DUBAI’S INTERNATIONAL AWARD
On best practices aimed at improving living conditions
NAME OF THE BEST PRACTICE :
Improvement of what has already been constructed
( COLOMBIA)
ADDRESS OF THE BEST PRACTICE :
NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP
Carrera 29 A No. 71 A 53 ( Barrio Los Alcázares)
Telephone numbers: ( 571) 6302814 - 5427785 - 5427775
E mail :
P.O. Box No. 17364
Santa Fé de Bogotá, D.C. ( Colombia)
PERSON TO CONTACT:
Hernando Carvajalino Bayona ( General Manager )
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION :
Private sector
NOMINATING ORGANIZATION :
FUNDACION HABITAT COLOMBIA
Contact person: Lucellena Betancourt ( Executive Director)
Calle 90 No. 13 A-31 Oficina 501
Telephone number: ( 571) 6114485
E mail:
Santa Fé de Bogotá, D.C. ( Colombia )
ASSOCIATES
The projects have been developed in association with state and municipal entities (Inurbe, Red de Solidaridad y Caja de Vivienda Popular), with private ones (Cajas de Compensación Familiar), and with communitarian organizations ( Community Councils and local people).
Following is the information requested about one of the associates with which we have developed the Program of Improvement and Construction on Site Owned by Inhabitants with Subsidy.
CAJA DE COMPENSACION CAFAM
Contact person: Luis Alberto Salgar (Head of Housing Department)
Address: Transversal 48 # 94 -97 (Bloque 2, piso 5)
Phones: (571) 6176400 2715370
Santa Fe de Bogotá D.C. Colombia.
TYPE OF SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ASSOCIATES
State and Municipal Entities: Methodological, political and financial support.
Private Entities (Cajas de Compensación/ Compensation Funds): Financial support and social promotion.
Communitarian Organizations: Help in the social promotion of the project, with resources and in the execution of the project.
NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP: Methodological, research, social, technical and administrative support.
FINANCIAL PROFILE
Items Total Cajas de Inurbe Community BT**
Budget* Compensación Red Solidaridad
Work execution 4.647’ 80%10% 10%
Technical Assistence 417´ 90%10%
Research 40´ 100%
Publications 28´ 100%
* BT (Neighbourhood work-shop)
** The table depicts 1998 figures in millions of Colombian pesos over a total of approximately 1.043 improvements.
CATEGORY OF BEST PRACTICE
Housing
(House access, financing, design, plans and projects)
Technology, tools and methods
(Tools and management , research and development systems)
Architecture and urban deign
(Neighbourhood improvement project)
LEVEL OF ACTIVITY
City ( Urban scale)
SUMMARY OF THE PURPOSE AND OF THE INITIATIVE
Concerned with the problems of Latin-American cities, and specifically with those of Santa Fé de Bogotá, D.C (Colombia), whose popular neighbourhoods, still in a consolidation process[1] have been customarily alien to fields such as architecture and urbanism, a project was designed. The mission of this project was to improve what had already beenconstructed, by raising the quality of the space that the inhabitants had acquired for themselves.
Having as a starting point the preceding facts and experiences of “barefoot architecture” which is committed with popular sectors, the plan as a whole includes the development of housing projects and programs which raise the quality of life of families with a monthly average income of 1,5 legal, minimum salaries ( US$ 205).[2] This plan, developed since 1990 by the NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP is concerned with the topic of urban improvement and includes research, studies, and publications that deal with the popular habitat.
Programs on how to improve housing conditions, plans for terraces and for the construction on the individual’s own property are being implemented in association with governamental and private entities. These programs benefit approximately 5.283 families and constitute innovations in methodological proposals. Likewise, studies and research projects which analyze in depth the spaciousness of the neighboughoods, and which contribute to the knowledge of the subject and to the daily development of projects are being carried out. (SeriesCiudad y Habitat publications and web page).
NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP develops the concept of multiple rentabilities, reaching, at a social level, an ample scope of inhabitants (social rentability). In relation to knowledge, advances have been made through nine issues of the Series Ciudad y Habitat ( academic), and in the economic field, a productive problem which does not depend on external resources has been consolidated ( economic).
KEY DATES
September 1990: Birth date of the Neighbourhood Workshop.
January 1995 : The project turns into a massive one.
April 1995: Series Ciudad and Habitat issue No. 1
December 1998:We reach the number of 5.000 benefited families.
September 2000: Ten years of Neighbourhood Workshop.
BACKGROUND: CONDITIONS BEFORE THE PROJECT
In 1993, the new Housing Policy analyses the qualitative deficit of popular neighbourhoods, thus creating the opportunity to initiate our project within a context that lacked background and experience in this area, and in a field where architecture had neither clear methodologies nor concepts with which to work with urban inhabitants.
PRIORITIES OF THE INICIATIVE
In assuming the popular habitat as the life project of NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP, it is our intention to commit architecture and urbanism, together with other fields of knowledge, and with the inhabitants, in a theoretical (academic) and in a practical exercise (experiences) of taking care of the housing condition in popular neighbourhoods in the peripheric city. In this regard, a project of multiple rentabilities (social, economic and academic) which has the priority of improving the space constructed by the people , by means of conceptual exercises and housing programs that raise the level of quality of life of the urban inhabitants is consolidated.
OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
*Assist the qualitative housing deficit with programs that improve the habitat.
*Design and apply innovating and participative methodologies and tools.
*Discuss, at different levels, the theme of the popular habitat as a housing policy.
*Construct knowledge that refers to the spaciousness of the popular neighbourhood.
*Publish studies and research work in theSeries Ciudad y Habitat.
The strategies for the above mentioned objectives concentrated in the consolidation of an integrated and stable program ( theory - practice) guided by the concept of multiple rentabilities, with permanent work in the neighbourhoods, thus guaranteeing major coverage and focus, and with high levels of efficiency and quality .
RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Financial resources come from subsidies and/or from housing credits, and from contributions from beneficiaries, as a form of alliance of technical groups, Cajas de Compensación (Subsidiary Funds), state institutions and the inhabitants. This type of alliance, new in the fight against the housing deficit in peripheral neighbourhoods, has implied, among many issues, the construction of relations, the definition of methodologies, priorities and strategies, and has enabled us to look after this urban problem from the perspective of the above mentioned actors.
The use of resources in the popular neighbourhood demanded an important action from the advisory group -the NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP in this case- as they were the link between those who needed the housing projects (inhabitants) and those who had the resources:( the state and the Cajas de Compensación).The strategies for social promotion, the new technical advisory perspectives, (progressive housing, participative design, etc) and clarity and transparency in the handling of resources were important components in the credibility and image of the projects
A specialized team in the field of popular habitat was developed at the administrative, technical and social level. This team was in charge of the research and the publications, activities that are carried out with their own resources, as well as the development of projects that generate employment to a large number of construction workers who are responsible for the construction processes.
PROCESS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
The introduction of the technical component into the popular sector -architecture and urbanism- has been a difficult task as there is a big distance between the academic and the popular, the professional and the inhabitant. To cope with this fact, participative methodologies and more horizontal relations that included popular knowledge in the projects’ design and development were designed.
During the phase of the technical dialogue with architects, urbanists and the technicians that take part in the project, the inhabitants’ participation was not easy. Progress was made in participative design, in planning proposals, and in the task sharing of the projects. Personalized attention - not typological attention - was given to each inhabitant; and the communication with the citizens in the inspecting committees, created for some projects, was also improved.
The improvement in the quality of the constructed space has demanded a process of learning about the cultural components of space usage and also of a sense of awareness among the inhabitants in order to increase the value of habitability above cost considerations that generate problems within the house. In this regard, it has been fundamental to develop studies and surveys on the spaciousness of popular neighbourhoods.
The lack of trust of financial entities toward the popular sector is considerable and this is an obstacle when creating programs that need credit. Yet, the experience with Fedevivienda and Cupocrédito in the early nineties proved the opposite: the payment patterns from families were satisfactory. A new credit program is now being developed with Banco Caja Social.
The instability of state housing policies generated multiple problems within these recently started programs because of the lack of continuity of the policies. Each new government brings new initiatives that do not give continuity to the favorable policies being carried out. This is the case of the Improvement Programs that are being questioned today in spite of the good results they have reached.
Finally, the change of the NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP from a NGO (nongovernment organization) into a private enterprise required a deep and self-critical analysis that allowed the increase of internal levels of efficiency, productivity and quality.The improvement made was in the quality of the services as well as in the spatial and researched products offered, in the maintaining of the initiative among the poor sectors and in emphasizing the popular habitat field as a fundamental mission of the project.
RESULTS
Beneficiary population: 21.132 people (5.283 families) located in popular neighbourhoods whose quality of life was raised by improving the habitability of their housing, and by solving structural problems, basic sanitation and overcrowding situations. In the last five years, approximately 132.075 m2 were constructed with an investment of col pesos $ 15.849.000.000 ( US$7.924.500).[3]
When housing conditions are improved, the inhabitants suffer a favourable change in their behaviour and in their attitude, as they have a more friendly housing area than the one they had before the intervention. Likewise, their incomes also increased, because the further and progressive development of the house, allows them to rent part of the construction, or to use it as a productive area.
Approximately twenty employment places were created within the NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP, and an equal number was indirectly established during the implementation of the project in the neighbourhoods. In the current Program of Construction in Site Owned by Inhabitant (2000) two hundred construction workers and assistants were hired at the construction level; and during the Programas de Mejoramiento- Improving Programs- (1997 / 1998) four hundred and fifty persons were hired.
Methodologies, processes and procedures: advances have been made in their design and organization, in the quality of the service and in the ability to replicate the program. The coordination among the participants allowed, at the height of the experience (1997 / 98) to extend them , so that approximately two hundred families are benefited every month.
In relation to the academic advances, continuous urban studies based on fundamental housing topics, public areas, and the neighbourhood are carried out. These studies are published in the Series Ciudad yHabitat ( includes a web page), and are used as pedagogical material in universities and support centers.[4]
SUPPORT
The development of the programs here discussed has permitted the integration of social, technical, financial and cultural elements. Only environmental and surrounding factors have not been developed. These latter ones, which are just beginning to be discussed in our country, will be dealt with in future projects.
The first achievement mentioned constitutes and advancement in the field of popular habitat; because in a country like Colombia , the housing deficit of the city constructed by the inhabitants has been traditionally neglected , and the resources have been exclusively for new housing programs. It is also an important advancement not only in relation to Housing Policy, but also in relation to architecture and urbanism. Both, architecture and urbanism, are becoming more involved with these experiences which had been habitually distant for them. It is within this popular context that they have been forced to propose new ways in order to establish relationships with the urban inhabitants.
The particular experience of the NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP allows us to show an efficient and clear management style which has made possible to replicate the methodologies and to extend the scope to cover wider objectives. From this perspective, the cultural component, understood as a spatial concept ( respect towards the culture, the attitudes and the behavioural patterns, among other aspects) plays a key role, as a dialogue of experiences between architect-inhabitant is proposed. This dialogue is enriched by other fields of knowledge, and it is here where the contributions of studies, investigations and publications greatly contribute to enriching the projects.
Nevertheless, the atomization throughout many neighbourhods of the benefited families is a problem. ( Compensation Fund Programs) and the concentration of several experiences in one option (Inurbe Programs) has forced NEIGHBOURHOOD WOKSHOP to concentrate in some specific sites- the southwest of the city-. In doing so, the project has achieved an important impact upon specific neighbourhoods, through individualized attention to the families.
LESSONS LEARNED
An ample scope of beneficiaries from a small structure as it is the one of NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP, allows us to project the possibility to replicate the experience using consultant groups that with constant attention, quality and work efficiency, can pay attention to the great number of inhabitants that require help from these projects. We find here extraordinary working possibilities, both as a social option and as a professional activity.
Although it is true that the methodological proposals are quite complex projects, emphasis on personalized attention is given; moreover, it is almost impossible to draw a typology of architectonic answers- which is not the case with the new housing massive projects- the experience gained has enabled us to structure methodologies and procedures that can be applied to projects dealing with the qualitative housing deficit in popular neighbourhoods.
In terms of the spatial, the cultural component of these type of projects and programs is a theme that has not been sufficiently developed, at least from the architectural and urbanistic areas. Participation in the design processes, research regarding this spatial concept which is different- neither good nor bad- , the elaboration of new methodologies and the relationship itself with the inhabitants, are topics in which we have advanced, but there are also areas where we find immense exploring possibilities.
The concept of multiplerentabilities, which has permitted us to address the project as a whole, has also enabled us to widen our social scope in the neighbourhoods, to advance in the theme of the popular habitat with our academic contributions through our publications and theoretical studies, and finally, to attain an economic stability, without depending on external resources- e.g. international agencies-. These ten years have helped us to lay the foundations of a proposal that allows us to see in the distance- despite the deep crisis that we are living in Colombia- an ample future perspective of commitment with the popular habitat.
TRANSFER POSSIBILITIES
It is the policy of the NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP to contribute the knowledge it has acquired of the popular habitat in the Series Ciudad y Habitat and in its web page. At a level project, its methodologies and experiences have been perfected and are being transferred to more massive proposals to be replicated.
Initially, the experience was developed for the Improvement Pilot Credit Programs ( 1991), and we started by constructing methodologies which didn’t have prior background in our context. Since then, these methodologies have been perfected, as well as the processes, procedures and roles of the interdisciplinary equipment. It is in 1993 /94 when we were able to transfer this methodology to Improvement Programs that used credit, at a more massive level.
Currently, we are developing the Program of Construction in Site Owned by the Inhabitant , and although the methodology is a replica, it nevertheless adjusts to the process of building new housing in the terrain of families that don’t have a house. The program constructs basic units which the inhabitants later develop progressively.
With Banco Caja Social and Fedevivienda, a Program of Improvement with credit for five years is being designed. This program would allow us to replicate the methodology without depending on state subsidies and would also permit us to participate in the work meetings of the Programs of Improvement with credit granted by the European Union. The Plans for Territorial Ordering ( PTO ) carried out by the Colombian cities offer an ample perspective, because in places such as Santa Fé de Bogotá, D.C. the PTO considers that in the peripheral city, an integrated improvement process of the neighbourhoods should be undertaken. And it is here where these experiences could be duplicated in the medium and long run.
With the methodology and working tools that have been developed during this process,[5]
NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKSHOP would be in the capacity to repeat the experience in other contexts, thus generating a new option for urbanists and architects who have been distant from our cities periphery.
ATTACHMENTS:
THE PROJECT:LOCATION OF BOSA AND KENNEDY IN THE CITY
SOCIAL IMPACT: FAMILIES TAKEN CARE OF BY THE MUNICIPALITY
ATTENDED FAMILIES PER PROGRAM ( ORIGIN OF THE RESOURCES)
THE NEIGHBOURHOODS :IMPACT ON BOSA’S SITE
THE NEIGHBOURHOODS: IMPACT ON KENNEDY’S SITE
BENEFICIARY POPULATION: INCOME LEVEL
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
FAMILY NUCLEUS: AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS