’s own activity to “directly change perceived political, social or environmental injustices” (Doherty et al., 2003, p. 670) without third-party involvement; activities that employ representational and/or mediatory means (eg. lobbying) do not fall under the direct action umbrella (De Cleyre, 2009; Franks, 2003; Pouget, 2009; Smith, 2018; Sparrow, 1997). (2) Direct action is a prefigurative and synecdochic form of action; the action contains a tangible glimpse of the desired future in its end goal, in the methods used to achieve it, and in the identities of those involved in carrying it out (Franks, 2003; Pouget, 2009; Sparrow, 1997). Contrary to symbolic actions which are often contained in showcasing injustices, direct action can take the shape of a practical response and herald the larger vision it foreshadows.
Direct action in housing
Any direct action that tackles the housing question, operates on the premise that housing is a human right (UN Habitat, 2009), and aims at collectively producing “anti-capitalist housing alternative[s]” (Cattaneo et al., 2014, p. 50), against a backdrop of capitalist/neoliberal enclosures. Housing in this sense is understood as a “commons”, meaning that it is not only a resource that is (re)produced for the benefit of those (re)producing it, but also a “commitment to the creation of collective subjects [and the] fostering of common interests[…]” (Caffentzis & Federici, 2014, p. 103). The process and tactics that support direct actions in housing, could therefore be considered commoning. Hodkinson (2012) recognises 3 interdependent aspects of housing commoning: (1) prefigurative (living-in-common), (2) strategic (housing-as-commons), and (3) counter-hegemonic (circulating the housing commons) commoning.
Prefigurative commoning emphasises the desired way of living. It is essentially “try[ing] to meet our housing needs and desires through the creation of non-hierarchical, small-scale, directly democratic, egalitarian and collective forms of housing” (Hodkinson, 2012, p. 438). Strategic commoning refers to the “tactical interventions required to resist enclosure by both defending and creating housing commons as forms of protection against the market” (ibid.). Squatting falls under both of these definitions; it envisions a way of living that exists at the margins of the economic system, while at the same time it resists enclosure by reclaiming the right of equitable access to housing through the appropriation of vacant buildings, albeit in a standalone way. Lastly, counter-hegemonic commoning seeks to develop alliances between different housing movements and mobilisations, so that new forms of housing and living can be negotiated. Housing cooperatives fall under this type of commoning; while they do not directly challenge dominant housing systems, and therefore are not as inherently prefigurative as housing squats, they offer solid “dweller-control” alternatives that function as shields to speculation, financialisation, and market-driven agendas.
Potential and pitfalls
Direct actionists bring the shortcomings of neoliberal political agendas into stark relief, both by highlighting injustices, and by providing immediate, practical, albeit often small-scale and precarious responses. Nevertheless, the (commoning) process of planning, executing, and sustaining a direct action, much like any kind of activist endeavour, is a potentially unalienating activity that allows bonds of solidarity to flourish (Graeber, 2009), which, in turn, has the capacity to transform the consciousness of those involved (Sparrow, 1997). The oscillations between legality and illegality, along with the aforementioned transformative potential, may enable the decoupling from what Benjamin Franks calls “prescribed references” (2003, p. 19), i.e. any type of limitation or constraint legally and/or socio-culturally imposed by dominant elites. Finding or creating alternative “references”, may in turn be conceived as “an immediate practical alteration in power relations” (Franks, 2003, p. 32).
Criticism towards some aspects of direct action, however, often questions whether it can constitute a justifiable practice. Direct actions which employ violent, coercive or intimidating tactics may clash with the general public’s conception of the rights and obligations of citizens in a democratic society (Smith, 2018). Consequently, direct actions largely fall outside of the “normalised” activist practices spectrum, and often result in creating (in)tangible enclosures, which may fail to generate substantial impact. Conversely, normalising direct action in all its range of tactics and approaches would result in a paradox, since prescribing to externally conceived references would diminish its prefigurative potential.
Apart from questions on justifiability and normalisation, there is significant ambiguity regarding the types of methods and tactics employed in direct action, as well as their level of transferability. Since direct action is by definition counter-hegemonic, transferability in this case relates greatly to how power relations operate. Deleuze & Guattari argue that hegemonies operate in inherent situatedness, as they are shaped, sustained and perpetuated through connection and heterogeneity (2005). For direct action tactics to be successfully applied in diverse contexts, a nuanced understanding of contextual differences is vital.
Finally, while Voltairine de Cleyre’s definition may seem vague and all-encompassing, it highlights perhaps the most crucial aspect of direct action; the emancipatory potential of unmediated action on one’s own behalf.
Created on 18-06-2024 | Update on 23-10-2024
Read more ->Housing Quality
Area: Design, planning and building
Housing quality is concerned with the conditions and characteristics ensuring it is safe, healthy, comfortable, and sustainable for its occupants. It considers the physical conditions of a dwelling and the social and physical environment surrounding it (Bonnefoy, 2007; Swope & Hernández, 2019). There is increasing pressure to ensure affordable housing meets quality standards in Europe and the UK. Neglecting quality in assessing affordability could perpetuate poor-quality, unsustainable housing, harming both the planet and households' wellbeing (AHC, 2019; Fraser et al., 2023; Haffner & Heylen, 2011; OECD, 2021). This vocabulary entry focuses on housing quality.
Housing quality directly impacts the wellbeing of households by influencing physical and mental health and financial stability. It has been recognised as a crucial determinant of health and wellbeing, as poor housing conditions are linked to numerous health issues, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, injuries, and mental health disorders (WHO, 2018). As such, housing quality not only concerns the physical attributes of a dwelling but also its capacity to support the health and wellbeing of its occupants (Rolfe et al., 2020).
Levels of Housing Quality
Housing quality can be recognised through various contextual levels, which include:
Physical structures and features of buildings, such as insulation, ventilation systems, materials used, and essential services such as heating, plumbing, and electrical systems (Keall et al., 2010).
Internal environment and living conditions, which refer to the atmosphere within a dwelling. These include air quality, light, noise levels, and thermal comfort, all contributing to indoor environmental quality. They could also encompass factors such as overcrowding and cleanliness (Riva et al., 2022). The living conditions arise from the interaction between the building characteristics and the residents, and how they use or treat the dwelling. (Bonnefoy, 2007; Riva et al., 2022). For example, mould can develop due to a lack of proper ventilation systems suitable for the household and dwelling size. Alternatively, a proper ventilation system might be provided; however, occupants may not use it when cooking, bathing or showering (Keall et al., 2010).
Household characteristics refer to the behaviours and lifestyles of residents. According to Keall et al. (2010, p. 767), the household level encompasses "social, cultural and economic aspects such as affordability, suitability, security of tenure,” which impact people's needs for space, energy, water, and transport. Additionally, it acknowledges that demographic, psychological, and biological aspects, such as attitudes towards recycling, maintenance, cleaning routines, and use of space, influence lifestyles.
External community and infrastructure involve the neighbourhood, regional policies, and global environmental conditions impacting housing quality. Factors such as urban planning decisions, availability of community resources, and neighbourhood safety play crucial roles (Keall et al., 2010; Swope & Hernández, 2019).
Regulatory and policy frameworks pertain to the standards and regulations to ensure housing quality. Compliance with these regulations should promote equity in housing practices (Swope & Hernández, 2019). For example, A new set of Consumer Standards established by the Regulator of Social Housing in England aims to improve the quality of social housing and ensure that landlords fulfill their responsibilities to tenants by providing quality homes, transparent operations, and fair tenancy management (Regulator of Social Housing, 2024).
Housing Quality Indicators
Housing quality indicators are vital for assessing the conditions of dwellings. They could address various aspects of housing, such as safety, sustainability, comfort, and suitability for residents. These indicators are essential for understanding the physical state of housing and the living conditions within dwellings. These indicators could serve four purposes:
Measuring housing quality and affordability across countries: Some housing quality indicators could enable meaningful cross-country comparisons to better determine what residents are paying for in terms of quality. The OECD (2021) Policy Brief on Affordable Housing highlighted some housing quality measures to accompany measuring housing affordability, such as the "Overcrowding Rate," "Housing Deprivation Rate," and subjective measures to assess housing affordability and quality based on household perceptions. Elaboration on these measures is available in the Measuring Housing Affordability vocabulary.
Measuring housing quality within a country: Some indicators are used to evaluate the quality of housing schemes to ensure that housing standards are met across different regions. For example, non-decent housing in England is identified with the help of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006). HHSRS assesses 29 potential health and safety hazards in residential properties, including structural dangers, toxicity, mould and inadequate heating. Another example is England's Housing Quality Indicators (HQIs) system. Although currently withdrawn, it served as an assessment tool to evaluate housing scheme quality. The HQIs system encompassed four categories: location and proximity to amenities, site-related aspects (landscaping, open spaces, pathways), housing unit features (noise, lighting, accessibility, sustainability), and the external environment (Homes and Communities Agency, 2011).
Measuring housing satisfaction across groups: Other indicators measure household satisfaction, gauging how well housing meets their expectations and needs. For example, the English Housing Survey (EHS) collects comprehensive data on housing conditions and residents' satisfaction levels across different demographic groups and regions (DLUHC, 2019). It evaluates housing quality, adequacy of amenities, safety measures, and overall satisfaction with the living environment. Thus, it enables identifying targeted improvements needed within the housing sector.
Measuring housing quality of a specific housing scheme: Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) could be considered a housing quality indicator in the design and construction context. POE is a process for assessing buildings' performance and functionality after they have been occupied (Hadjri & Crozier, 2009). It could include energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and occupant satisfaction (Elsayed et al., 2023). The evaluation involves various methodologies to collect data, which can be objective (measured data) and subjective (occupant feedback), providing insights that could lead to improvements in management practices and future designs. However, in the EU context, this process remains inconsistent (Elsayed et al., 2023). This inconsistency hinders comparing results and gathering insights to improve broader housing quality.
Despite the usefulness of the indicators mentioned above, accurately measuring housing quality is still challenging. The inherent subjectivity of what constitutes "adequate" housing means that perceptions can vary significantly due to influences of cultural, economic, and individual expectations. Furthermore, the technical feasibility of employing comprehensive quality indicators is often limited by outdated or incomplete data on the characteristics of dwellings. These limitations hinder effective housing quality assessment, making it difficult to enforce and update housing standards consistently (OECD, 2021).
Created on 14-10-2024 | Update on 23-10-2024
Read more ->Related cases
Die Baupiloten Berlin
Created on 29-07-2024
Overview
The impetus behind the creation of Baupiloten was the growing concern within German architectural associations about the education offered at architecture faculties. At the turn of this century, architectural education in Germany was severely criticised on the basis of its perceived distance from the “practical necessities of the profession”, with students training only in abstract projects that would never be built (Hofmann, 2004, p. 115). The founder and leader, Susanne Hofmann, has been involved both in practice and academia/research and is a firm believer that intertwining these two pillars offers much broader opportunities for students to learn through direct exposure in reality-based conditions, thus bridging the gap between architectural education and professional practice.
In the spirit of restructuring prevalent architectural curricula, the Studienreformprojekt at TU Berlin set forth the following goals, which Baupiloten set to accomplish (Hofmann, 2004, p. 117):
Develop a connection between practice and research-oriented learning through building projects
Provide opportunities to explore the interdependences between the design and building process
Enhance interdisciplinary connections between the different fields of expertise that can be found in TU Berlin
Foster the project motivation and responsibility of students by allowing them to be a part of every stage, from the conception to the construction stages
Encourage students to test their ideas in a real, tangible project
Participation and atmosphere
Participation of non-experts
One of the core tenets of Baupiloten is the recognition of user knowledge as equally important to that of the “experts”. Users possess a specific kind of experiential, contextualised expertise on spatial arrangement, which, as Hofmann posits, becomes an invaluable source of information that can only be tapped into through real, active inclusion in the design process (Hofmann, 2019). Therefore, participation becomes a central focus in the Baupiloten approach, creating impactful and meaningful designs whose components can be traced back to the actual needs and desires of the people they design for.
While participation has often been criticised on the basis of responsibility and accountability diffusion, superficiality and risks of manipulation and tokenistic practices (Miessen, 2010), Hofmann argues that participation can (1) amplify creativity and invention, both through the multiple perspectives entering the discussion and through the need for creative solutions to facilitate the dialogue (e.g. discussion game design). It can (2) reduce costs and shorten the timeframe, as visions for the desired interventions are jointly shaped, so that time and cost estimations can be measured and planned with fewer amendments during the process. It can (3) promote social cohesion, through the co-existence and interaction of diverse groups. Finally, it can (4) ensure architectural quality of the finished product by securing a clear correspondence between the final design and the user needs (Hofmann, 2018).
While the clear-cut binary of “expert” and “layperson” slowly dissolves, flexibility becomes even more crucial when it comes to the role of the architect; facilitating and moderating skills arise as equally crucial during the process, and effective communication becomes the key to a successful process. This does not mean that space design and production should no longer be the core competence of an architect, but rather that it needs to be expanded and renegotiated to fit the needs of a diverse project team (Hofmann, 2019).
Therefore, one of the focal questions that Baupiloten seeks to answer is how “can communication between citizens, architects, authorities, business, social movements – everyone – be facilitated without a loss of quality?” (Hofmann, 2018, p. 117)
Perception of atmospheres as a means of communication
Within Baupiloten, “atmosphere" is understood as the subjective perception of a space's emotional and sensory qualities, which significantly influences user experience. This concept extends beyond mere aesthetics, encompassing the interplay of light, sound, texture, and spatial arrangements to create a cohesive emotional impact. Baupiloten utilises this understanding of atmosphere to facilitate the communication of design intentions and foster a collaborative co-design process. By articulating the desired atmospheric qualities, designers can convey complex ideas and emotions that are otherwise challenging to express through conventional architectural drawings or technical specifications.
Atmosphere articulation becomes a central tool in the co-design process, engaging users and stakeholders in the creation of a shared vision for the space. Through workshops, mock-ups, and immersive simulations, participants experience and respond to the proposed atmospheres, providing valuable feedback that informs the design development. This collaborative approach ensures that the final design resonates with users' needs and preferences, creating spaces that are not only functional but also emotionally engaging. By focusing on atmospheres, Baupiloten bridges the gap between technical design and human experience, fostering a more inclusive and participatory design process that enhances the overall quality and impact of the built environment (Hofmann, 2019).
Methodology and learning objectives
Methodology
Baupiloten follows a 4-stage methodology aimed at kickstarting the dialogue and subsequent collaborative design process among participating stakeholders (Hofmann, 2018):
Team-building: raising awareness and building a common ground for communication through dialogue and other interactive activities.
Users’ everyday life: observing and recording daily activities.
“Wunschforschung”: researching the needs and desires of the users in a systematic manner.
Feedback: optimising the design according to comments received by the participants.
This methodology includes three broad, equally important categories of participating stakeholders:
Users: the “citizen experts”, bringing the knowledge of the everyday life to the table
Clients: the individuals or entities who commission the project and define the financial constraints that the design and construction must adhere to.
Architects: professionals and experts whose role is to facilitate and moderate the interactions, optimising their level of involvement to meet the process’s requirements.
Projects begin with students developing parallel designs. After a few weeks, the ideas are scrutinised to identify which concepts should be further refined, and students proceed to create and discuss various versions, ultimately selecting the final concept. Once a project is deemed convincing, it is divided into distinct packages for each student to develop independently. These design packages are intended to be sufficiently challenging yet comprehensible enough for the students to carry out successfully.
Overall, projects are divided by planning stages, potentially spanning through multiple semesters, and their schedule is aligned with the academic year to ensure professional management and relevance to real-world contexts. Instead of presenting related topics and themes as abstracted theory within the project (e.g. building regulations, lighting design principles, structural engineering, etc.), students are encouraged to learn experientially, through on-demand contextualising knowledge from related fields and topics as they progress on the project at hand (Hofmann, 2004).
Learning objectives
The learning objectives are separated into two main categories, as follows (Hofmann, 2004):
Fostering professional competences related to the different stages of a project
Developing design skills
Training in designing from concept to construction detail
Learning about cost-calculation and budgeting
Developing self-reflexive and assessment skills and methods
Enhancing interpersonal, communication and teamwork-related skills
Cultivating management skills
Learning how to interact with the various stakeholders involved in a project (clients, public authorities, craftsmen, manufacturers and building contractors)
Learning how to prepare and give effective presentations
Training in performing at and leading client meetings
Notable projects
Erika Mann Elementary School (or “the snuffle of the silver dragon”)
The Erika Mann Elementary School in the Wedding area of Berlin. When the phase 1 of the project was initiated (2003), Wedding had a high unemployment rate and a significant migrant population from non-German-speaking backgrounds. Baupiloten was tasked with initiating a collaborative design process, aiming to enhance the school premises with additional learning and living environments. The aim was to improve the quality of life within the school and make it an important hub for the whole neighbourhood.
Operating under the principle of “Form follows kids’ fiction”, the school students engaged with Baupiloten students and tutors in a series of design workshops spanning two phases: the first taking place in 2003 and the second in 2008, following the extension of the school’s operating hours to all-day. These workshops resulted in a proposal featuring a series of interventions designed to contrast the rigidness of the school’s hallways by creating “fantastical and poetic worlds, culminating in the fictive "Snuffle of the Silver Dragon"”(ArchDaily, 2009).
Kotti 3000
Kotti 3000 (alternatively, Neighbourhood 3000), is an interview tool and game specifically designed to encourage participation from people, such as migrants, whose voices, opinions and desires are often overlooked.
In this game, the players begin with a map of the neighbourhood. Through discussion and interaction, they can place a wide range of pictogram stickers on it. Each pictogram represents a type of urban equipment or function and “costs” a varying amount of points (e.g. cinema=300 points, vegetable garden=100 points). The overarching goal is to collaboratively “spend” the 3,000 points available to the participants on different types of interventions based on their needs and desires (Baupiloten, n.d.; Khafif, 2024).
Related publications
No entries
