Social Housing: It Can Work, for Some

References:

Fennell Catherine. 2015. Last Project Standing: Civics and Sympathy in Post-Welfare Chicago. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

Kil, Wolfgang and Hilary Silver. 2006. “From Kreuzberg to Marzahn: New Migrant Communities in Berlin.” German Politics & Society 24(4): 95-121.

The Guardian's article:

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/04/crime-community-designer-social-housing-winnipeg

5468796 Architecture's Response:

http://www.archdaily.com/781246/5468796-architectures-response-to-the-guardian-over-their-failed-social-housing-project

***

Please pardon the late post. I've been down for a three-day grand finale cumulative of my toddlers' generous seasonal sharing of flu. I have misplaced my voice, and might not be able to stay much in class today.

Continuing on the theme of building urban infrastructure on the topic of social housing, I looked for ways in which urban built environments influence socio-cultural and economic realities within and around them.

In her sophisticated ethnography on public subsidized housing in Chicago, Fennell (2015) looks at the demolition and remaking of the Henry Horner housing complex as an effort to integrate residents from different income levels and social classes. The ambition turned out the be too fantastical. The question of how (and where) to house the urban poor remains, but the book points to an important aspect of infrastructure that might not be always visible: sympathy. This ‘invisible' reality of any housing structure insists on the non-materiality of space and infrastructure, as well as the socio-cultural life they have (as also seen in the article and the two pieces I chose).

Kil and Silver's article was of particular interest to me because of my research on the Vietnamese in Berlin. The article does a great job examining the history of social housing estates in the central and outskirts of Berlin, showing how these sites allow for the migrant poor ‘an anchor place' to better their lives, which in turn transformed these neighborhoods into multicultural environments. In fact, the authors boldly suggests that:

As we have argued, Berlin's new multiculturalism has its limits. Migrants still suffer from social exclusion. But the comparison of Kreuzberg and Marzahn demonstrates how poor, disfavored areas whether in the urban center or periphery-can attract ambitious, creative, and industrious residents. Neither neighborhood is socially or economically untroubled, but in each place, a distinctive multicultural stew is simmering, making vibrant, interesting, and hopeful places. If Berlin and indeed Germany can successfully integrate foreigners, the essential test will be precisely in these neighborhoods.

From these readings, I chose the two articles on the social housing project in Winnepig, Canada: one criticizing the ‘failed' attempt of designer social housing, and the other in response to it. The Guardian published the critical piece on January 4, 2016, but refused to let the other side voice their perspective. Not until January 29 - almost a whole month later - that the architectural team found their way into public discourse with the Arch Daily. I am reminded of the contesting terrains on which social housing projects traverse and unfold. In the Guardian story, Raja Moussaoui describes the demographic contexts of Central Park:

The average household income here is less than C$20,000 (about £9,900) annually, and nearly 90% of residents live in subsidised high-rise towers. Thousands more are on waiting lists for public housing. Although many new immigrants have large families, the chances of finding a vacant three-bedroom apartment are slim. Moreover, a large proportion of Central Park’s residents are devout Muslims whose faith prohibits paying interest on a loan, making it impossible to take on a mortgage from a traditional bank.

The new housing complex, Moussaoui argues, did not help with the situation:

Besides crowding, there is the local crime, which plagues much of Winnipeg’s downtown. With no direct sightlines through Centre Village, that communal inner courtyard has turned into a convenient spot for locals to drink and use drugs, hidden from the eyes of police.

The designers, some of the most respected in Canada, expressed their side of the story:

While we cannot speak officially to the success of the project, what we can tell you is that our experiences, both through observations and direct contact with the residents of Centre Village over the past years have been predominantly positive.
Respectfully, the points about not doing our homework as outlined in the article are simply not correct. As with all responsible architects, for each project, the homework typically includes an extensive research into the matters of social, economic, political and physical contexts - in the case of Centre Village the consultation (with both stakeholders and potential users) spanned a period of 2 years prior to design commencement. Understanding the context and designing with appropriate goals in mind are very important and are things that 5468796 and Cohlmeyer Architecture have been relentlessly pursuing, head-on, on all projects that we are involved in.

I wonder: why does social housing work in some places and not others? Are designers to be blamed? Is the way social housing is used entirely contingent upon the intended structure, or as we have discussed, space and infrastructure are constantly shifting and re-purposing? If so, who should be held responsible when things go wrong? Shouldn't be just the designers, it seems. Or should we do away with the blame game altogether and ask the real questions: What are the socio-economic structures that allow for crime versus community development? What are social factors that distinguished between the Winnepig case and the Berlin cases? Are there existing local conditions that help or impede life improvement for the poor residents?