Do You Want to Build a House?

Social housing is constantly being examined and questioned. Sometimes it is on positive side, but mostly it is being looked at critically in how it can do better. Most architects charged with social housing attempt to include the potential residents in the design process, but how often are they heard?

One solution that has been offered is if people are making their own dwellings in the slums, can architects give them the blueprint to create better homes for themselves in better areas of the city? Allowing people to build their own environment in some capacity can inspire pride and accomplishment, but some people don’t think it is something we should be asking of people who don’t have much.

Looking at Walter Segal’s example in Lewisham, England, and Alejandro Aravena’s half house interventions in Chile, it seems that there are some successes in the world of modern social housing. In the U.S., the Community First village in Austin, has volunteers build tiny homes as part of an effort to mitigate Austin’s challenge with homeless people. These settlements each carry their own criticisms from people, but overall are considered successful by their residents. They involve the residents building at least part of their living environment with some guidance from the architect and they emphasize the value in creating your home. The residents do not view it as social housing in a standard sense, but hold a greater meaning, ownership, and value in it. To me, this redefines the meaning of participatory architecture and perhaps the meaning of social housing. While I personally think that Segal’s project and the Austin village are more successful than the half houses, what defines the success of social housing? If the user feels heard and hopeful for a better life in their new home, should that be the indicator or does the community at large need to feel enriched as well?

Walter's Way, Lewisham, England

Villa Verde, Constitucion, Chile

Community First, Austin, Texas