Rethinking housing: insights from community driven solutions in a global perspective

This volume is framed within the concept of ‘the liveable city’, seen as a ‘construct’ involving numerous agendas, practices and disciplines. Land rights have become essential legal tools for First Nations and communities worldwide. Gentrification creates social and political pressure. Patterns of criminality transcend specific locations. Globalisation has erased spatial boundaries for business investments. Pandemics are no longer site-specific and confined to history. Architecture and urban planning have become global endeavours, subject to heightened environmental concerns under the cloak of sustainability. Smart cities cannot function without civil rights and cyber security. No urban centre can function without integrated distribution chains for food, services, public health and transportation and, as will be discussed in this volume, housing needs are universal.

In our increasingly urbanised world, the lack of secure and affordable housing remains a crucial communal issue. Affordable and appropriate housing is considered a fundamental pillar of a prosperous welfare society. Yet well-designed housing that truly meets user needs remains elusive today. Instead, contemporary housing design frequently prioritises minimum requirements and break-even calculations. What was once the core principle of modern architecture – the mapping of user needs as essential prerequisites for architecture and town planning – has now diminished to a faint echo within a ‘good enough’ mentality.

The four articles that follow demonstrate this volume’s universality across different chronologies and histories. The articles explore housing concepts through the evolution of the estate in the UK, the danwei tradition in China, favela development in Brazil and Indigenous settlements in Chile and New Zealand.

The first author, Julian Williams, a principal lecturer at the University of Westminster, explores how modern UK estates are shaped by societal structures and ideologies dating back to the eighteenth century in his article, ‘Estates: The history of an idea’.¹ Williams traces the evolution of UK estates during the pre- First World War slum clearance and the post-Second World War urban developments. Central to Williams’s analysis is Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, which may influence local authorities when planning estates. Williams emphasises the importance of understanding the historical context of housing estates to address contemporary housing issues and update existing estates.

The second article, which investigates regulatory frameworks for informal settlements, is authored by Debora Verniz, PhD and assistant professor of architectural studies at the University of Missouri, USA, José P. Duarte, PhD and director at the Stuckeman Center for Design Computing, Pennsylvania State University, USA, and Mário Márcio Queiroz, PhD, professor at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Their article, ‘Informal housing settlements and code compliance: The case of Santa Marta favela’, examines how favelas provide essential housing despite not always complying with current building regulations or municipal planning.² The authors describe QUORO, a housing quality evaluation method, to analyse settlements and increase suitable housing provision. The article sheds light on the practicalities of municipal monitoring of housing code compliance and concludes with recommendations to promote authorities’ awareness of integrating the end-user perspective in future inclusive planning.

The third article is authored by a team of 10 researchers from Auckland University, New Zealand, and the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaiso, Chile, led by Priscila Besen, senior lecturer in sustainable architecture and urban design at Huri Te Ao AUT’s School of Future Environments, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Their article, ‘Lessons from collective housing projects co-designed with Indigenous communities in Aotearoa New Zealand and Chile’, explores cooperative housing models that engage Indigenous communities.³ By examining case studies from both New Zealand and Chile, this article highlights the importance of inclusive design practices that amplify Indigenous voices and their family traditions. The authors focus on a design process emphasising co-housing that incorporates cultural customs and traditions. Their findings reveal that traditional values and cultures foster a sense of ownership and community resilience, particularly valuable during a housing crisis. The authors argue that collective housing projects can serve as sustainable alternatives to conventional housing designs by promoting social cohesion and maintaining cultural identity as part of a solution for Indigenous populations.

The fourth article, titled ‘Rethinking China’s danwei: Lessons from the UK’s housing crisis’, is written by Geraldine Dening, practising architect and co-founder of Architects for Social Housing, currently working as an assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong. In her article, Dening examines the historical significance of the danwei system – work units with additional housing – in China.⁴ This housing type provides a framework for community engagement and social welfare found in large Chinese urban developments. Drawing on her previous work with social housing in London, she identifies parallels with the current UK housing crisis. She concludes that the market approach has led to an inadequate supply of affordable housing and insufficient council housing, especially in London, where house prices exceed what most residents can afford. By re-evaluating danwei’s principles and implications, Dening proposes potential lessons for the UK context, advocating for more structured approaches to urban living that prioritise community involvement over profit-driven models.

Together these articles demonstrate varied approaches to addressing the housing crisis by sharing knowledge and experience locally and globally. The described efforts can lead to new pathways towards affordable housing for all. Each of the articles emphasises multidisciplinary approaches, including government involvement where key stakeholders recognise the evolving nature of housing challenges and seek solutions that prioritise residents’ voices and traditions. Collectively, the authors suggest that ‘liveable’ cities require holistic planning that integrates housing with disparate parameters like economics, global politics, human rights, legal frameworks, local planning and social policies. They serve as an invitation to a diverse array of approaches to consider when contemplating solutions for future housing issues.

Notes

1. Williams, ‘Estates’. ⮭
2. Verniz, Duarte and Queiroz, ‘Informal housing settlements and code compliance’. ⮭
3. Besen et al., ‘Lessons from collective housing projects’. ⮭
4. Dening, ‘Rethinking China’s danwei’. ⮭