Cohousing: Programs and Projects to Recover Heritage

Commenti

Transcript

Cohousing: Programs and Projects to Recover Heritage
A cura di / Edited by:
Adolfo F. L. Baratta, Fabrizio Finucci, Stefano Gabriele, Annalisa Metta, Luca Montuori, Valerio Palmieri
COHOUSING.
PROGRAMMI E PROGETTI PER LA RIQUALIFICAZIONE
DEL PATRIMONIO ESISTENTE
_______________
COHOUSING.
PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS TO RECOVER
HERITAGE BUILDINGS
COHOUSING.
PROGRAMMI E PROGETTI PER LA
RIQUALIFICAZIONE
DEL PATRIMONIO ESISTENTE
COHOUSING.
PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS TO
RECOVER
HERITAGE BUILDINGS
A cura di
Edited by
Adolfo F. L. Baratta
Fabrizio Finucci
Stefano Gabriele
Annalisa Metta
Luca Montuori
Valerio Palmieri
Comitato Scientifico
Scientific Committee
prof. Luuk Boelens
prof. Ruzica Bozovic Stamenovic
prof. Giovanni Caudo
prof. Francesco Cellini
prof. Susanna Ferrini
prof. Pere Fuertes Pérez
prof. Mario Rosario Losasso
prof. Mario Panizza
prof. Andrea Vidotto
Progetto grafico
Design
Silvia Pinci
_______________________________
Dipartimento di Architettura
Questo libro e la giornata di studi di cui raccoglie gli atti sono stati realizzati nell’ambito del
progetto di ricerca Co-housing. Metodi e strumenti di programmazione, progettazione e
gestione, finanziato presso il Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università Roma Tre, per il
periodo 2013-2015.
Questo libro e la giornata di studi
di cui raccoglie gli atti sono stati
©
Copyright
2014 del progetto
realizzati
nell’ambito
Edizioni
di ricercaETS
Co-housing. Metodi e
Piazza
Carrara,
16-19, I-56126 Pisa
strumenti
di programmazione,
[email protected]
progettazione e gestione, finanziato
www.edizioniets.com
presso il Dipartimento di Architettura
dell’Università Roma Tre, per il
Distribuzione
periodo 2013-2015.
PDE, Via Tevere 54, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino [Firenze]
ISBN 978-884674068-7
PREMESSA
FOREWORD
Adolfo F. L. Baratta
Fabrizio Finucci
Stefano Gabriele
Annalisa Metta
Luca Montuori
Valerio Palmieri
10
________________________________________
INDICE
INDEX
COHOUSING E RECUPERO
DEL PATRIMONIO EDILIZIO
ESISTENTE: LE RAGIONI DI DUE
ORIENTAMENTI CONGIUNTI
COHOUSING AND RECOVERY
OF THE EXISTING BUILDING
HERITAGE: THE REASONS FOR TWO
INTERLINKED TENDENCIES
Adolfo F. L. Baratta
Fabrizio Finucci
Stefano Gabriele
Annalisa Metta
Luca Montuori
Valerio Palmieri
14
________________________________________
Cohousing – cosa può darci e
come affrontarlo
Cohousing – what can it do
and how to deal with it
Luuk Boelens
22
________________________________________
cohousing - IL CICLO
cohousing - The LOOP
Ruzica Bozovic Stamenovic
28
________________________________________
DAL CO-HOUSING AL
CO-NEIGHBORHOOD
FROM CO-HOUSING TO THE
CO-NEIGHBORHOOD
Susanna Ferrini
32
________________________________________
IMPARARE ATTRAVERSO LA
RIPARAZIONE DELL’ESISTENTE
learning through repairing
Pere Fuertes Pérez
__________
A
__________
DIFFERENZIAZIONE,
MEDIAZIONE E PENSIERO
SISTEMICO NEI PROGETTI DI
COHOUSING DI FRIEDENSREICH
HUNDERTWASSER
DIFFERENTIATION, MEDIATION
AND SYSTEMS THINKING IN THE
WORK AND IN THE COHOUSING
PROJECTS OF FRIEDENSREICH
HUNDERTWASSER
Rosetta Angelini
Antonino Saggio
47
COHOUSING COME STRUMENTO
DI RIQUALIFICAZIONE URBANA
COHOUSING AS NEW INSTRUMENT
FOR URBAN REFURBISHMENT
Mariagiulia Bennicelli Pasqualis
Costanza Quentin
Esra Bektas
Jeroen Brouwer
54
________________________________________
PROGRAMMARE IL COHOUSING
HOW TO PROGRAM COHOUSING
Adolfo F. L. Baratta
Fabrizio Finucci
Stefano Gabriele
Annalisa Metta
Luca Montuori
Valerio Palmieri
__________
42
66
________________________________________
________________________________________
36
________
COHOUSING IN SPAGNA:
STRUMENTI, FATTORI E
STRATEGIE PER UN NUOVO
SVILUPPO
COHOUSING IN SPAIN: TOOLS,
FACTORS AND STRATEGIES FOR A
NEW DEVELOPMENT
Silvia Calastri
Elisabet Roca Battlori
Cesare Ajroldi
METTIAMOCI INSIEME.
(Nuovi paradigmi per il
futuro)
LET’S GET TOGETHER.
(New paradigms for the
future)
Luigia Bigatti
Elena Biffi
Liliana Toniolo
60
________________________________________
COHOUSING E
AUTOCOSTRUZIONE.
UN PROCESSO PER
L’AUTORECUPERO
COHOUSING AND SELF-BUILDING.
A SELF-REFURBISHMENT PROCESS
Elisabetta Ginelli
72
________________________________________
IL RUOLO DEGLI SPAZI
PUBBLICI E DEI CAMBIAMENTI
STRUTTURALI NEL COHOUSING E
PARTIMONIO COSTRUITO
THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SPACES
AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN
THE SYSTEM OF COHOUSING AND
BUILT HERITAGE
Janos Gyergyak
Eva Lovra
79
________________________________________
RIPENSARE L’EREDITÀ
DELL’HOUSING DEL 20° SECOLO
NEL CONTESTO DEI MODELLI
ABITATIVI CONTEMPORANEI
DELLA “CLASSE CREATIVA” IN
SERBIA
RETHINKING HOUSING HERITAGE
FROM THE 20TH CENTURY IN THE
CONTEXT OF CONTEMPORARY
HOUSING MODELS OF THE
“CREATIVE CLASS” IN SERBIA
Milena Krkljes
Vladimir Kubet
Dijana Apostolovic
86
________________________________________
Prospettive di sviluppo e
creazione di nuove forme di
comunità urbanE
PERSPECTIVES OF FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT AND CREATION
OF NEW FORMS OF URBAN
COMMUNITIES
Nataša Z. Krstić
Miodrag Ralević
Džemila Beganović
92
________________________________________
RIUSO E ABITARE CONDIVISO:
SOSTENIBILITÀ AMBIENTALE
E SOCIALE. Modalità di
intervento in centri
commerciali, aree artigianali
e residenziali dismesse
RECOVER AND COHOUSING:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY.
Intervention modalities
for dismissed shopping
centers, manufacturing and
residential buildings
Giorgio Davide Manzoni
Emanuele Giorgi
Tiziano Cattaneo
99
________________________________________
OCCUPAZIONI PROVVISORIE.
Transitorietà,
trascendentalismo e
adattamento nel centro di
Huston
TEMPORAL OCCUPANCIES.
Transience,
Transcendentalism, and
Adaptive Re-Use in Downtown
Houston
Gregory Marinic
104
__________
B
__________
________
________________________________________
PENSARE AL LIMITE.
Centri di accoglienza:
strumenti per rigenerare la
società e la città
THINKING TO THE LIMIT.
Social cohousing and
architectural regeneration
Maura Percoco
110
________________________________________
Cohousing come nuovo
modello di abitare: il caso
del “Condominio solidale Collina dei Barbagianni” a
Roma
COHOUSING AS A NEW WAY OF
LIVING: THE CASE OF “SOLIDAL
CONDOMINIUM - COLLINA DEI
BARBAGIANNI” IN ROME
Marta Ricci
Federico Ciani
117
________________________________________
Progettare l’abitazione e la
condivisione
How to design houses and
space sharing
Adolfo F. L. Baratta
Fabrizio Finucci
Stefano Gabriele
Annalisa Metta
Luca Montuori
Valerio Palmieri
126
__________
SPAZIO PUBBLICO ALLA SCALA
LOCALE COME STRUMENTO DI
RIGENERAZIONE URBANA
LOCAL OPEN SPACE AS URBAN
REGENERATION TOOL
Mariateresa Aprile
131
________________________________________
Da forme a case collettive.
Il caso dell’”housing
pockets” di Skopje
FROM COLLECTIVE FORM TO
COLLECTIVE HOUSING. CASE
STUDY OF SKOPJE HOUSING
POCKETS
Minas Bakalchev
Sasha Tasic
138
________________________________________
COHOUSING E STUDENT
HOUSING: MATRICI E MODELLI
SOSTENIBILI A CONFRONTO
COHOUSING AND STUDENT
HOUSING: SUSTAINABLE LIVING
TYPES AND MODELS COMPARED
Oscar Eugenio Bellini
Eleonora Bersani
144
________________________________________
UN PROGETTO DI COHOUSING
URBANO A MARGHERA
A PROJECT OF URBAN COHOUSING
IN MARGHERA
Andrea Calgarotto
151
________________________________________
COSTRUIRE COMUNITà
BUILDING COMMUNITY
Vincenza De Vincenziis
170
________________________________________
202
ABITARE CON
LIVING WITH
Cristiana Eusepi
________________________________________
176
________________________________________
COHOUSING CORTILI APERTI
COHOUSING OPEN COURTYARDS
Giovanni Franceschelli
183
________________________________________
Dalle esigenze ai criteri di
progetto del cohousing. La
flessibilità dell’abitare in
condivisione
FROM THE NEEDS TO THE DESIGN
PRINCIPLES OF COHOUSING.
THE FLEXIBILITY OF LIVING IN
COMMUNITY
Lucia Castiglioni
Silvia Meazza
Ofelia Vera Piazzini
Marco Zenoni
157
________________________________________
PROGRAMMA ESTREMO DI
COHOUSING
EXTREME COHOUSING PROGRAM
Mattia Darò
163
________________________________________
Habitat paralleli cohousing per la comunità
multiculturale di Mirpur
Parallel Habitat- A
Cohousing Community for the
Transculturals of
Mirpur City
Zoona Jerral
RIPENSAMENTO
MULTIDISCIPLINARE DEL
COHOUSING
MULTIDISCIPLINARY RETHINKING
OF COHOUSING
Gilda Giancipoli
189
ABITARE, COLTIVARE
AGRI-CULTURAL DWELLING
Giovanni Longobardi
207
________________________________________
COHOUSING, RESIDENZE
TEMPORANEE E AGRIVILLAGGIO
PER IL RECUPERO DEGLI SPAZI
PERIURBANI
COHOUSING, TEMPORARY
RESIDENCES AND AGRIVILLAGE
FOR THE PERI-URBAN AREAS
REGENERATION
Luisa Mauro
214
________________________________________
________________________________________
ABITARE COLLETTIVO
COME PRATICA ADEGUATA
PER RISOLVERE LA
FRAMMENTAZIONE DELLA CITTÀ
COLLECTIVE HOUSING AS A
GOOD WAY TO SOLVE CITY
FRAGMENTATION
Emanuele Giorgi
Ioanni Delsante
Nadia Bertolino
Giorgio Davide Manzoni
196
________________________________________
SOCIALFIT: RECUPERO SOCIALE
PER LA SOSTENIBILITà
ENERGETICA
SOCIALFIT: SOCIAL RECOVERYING
FOR ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY
Lina Monaco
Alessandra Lepore
Nina Mazzarella
220
________________________________________
Tipologia di configurazioni
degli spazi aperti nei
quartieri di edilizia pubblica
TYPOLOGY OF CONFIGURATIONS
OF OPEN PUBLIC SPACES
WITHIN PUBLIC HOUSING
NEIGHBOURHOODS
Nevena Novakovic
Aleksandra Djukic
225
__________
C
__________
________
Mantenere e gestire il
privato e il comune
How to mantain and manage
private and common realm
Adolfo F. L. Baratta
Fabrizio Finucci
Stefano Gabriele
Annalisa Metta
Luca Montuori
Valerio Palmieri
234
__________
CO-QUARTIERI SOCIALI.
HYPER-CYCLE DEGLI
ARCIPELAGHI URBANI
CO-NEIGHBORHOODS.
HYPER-CYCLE OF THE URBAN
ARCHIPELAGOS
Claudia Battaino
Luca Zecchin
239
________________________________________
L’ABITARE COLLETTIVO COME
PROGETTO DI PAESAGGIO
COLLECTIVE LIVING AS
LANDSCAPE PROJECT
Antonia Di Lauro
245
________________________________________
Rivitalizzazione mediante
sinergia: interventi
strategici e architettonici
nell’area suburbana di
Tessalonica
REVITALIZATION THROUGH
SYNERGY: STRATEGIC AND
ARCHITECTURAL INTERVENTION
IN THE SUBURBAN AREA OF
THESSALONIKI
Nafsika Efklidou
Ourania-Georgia Hatzitheofilou
Nikolaos Xenos
Eirini Aivazidou
Eutuxia Mpalla
252
RIQUALIFICAZIONE E
DENSIFICAZIONE DELLE
MEGASTRUTTURE ERP: IL
COHOUSING COME STRUMENTO
DI POLITICHE DI TRANSIZIONE
REDEVELOPMENT AND
DENSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
HOUSING MEGASTRUCTURES:
COHOUSING AS A TRANSITION
POLICIES TOOL
Benedetto Nastasi
Lorenzo Diana
264
________________________________________
IL CO-LIVING COME MOTORE
DI INNOVAZIONI SOCIALI NEI
“SASSI” DI MATERA
THE CO-LIVING EXPERIENCE AS
ENGINE FOR SOCIAL INNOVATIONS
IN THE “SASSI” COMPLEX IN
MATERA
Giovanni Perrucci
270
________________________________________
________________________________________
RIGENERAZIONE URBANA
PER UN RINNOVATO ASSETTO
TERRITORIALE IN CALABRIA
URBAN REGENERATION FOR A
RENEWED REGIONAL PLANNING IN
CALABRIA
Domenico Francese
Gianluca Ardiri
LE LILONG DI SHANGHAI: DA
ABITARE A COABITARE
SHANGHAI’S LILONG: FROM
HOUSING TO COHOUSING
Claudio Piferi
Nicoletta Setola
Giulia Esposito
258
________________________________________
276
________________________________________
gruppo di ricerca cohousing
RESEARCH GROUP COHOUSING
284
________________________________________
10
PREMESSA
________
L’autonomia della residenza privata combinata con i vantaggi di spazi, risorse e servizi collettivi. Anche se
in Italia si tratta ancora di un fenomeno poco diffuso, il tema del cohousing rappresenta certamente uno dei
più stimolanti e attuali ambiti di progettazione e ricerca.
Lo scenario è fortemente eterogeneo, a tratti persino incoerente, poiché molteplici sono le variabili in gioco
e non esiste un modello predefinito di cohousing: tipologia di utenza (lavoratori, studenti, anziani, divorziati,
comunità miste), desideri dei cohouser (spazi, risorse e servizi differenti), collocazione dell’edificato (grandi
o piccoli centri urbani, campagna) e tipologia di intervento (nuova edificazione o recupero dell’esistente)
sono soltanto alcuni dei fattori che contribuiscono a determinare realtà completamente differenti.
Uno degli obiettivi della ricerca in corso al Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università di Roma Tre, condotta
con un approccio multidisciplinare dovuto al coinvolgimento di ricercatori afferenti a diversi settori, è proprio
quello di creare un quadro sinottico in grado di restituire un’immagine chiara di un panorama articolato.
Anche per questo motivo il gruppo di ricerca ha pubblicato una call (marzo 2014) sul tema del cohousing e
degli interventi sul patrimonio edilizio esistente, argomento centrale nelle politiche mondiali del prossimo
decennio.
La partecipazione a “Cohousing. Programmi e progetti per la riqualificazione del patrimonio esistente” è
andata oltre le previsioni. Sono stati trasmessi più di cinquanta contributi di cui il 65% italiano (dal Trentino
alla Sicilia) e il 35% proveniente da paesi europei (Croazia, Grecia, Macedonia, Olanda, Romania, Serbia,
Spagna e Ungheria), americani (Canada, Perù e Stati Uniti) e asiatici (Pakistan).
A seguito del doppio esame valutativo, il primo dell’abstract (maggio 2014) e il secondo del paper (settembre
2014), compiuto da referee qualificati, sono stati selezionati i 35 contributi raccolti nel presente volume.
I contributi di studiosi, professionisti e operatori del terzo settore sono stati organizzati in tre distinte
sessioni: della prima fanno parte i contributi relativi alle strategie e agli strumenti di programmazione di
cohousing; alla seconda appartengono i contributi concernenti la progettazione di spazi residenziali e di
servizio; della terza fanno parte i contributi relativi al mantenimento e alla gestione degli spazi privati e
comuni.
La qualità dei risultati della call e del workshop (ottobre 2014) forse non è sufficiente per arrivare a delle
conclusioni ma certamente consente di fare il punto della situazione sulle tendenze più significative
attualmente in atto. In sostanza si tratta di un documento ambivalente che può servire come punto di
partenza per chi si accosta per la prima volta al tema del cohousing e come elemento di approfondimento
per chi invece se ne occupa da tempo.
Gruppo di Ricerca
Adolfo F. L. Baratta, Fabrizio Finucci, Stefano Gabriele, Annalisa Metta, Luca Montuori, Valerio Palmieri
COHOUSING
11
FOREWORD
________
All the freedom and autonomy of a private home together with the benefits of collective spaces, resources
and services. Though not representing a common solution in Italy, cohousing is nevertheless one of the
most stimulating and topical design and research areas.
The scenario is extremely heterogeneous, sometimes even inconsistent, because the variables involved
are numerous and no predefined cohousing model exists: type of user (workers, students, senior citizens,
divorced persons, mixed communities), cohousers’ requirements (spaces, resources and different
amenities), position of building (large cities or small towns, country) and type of building job (new building
or rehabilitation of existing ones) are just some of the factors which help determine completely different
solutions. One of the goals of the research under way in the Department of Architecture of Roma Tre
University, conducted with a multidisciplinary approach due to the involvement of researchers belonging to
different sectors, is precisely to create a mimic panel able to provide a clear picture of what is an articulated
scenario. For this reason as well, the research team has published a call for papers (March 2014) on the
topic of cohousing and jobs done on the existing building heritage - a central issue within global politics
over the coming decade.
Participation in “Cohousing. Programs and projects to recover heritage buildings” was better than expected.
Over fifty contributions were received, 65% from Italy (from Trentino to Sicily) and 35% from other European
countries (Croatia, Greece, Macedonia, Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, Spain and Hungary), America
(Canada, Peru and USA) and Asia (Pakistan).
Following the dual assessment examination, the first relating to the abstract (May 2014) and the second to
the paper (September 2014), made by qualified referees, 35 contributions were selected which have been
collected up in this book.
The contributions of scholars and third sector professionals and operators have been split into three distinct
sessions: the first includes contributions relating to cohousing planning strategies and instruments; the
second groups together the contributions concerning the planning of residential and service spaces; the
third is dedicated to the maintenance and management of private and common areas.
The quality of call and workshop results (October 2014) is perhaps not enough to reach conclusions, but it
definitely permits taking stock of the situation as regards the most significant trends currently under way. In
point of fact, it is an ambivalent document that could well represent a starting point for anyone addressing
the cohousing topic for the first time and a chance to delve deeper into the subject for anyone who has been
acquainted with it over the longer period.
Research Team
Adolfo F. L. Baratta, Fabrizio Finucci, Stefano Gabriele, Annalisa Metta, Luca Montuori, Valerio Palmieri
COHOUSING
12
___
La partecipazione a “Cohousing.
Programmi e progetti per la
riqualificazione del patrimonio
esistente”.
Participation in “Cohousing. Programs
and projects to recover heritage
buildings”.
COHOUSING
13
COHOUSING
PROGRAMMARE
IL COHOUSING
HOW TO PROGRAM
COHOUSING
________
Strumenti e strategie di programmazione di cohousing e di recupero dell’esistente, con
particolare attenzione alle modalità operative
Tools and strategies to match cohousing and existing buildings recovering, with particular
attention to operative process
54
COHOUSING COME
STRUMENTO DI
RIQUALIFICAZIONE
URBANA
COHOUSING AS
NEW INSTRUMENT
FOR URBAN
REFURBISHMENT
________
Mariagiulia Bennicelli Pasqualis
Università di Firenze
[email protected]
unifi.it
Costanza Quentin
Ipostudio architetti
[email protected]
Esra Bektas
TNO - Organisatie Voor Toegepast
Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek
[email protected]
Jeroen Brouwer
TNO - Organisatie Voor Toegepast
Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KEYWORDS
[email protected]
Cohousing
Urban refurbishment
District scale
Participatory and
concurrent processes
COHOUSING
Despite the real estate crisis, one housing trend is still developing,
enhancing new way-of-life and principles. The end-users’ requirements
are changing and a new consciousness is forming; people is striving
for more affordable, EeB and social value-based districts.
This housing sector is represented by self-organized and communitybased processes as cohousing. The potential of cohousing sector is
mainly represented by the private initiative and the high involvement
and participation of inhabitants, as they are both the end-users and
the clients of their projects. We can then assume each cohousing
process as a unique one, entailing different project scenarios, design
approaches and tools to be applied, depending on different requirements
rather than constraints related to the specific context of intervention.
However, each process always undergoes some precise phases,
which represent the constants of the system (Community Building,
Development, Design, Implementation, Operation/Maintenance). The
variables of the system instead display themselves in the development
of contents and chronological aspects of each phase. At the SOTA it
is possible to define three kind of processes according to the active/
passive role of actors involved (end-user, municipality, SME): bottomup and top-down. Through the active role of end-users, community role
becomes crucial in order to create social-affordable districts as basis
of a value-chain of social neighbourhoods development, enhancing the
urban refurbishment.
This paper wants to underline how social and EeB value-based
communities represent a potential for urban renovation, but it is
important to enhance the role of municipalities in initiating or catalysing
the processes. This would be possible by the means of e-tools that help
municipalities in exploit processes, offering an interchange platform
between the different actors, filling the gap between the professional
(municipality and SME) side and the unprofessional one (end-users).
This paper refers to the on-going EU research project PROFICIENT,
under the Energy-efficient Building (EeB) programme.
PROGRAMMARE IL COHOUSING
HOW TO PROGRAM COHOUSING
55
INTRODUCTION
One of the urgent matters of the contemporary city is to solve the housing demand without increasing the
territory consumption. The last decades has seen changes in the demand needs, due to the changing wayof-life caused inter alia by the new nomadic phenomenon, the disintegration of the traditional family unit
(Blangiardo & Rimoldi, 2006), entailing a larger number of households but at the same time a decrease in the
average number of family members. This new demand side cannot find a response in the real estate market,
both public and private, as it results inadequate from many points of view: typological, technological, and
also social. Moreover, there is an economical factor, worsened by the crisis, that influence this demand: a
target of end-users is not either allowed to enter the public housing stock or the private one. This is mainly
due, on the one side to the very strict parameter that regulate the public housing sector, and on the other
side due to the high costs, often combined to a general low quality of the private real estate.
Beside this lays the assumption that sees territory as a frail resource [1] that cannot be consumed anymore.
We cannot keep enlarging horizontally our cities, as it entails infrastructural and social costs, but we need to
provide accommodations that respond to the new social and environmental requirements. Thus, we need
to operate on the urban territory reducing the land consumption, and that implies refurbishing the existing
building stock. In this frame, and despite the real estate crisis, there are some emerging phenomenon
through which end-users want to bypass the traditional housing market (big developer; top-down processes;
and houses not really reflecting the end-users need and a general loss of money as a result) able to solve
the housing demand with tailor-made and affordable housing. This kind of movements, that can be listed
under the more general name of self-organised processes, is generally characterized by private initiative,
participatory processes and, due to the commitment of the end-users and depending on the level of their
awareness, environmental values.
THE COHOUSING RELATED-FEATURES
Cohousing is a specific kind of self-organised processes that adds to the set of characteristics listed above a
collective value that can assume a crucial role in creating social affordable districts because of social valuebased communities. In fact, the potential offered by cohousing essentially lies in allowing end-users to
realize their-own houses, saving costs, increasing the quality of interventions and offering shared facilities
so that social-based housing districts. Besides this, evident barriers that impede cohousing and collective
movements in general to grow needs to be solved. NaSBA (2011) identifies some key obstacles holding back
the growth of the sector of self-build in the non-professional profile of end-user’s communities, difficulties in
finding suitable plots, and the impact of regulation on project risk and feasibility. This brings to a waste of
time and a high risk in project failure, because people involved are likely to abandon the community. At the
same time, these grassroots movements are seen as promoters of localism and boost the wider economy,
creating new jobs in the construction sector and enhancing the SME business opportunities (ibid.). In fact
SMEs, the supply-side of the market, play a crucial role as they could be interpreted as the vehicle for
innovation technology in the housing market sector. Furthermore, the homeowners are the client and the
end-user at the same time, so they fulfil a crucial role in cohousing movements, as they represent the
vehicle for driving the housing market sector towards a quality growth and, possibly, EeB interventions at a
COHOUSING
56
district scale. This paper, referring to the on-going EU research project PROFICIENT focusing on Collective
Self-Organised (CSO) housing processes, wants to illustrate the opportunities that these movements can
bring in the urban development strategies. The general process flow, the actors and their role, and the
stakeholders of collective self-organised interventions are then described explaining how the municipality
could support playing a catalyst role for the growth of this specific housing sector.
Cohousing is actually an internationally accepted term to represent, not a housing typology, but rather a
specific way of approaching the housing market. It entails the development of a specific process in order
to achieve the realization of the housing intervention. As stated, the term “cohousing” refers to a housing
model characterized by a high level of self-organization and participation of the end-users in the processes
of formation, requirements definition, planning, design, implementation and maintenance of their own
housing project. Indeed, cohousing is a process in which a group of individual organizes itself within a
contractual agreement on a collective level for the realization of their settlement, in both cases of new
construction or refurbishment interventions (Di Giulio et al., 2014). Due to the principle of self-organization,
the leading role of the client, the specificity of each community in terms of objectives and functional,
financial and legal requirements, and the local context of intervention (e.g. specific laws, prescription, such
as geographical, social and cultural conditions), the cohousing process is characterized by a high level of
variability. However, each process always undergoes some precise phases, which represent the constants
of the system: Community Building phase, Development phase, Design phase, Implementation phase,
Operation/Maintenance phase (Scotthanson, 2005). The process can be a bottom-up kind or a top-down
one depending on who takes the initiative and who drives the process. The process is bottom-up when it is
end-users driven, meaning that the initiative comes directly from the end-users, who organize themselves
to develop the project autonomously. This generally happens when a group of people shares a similar
vision or objective to build its houses and seeks for opportunities together. The process is instead top-down
when it is Municipality-driven or SME-driven. In Municipality-driven processes, the municipality initiates
the process allocating lands/buildings, either public or private, in which it is necessary to implement a
regeneration scheme that could be pursued with the settlement of a project like CSO Housing. Therefore,
people acquire the site/building to develop houses/districts within the respect of the conditions established
by the municipality. In SME-driven process, instead, SMEs, seeking for business opportunities, promote and
initiate a process accordingly to the service they can provide in the perspective of their gain (Di Giulio et al.,
2014). At the moment, in many countries of Europe, the cohousing process still needs to be programmed
by local governments. Only few countries has already integrated these kind of processes in regulations
that establish sets of rules for the development of the cohousing model (i.e. Germany). In other countries,
cohousing still represents an autonomous process developed case to case by the specific group of interest,
with no organized support from the municipality and regulation system, apart from the one provided on
circumstances or opportunity (i.e. Italy).
COHOUSING AS AN ANSWER FOR URBAN REGENERATION
In this frame, the cohousing model and its process could turn out to be an answer to the set of problems
that puzzles the contemporary housing market, providing benefits both on the individual, social and urban
COHOUSING
PROGRAMMARE IL COHOUSING
HOW TO PROGRAM COHOUSING
57
levels. From the individual perspective, cohousing offers the possibility to the clients to realize tailor-made
houses due to the participation of the end-users during the design phase. This entails, on the one hand, to
realize houses expressly designed according to the specific needs and requirements of each household,
enabling the new typology of families raised due to the pulverization of the typical households to obtain
adequate housing solutions. On the other hand, living in tailor-made houses triggers a higher individual
satisfaction which has positive repercussions on the social sphere. Moreover, cohousing could promise
savings in terms of costs as it generally denies the presence of an investor, being the community the investor
itself. This enables the ones who cannot afford ordinary housing to enter the housing market through a
lighter investment. From the social and urban perspective, cohousing reduces the waste of territorial and
environmental resources, as it implies the use of these resources only when a concrete and actual demand
for housing occurs. Moreover a cohousing project has the chance to increase the social potentials of the
area of intervention on district level due to its inherent characteristics, as previously defined. This last
consideration becomes more true in the case of refurbishment interventions as it achieve a renaissance of
abandoned or ruined buildings, which probably are the cause of the degradation of some urban areas. In
this scenario, the role of the municipality in cohousing processes turns out to be crucial as it could work as
catalyst or driver for cohousing project aiming to the requalification of urban areas identified as degraded.
EXAMPLES OF COHOUSING INTERVENTION IN THE EXISTING BUILDING HERITAGE [2]
Here follows some examples of cohousing refurbishment interventions in which the role of the municipality
has proved to be crucial and beneficial. These examples illustrate a case of bottom-up process end-users
led, a case of top-down process SME led, and finally a case of top-down process municipality led.
The first case is cohousing numero Zero. It is a cohousing community that between 2007-2013 built-up its
own project through a refurbishment intervention in an abandoned building near the market area in Piazza
della Repubblica, Turin. The community itself has its start in a cohousing association, CoAbitare, addressed
to promote a more ecological and less consumerist way-of-life, as well as collaborative neighbourhood
intervening in socially problematic urban areas. Cohousing Numero Zero defines itself an intentionalcommunity, and it perfectly reflects the ideology of the core association. In facts the intervention involved
an abandoned building located in a multi-ethnic and socially depressed area of the city, near the city centre.
Eight households with different ages and professions formed the community, which is characterized by a
democratic and non-hierarchical structure. This case is well-representing a bottom-up process as it was
entirely end-users driven. In the project delivery process, the Municipality had had an important role, as in
1996 it developed an experimental urban renovation program named The Gate – living not leaving, aimed to
improve life and work conditions through the involvement of public and private partnership. The community
had the chance to exploit this opportunity, but, in absence of national regulations for cohousing, it had to
respect all the national building standards for traditional housing. Being two member of the core groups
architects had surely facilitated the community in finding the appropriate solutions. Seen the complexity of
the process, the Community is now offering its experience in helping other groups in the first phase of the
process in order to allow them to internally develop the competences to drive the process autonomously.
“Coholonia” is the reconversion of the Villa Rosa Maltoni Mussolini (Calambrone, Pisa) built in the 1930s by
COHOUSING
58
the Italian engineer and architect Angiolo Mazzoni. It is a well-known great example of Italian architecture
of the fascism decades. It reveals the possibility for cohousing to settle itself within the historical heritage.
The project is the result of the collaboration between the municipality and the SME Newcoh s.r.l., a
service provider’s company active in the Italian cohousing market. It is part of the plan developed by the
municipality for the regeneration of the ex-colony, completed in 2010. Thus the municipality resulted to
be a crucial vehicle through which the implementation of this project has been made possible. This in an
example of top-down process for which the service design has been elaborated by the developer (Newcoh
s.r.l), who made the main decisions regarding spaces and facilities. The project consists in 60 dwellings
and many shared facilities: living area with common kitchen, gym and wellness area, 20000 sqm park with
swimming-pool, laundry, media library, office spaces, playground, guesthouse, laboratories). The result a
value-based community in which the opportunities of sharing are many. Duinstraat project is a municipal
initiated retrofitting project of a former school building located in The Hague, The Netherlands. The building
was constructed around 1880 and characterized by many authentic details and elements. It was re-used
temporarily as a police station and offices, then became vacant. The municipality of The Hague decided
to sell the building to a group of self-builders, and divided the building into ten plots with providing “plot
passports” accommodated necessary information such as dimensions, possibilities, and restrictions. The
Municipality also supported the process with taking some renovation actions such as fixing the roof, and
splitting the individual plots according to the regulation (fire, noise, construction safety). This support
included coaching and advice on both the energy efficiency issues and potential subsidies. The municipality
self-building process needed to include collective organizing, as the prospective end-users are obliged to
form a community (home owners association) that undertakes retrofitting process for the common spaces
(i.e. façade, common entrance hall, garden etc.). The organized community became responsible for the
maintenance of both the building envelope and other common spaces. In order to buy and thus be the
member of the community, the end users needed a bank statement showing their financial capability. Via
this statement, they could enrol to the project. The municipality also demanded a strict deadline. After
purchasing the plots officially, the end-users were required to finish retrofitting within one year. They also
were not allowed to sell the apartments within the first 3 years (with a penalty of 25.000 for no compliance).
Currently, all the plots have been sold and the refurbishment construction has not yet been started.
CONCLUSIONS
Municipalities, like this of The Hague, have to cope with many different types of run down real estate.
Similar real estate projects can be found in various municipalities in the Netherlands. It offers future owners
a very well situated, historical building with great aesthetic appearance, and the opportunity for end users
to create the ideal home and living environment eventually. This way, people are given possibilities to act
pro-active in establishing new dynamics in urban neighbourhood.
Thus we could assume that the role of municipalities could be crucial as driver or catalyst of cohousing and
more in general Collective Self-Organised processes. To help and facilitate the exchange of information, the
creation of new business opportunities for SMEs and to increase the suitability of results fitting with the endusers’ wishes, a tool of interaction is needed. This tool can be a CSO Housing platform that enhances that
COHOUSING
59
PROGRAMMARE IL COHOUSING
HOW TO PROGRAM COHOUSING
role and eases the processes. This system will operate through a connection between the actors involved
(end-users, SMEs and Municipalities), providing mutual benefits. These benefits are substantially referred
to the opportunities these movements can offer to municipalities in terms of urban regeneration; and then
also to the high potential in offering housing interventions characterised by a higher standard quality,
with higher end-users’ satisfaction resulting in more socially affordable districts. Furthermore, the private
initiative, with private investments, can boost the local and wider economy (NaSBA, 2011) and enhance new
opportunities for SME networks. In addition, the end-user’s commitment and awareness can offer important
results in terms of energy efficiency, both due to the community-vision and in due to cost-savings during
the operation phase. Despite this, there are current barriers to solve, in order to give access and availability
of financial tools; to simplify building regulation for CSO processes; to give access to suitable sites for
interventions in the urban area; and to improve of design strategies in order to integrate non-professional
side with professional actors. The e-tool can be used as a platform where interested people can find results,
experiences, advices and available financial/regulation tools, as a place where municipalities can present
and offer sites for renovation. In addition it includes an e-marketplace where the supply side can offer
services and products while the demand side can find the most suitable solutions for its specific purpose;
and an e-platform with tools for end-users’ participation and professional concurrency, in order to allow also
remotely work and information exchange.
[1] European Soil Charter, Council of Europe Committee Ministers, Adopted on 30 May 1972; art.2.
[2] The information has been gathered by the authors through interviews and site visits.
REFERENCES
Blangiardo, G.C., Rimoldi, S., 2006. “Morfogenesi della famiglia italiana. La prospettiva socio-demografica”. In Scabini, E., Rossi, G.
(eds), Le parole della famiglia. Milan: Vita e pensiero, pp. 77-99.
Di Giulio, R., 2014. Guidelines for Participatory and Concurrent design. Proficient Project Internal report D1.2.
Durante, C., 2011. Il cohousing e le Pubbliche Amministrazioni. AAM Terra Nuova. [online] Available at http://www.cohousingitalia.it/
article8823.htm
Lietaert, M., 2008. Cohousing e condomini solidali. Firenze: Terra Nuova editor.
Lietaert, M., 2011. Il cohousing: origini, storia ed evoluzione in Europa e nel mondo. [online] Available at http://www.cohousingitalia.it/
article8844.htm
McCamant, K., Durrett, C., 2011. Creating Cohousing, Building Sustainable Communities. Canada.
NaSBA, 2011. An Action Plan to promote the growth of self build housing. [online] Available at http://www.buildstore.co.uk/
ActionPlan/Govt-Action-Plan-July-2011.pdf
Ring, K., Eldner, F., 2007. auf.einander.bauen. Berlino: DAZ.
Scotthanson, C., Scotthanson, K., 2005 (II ed.). The Cohousing Handbook: building a place for community. Canada: New Society
Publisher.
www.cohousingnumerozero.it
www.cohousing.it
www.ikbouwindenhaag.nl
COHOUSING
RINGRAZIAMENTI DEI CURATORI
THANKS OF THE ORGANIZERS
La preparazione della Giornata
di Studi e poi l’elaborazione e
raccolta dei paper in questo
volume sono attività che per
circa un anno hanno richiesto
l’impegno anche di molte altre
persone, senza le quali questo
progetto non avrebbe visto la
luce.
A tutti loro va il nostro doveroso
ringraziamento.
Si ringrazia il Dipartimento di
Architettura dell’Università degli
Studi di Roma Tre, in particolare il
suo Direttore, prof.ssa Elisabetta
Pallottino, per il sostegno e
la fiducia accordati al gruppo
di ricercatori, anche con la
concessione di un finanziamento
che ha dato concreta fattibilità al
progetto.
Si ringraziano i membri del
Comitato Scientifico che hanno
arricchito questa esperienza con
contributi originali, suggerimenti
preziosi e stimoli costanti.
Si ringrazia chi ha aderito, spesso
con entusiasmo, alla nostra call,
inviando dei contributi mai banali.
Infine, si ringrazia l’architetto Silvia
Pinci che con professionalità,
puntuale e risolutiva, e umanità,
generosa e spontanea, ha
contribuito a rendere ogni
occasione di lavoro un piacevole
momento di confronto e crescita.
The preparation of the Study
Day and the processing and
collection of the papers in this
book are activities which, for
about a year, have also required
the commitment of many other
people, without whom this project
would not have been possible.
To all of them, we should like to
extend our heartfelt thanks.
Our thanks also go to the
Department of Architecture of the
Roma Tre University, in particular
to its Director, professor Elisabetta
Pallottino, for the support given
and confidence placed in the
team of researchers, including by
providing a grant which made the
project concretely feasible.
A big thank you also to the
Scientific Committee which
enhanced this experience with
original contributions, precious
suggestions
and
constant
stimulus.
Thanks also to those who
enthusiastically answered our
call for papers sending what were
never banal contributions.
Finally, our thanks to architect
Silvia Pinci who, in a professional,
prompt, determined, human,
generous
and
spontaneous
way, helped make this project a
pleasant occasion for discussion
and growth.
COHOUSING
_______________________________
Dipartimento di Architettura
Comitato Scientifico
Scientific Committee
prof. Luuk Boelens
prof. Ruzica Bozovic Stamenovic
prof. Giovanni Caudo
prof. Francesco Cellini
prof. Susanna Ferrini
prof. Pere Fuertes Pérez
prof. Mario Rosario Losasso
prof. Mario Panizza
prof. Andrea Vidotto
Gruppo di Ricerca
Research team
Adolfo F. L. Baratta
Fabrizio Finucci
Stefano Gabriele
Annalisa Metta
Luca Montuori
Valerio Palmieri
Edizioni ETS
Piazza Carrara, 16-19, I-56126 Pisa
[email protected] - www.edizioniets.com
Finito di stampare nel mese di ottobre 2014

Documenti analoghi

Cohousing - Università degli Studi di Firenze

Cohousing - Università degli Studi di Firenze Architectural and Planning Research 12, no. 3 (1995): 306-8. Rodriguez, Alicia. "All Together Now: Cohousing Puts the Emphasis on Community." Landscape Architecture 86, no. 4 (1996): 24. Rogers, Be...

Dettagli

Mondeggi Bene Comune

Mondeggi Bene Comune casi il termine “pubblico” sembra essere usato a sinonimo di ente, governo, burocrazia, per indicare qualcosa che sta al di fuori di noi. Ma “pubblico” indica collettività, comunità, appartenenza a...

Dettagli