Energy poverty alleviation in social housing: Prototyping policies with practitioners

Full text

RE-DWELL Conference
“Housing co-creation for tomorrow’s cities”
Grenoble, 8-9 December 2022
Pacte Social Sciences Research Centre, University Grenoble Alpes
Conference Proceedings
www.re-dwell.eu
RE-DWELL “Delivering affordable and sustainable housing in Europe” has received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 956082
The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the
contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which
may be made of the information contained therein.

RE-DWELL
Deliverable 3.7 RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference
Version 1
February 2023
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7705327
Editor:
Adriana Diaconu
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte, 38000 Grenoble, France

Table of contents
Introduction
Adriana Diaconu………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5
Panel 1: Methodologies and methods for knowledge co-creation
Mahmoud Alsaeed, Karim Hadjri, Krzysztof Nawratek, Mode 2 science: Exploring a
common ground of knowledge production in the fields of housing and sustainability…. 9
Tijn Croon, Joris Hoekstra, Ute Dubois, Energy poverty alleviation in social housing:
Prototyping policies with practitioners………………………………………………………………………………….
15
Margaux Lespagnard, Waldo Galle, Niels De Temmerman, Visualising equitable
housing: A prototype for an equitable housing framework…………………………………………………
19
Christophe Verrier, Making sense of a new national context in comparative housing:
Personal and systemic reflections of a researcher’s journey in France……………………………
23
Panel 2: Environments and processes for co-design
Georges-Henry Laffont, Clément Guilloteau, Axelle Pavero, Learning from " ÎIot
Neyron " in Saint-Etienne: Thinking, designing and living the city in an alternative
way………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
27
Leonardo Ricaurte, New approaches to post-occupancy evaluation: Unveiling the
social value of housing design……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Effrosyni Roussou, Nadia Charalambous, On becoming a spatial agent: A comparative
analysis of transdisciplinary design and build studio pedagogy in Cyprus and
Sweden……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
37
Paola Briata, Gennaro Postiglione, Constanze Wolfgring, From unconventional
households to unconventional affordable housing……………………………………………………………..
41
Panel 3: Transforming governance: Between coordinative action and self-
organization
Antonin Margier, The rise of homeless villages in Portland: Institutionalization of tiny
home villages or informalization of public policies?...................................................................
47
Jolien Groot, Frans Schilder, Housing-to-go: to what extent do the perceived benefits
of replaceable housing units materialise? Synthesis of a series of studies into the
possibilities and limitations of replaceable housing units in the Netherlands………….…….
50
Andreas Panagidis, Nadia Charalambous, Co-creation from the South: The case of
Cyprus…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
54
Androniki Pappa, Alexandra Paio, Local partnerships and urban governance: The case
of Lisbon…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
58
Panel 4: Housing assessment for social and environmental sustainability
Alberto Quintana Gallardo, Ignacio Guillén Guillamón, Energy poverty and climate
change in impoverished households: Social life cycle assessment and solutions………….
63
Julia Nerantzia Tzortzi, Rola A. Hasbini, Simulating heat transfer performance for
double-walls concrete residential building envelope in Mediterranean
climate…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….............
67
Zoe Tzika, Saskia Furman, Towards integrating social and environmental sustainability
in housing: conceptualisation, measurement frameworks, and indicators…………………..… 73

Annette Davis, Alberto Quintana Gallardo, Rethinking housing as a kit-of-parts and
shearing layers: An LCA approach………………………………………………………………………………………….
78
Panel 5: From housing issues to policy and back
Alex Fernández, Marja Elsinga, Marietta Haffner, Investigating the role of ESG bonds
and loans in financing housing renovation among social housing providers: a
comparative approach to six European countries……………………………………………………………….
84
Joris Hoekstra, Martina Gentili, The position of young adults on the Amsterdam
housing market: How to better connect system world and life world?.................................. 86
Sara Caramaschi, Marco Peverini, Towards a socio-ecological and territorial
understanding of housing issues: A new interpretation of housing dynamics in the
case of Milan, Italy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
89
Panel 6: New sustainable housing solutions in the existing city
Marco Peverini, Federica Rotondo and Paola Savoldi, Yes, we can! Systems of
standards, practices and conditions toward a socially sustainable densification…………..
94
Agnieszka Włoch-Szymla, Contemporary socio-spatial change in the built
environment of the socialist estates in Krakow…………………………………………………………............
98
Lorenzo Stefano Iannizzotto, Alexandra Paio, Rethink terrain vague potential for
sustainable habitat…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
102

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 5
Introduction
Adriana Diaconu, Conference chair
Université Grenoble Alpes, Pacte Social Sciences Research Centre, Grenoble, France
The first RE-DWELL conference addressed contemporary housing issues such as climate
change and the social challenges of housing by focusing on the multiple actors involved in
housing policy, planning, design and construction. Around the theme of co-creation, it brought
to the fore the interactions of these players and the ways researchers and housing practitioners
can engage both with established stakeholders and with new arrivals. This way, the discussions
gave rise to a reflection on the multi-dimensional aspects of housing and on the concepts and
methods comprehended in a holistic approach, as well as on the roles, particularities and
settings of the different actors involved. The conference brought together a diversity of
researchers from different academic backgrounds whose work focused on transforming and
adapting the existing systems and professional practices while establishing new conceptions of
housing in order to meet the present and future challenges that cities face.
The extended abstracts of the presentations, gathered in these proceedings, reflect this
diversity of approaches. The twenty-two abstracts selected by the scientific committee
examine co-creation from a variety of perspectives offering insight into current research
projects through theoretical or methodological reflections, or partial research results Ten of
these abstracts, were submitted by early-stage researchers of the RE-DWELL programme and
showed the progress of their doctoral research projects. The presentations in the conference
provided opportunities for exchanges and collaboration between these researchers and more
experienced scholars, in the RE-DWELL network and outside, with similar research interests.
The conference consisted of six thematic panels that explored various aspects of co-
creation and how the interactions between actors shape the processes of conceptualizing,
designing, building, and managing housing.
The first panel, on “Methodologies and methods for knowledge co-creation”, brought
together attempts to engage both conceptually and methodologically with different actors of a
housing system and, furthermore, with the complexity of housing issues. The contributors
provided insights into viewing housing as a comprehensive system and how to implement this
perspective in housing projects. They also discussed the role of the researcher and the
significance of considering their own position and context, as well as the research design and
adaptations to the specificities of various stakeholders involved in the process, such as housing
associations, policy makers, tenants, and home owners.
The second panel, entitled “Environments and processes for co-design”, brought forward
several multi-disciplinary approaches to understanding co-design processes, and more
particularly to apprehending the behaviour of stakeholders, through a combination of
ethnographic, architectural and geographical approaches. The panellists were particularly
interested in the methods and techniques used to facilitate the participation of inhabitants in
co-design, particularly those which involved those commonly left out of mainstream design
processes. By doing that, the contributions discuss the tools and effects of participatory
processes, such as action research. They do so both in terms of outcomes of design processes,
through the “social value” assessment of housing estates, (Ricaurte) and in terms of the
transformative effects on their participants, as for example by turning architecture students

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 6
into “spatial agents” (Roussou and Charalambous) and thus transforming their perception of
their role in society.
The third panel extended the discussion further to policy and spatial planning. Under the
title “Transforming governance: between coordinative action and self-organization”, it
gathered four contributions that discussed collective actions in response to crisis situations
such as the COVID pandemic, increase in homelessness and mortgage arrears, housing
exclusion and deprived neighbourhoods. Situated in different contexts in Europe and the United
States, these studies put the spotlight on how informal, ad hoc or bottom-up solutions can be
related to institutional practices. Some authors analysed institutionally-driven responses such
as temporary housing in the Netherlands, while others discussed the effects and potential of
the institutionalization of informal or experimental endeavours such as “homeless villages” in
Portland, or the Community Land Trust model in Cyprus. The effects of these actions are
evaluated in terms of their impact on governance, as well as their social and spatial impacts,
such as favouring empowerment or, on the contrary, reinforcing exclusion.
The presentations of the fourth panel entitled “Housing assessment for social and
environmental sustainability” addressed on housing sustainability from several perspectives.
Even if the papers gathered in this panel developed more technical approaches to building
characteristics, they considered the social theme as a backbone to understanding sustainability.
Some contributions aimed to broaden the traditional technical approach to sustainability by
enhancing theoretical and evaluation frameworks and incorporating social aspects and
decision-making processes. Others focused on tools for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions
and mitigation strategies in building and design practices, taking into account energy and
resource consumption and the challenges faced by urban communities in poverty.
The fifth panel, titled “From housing issues to policy and back”, brought together a more
diverse set of perspectives on housing that we can identify as mainly economic (Fernandez et
al.), social (Hoekstra and Gentili) and territorial (Caramaschi and Peverini). This research work
covered different themes: the strategies of social housing providers in the EU for obtaining
“sustainability” earmarked European funds, the difficulties young adults face in the Amsterdam
housing market and the territorial dynamics in the Italian region of Milan observed through its
housing issues by using a territorial ecology framework. The conclusions show that these
different disciplinary approaches are interrelated. Their analysis requires an integration of
diverse rationales of housing that encompass individual and collective strategies and territorial
dynamics.
The last panel, on “New sustainable housing solutions in the existing city”, explored the
possibility of developing innovative and sustainable housing solutions by exploiting regulations,
standards and norms and by allowing new uses and adaptations of existing spaces, buildings
and housing estates. The different interventions argued for the adaptation of the existing urban
heritage, regardless of whether it is appreciated or criticised, through soft architectural and
management interventions, such as light densification and appropriation of “urban voids”
(Iannizzotto and Paio). They put forward both conceptual and concrete approaches to fully
exploit the potential of the urban fabric as a tactic for urban sustainability.
In addition to the specific topics covered in each panel, the proceedings are an invitation to
extend further the interdisciplinary discussions and reflections between the papers. Such
analytic perspectives tackle, for example, the implications of national and European policies
both on conceptualising sustainability (Tzika and Furman) and on the practices and strategies
of housing associations and of their different departments (Fernández et al., Croon et al.). Some

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 7
of these cross-cutting research perspectives will be developed in the individual research
projects of the participants and in the future activities of the RE-DWELL network.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 8
Panel 1: Methodologies and methods for knowledge
co-creation
Mahmoud Alsaeed, Karim Hadjri, Krzysztof Nawratek, Mode 2 science: Exploring a common
ground of knowledge production in the fields of housing and sustainability
Tijn Croon, Joris Hoekstra, Ute Dubois, Energy poverty alleviation in social housing: Prototyping
policies with practitioners
Margaux Lespagnard, Waldo Galle, Niels De Temmerman, Visualising equitable housing: A
prototype for an equitable housing framework
Christophe Verrier, Making sense of a new national context in comparative housing: Personal
and systemic reflections of a researcher’s journey in France

9
Mode 2 science: Exploring a common ground of knowledge
production in the fields of housing and sustainability
Mahmoud Alsaeed, Karim Hadjri and Krzysztof Nawratek
Sheffield School of Architecture, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Keywords: knowledge production, housing research, sustainability research, mode 2 science
1. Introduction
The field of housing research is very diverse, theoretically reliant and intertwined with politics,
economics, social and, more recently, environmental studies (Matthews, 2016). Sustainability
research, on the other hand, is often perceived as a complicated, practice-oriented field that
examines the interactions between the economic, social and environmental pillars of society
(Purvis et al., 2019). The links between housing and sustainability research are often described
as ambiguous and thorny topics, and many scholars refer to them as bifurcated areas of study.
As a result, researchers have developed and adapted different approaches to the way
knowledge on these two critical areas is perceived and generated. The Mode 2 science is a
relatively new concept that calls for the production of context-oriented, scientifically reliable
and robust social knowledge, and is most notable for its tendency towards a transdisciplinary
approach (Frost & Osterloh, 2003; Gibbons et al., 1994).
This paper is concerned with the methodological issues on how housing and sustainability
research and knowledge is presented and produced by those who engage with it. A literature
focused exploratory investigation was used to identify the most common methodological
issues of both fields. In the end, a reasoned claim was made that the Mode 2 of knowledge
production is one of the appropriate approaches to address the methodological challenges of
dealing with sustainability and housing. Yet, the claim requires further in-depth investigation
leading to a better understanding of the true extent of the problem and the possibility to design
an innovative framework for sustainable housing knowledge production.
2. Housing and sustainability methodological challenges
The argument presented in this paper rests on three pillars. The first pillar introduces the
methodological principles of Mode 2 science. The second explores methodological issues in
housing research, and the third one highlights the prominent debate on sustainability research
issues.
2.1 Mode 2 principles
Gibbons et al. (1994), writing about the dynamics of science production, make a clear distinction
between Mode 1 and 2 knowledge production. The former is discipline-based and clearly
separates 'theoretical' from 'applied', while the latter forms a continuous flow between theory
and application to create contextualised outcomes that are influenced by all disciplines
concerned (Gibbons et al., 1994). While Mode 1 focuses on the codified component of
knowledge, Mode 2 focuses on the tacit components that represent a shift towards a broader
social distribution of knowledge (Frost & Osterloh, 2003; Gibbons et al., 1994). Mode 2 dynamics

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 10
look at the structure of knowledge from both a homogeneous and a heterogeneous perspective
and is therefore not only able to understand and explain the communication between science,
society and scientific practitioners, but also to provide a clear framework for the structure of
knowledge components (Frost & Osterloh, 2003; Gibbons et al, 1994).
Mode 2 is defined primarily by its inter1- and transdisciplinary2 approach, which shares the
same principle with critical research and the postnormal3 sciences (Gibbons et al., 1994). Both
academic and social aspects are taken into account to construct the knowledge and methods
of the research; validity comes not only from academic peers but also from the extended peer
community; furthermore, uncertainty and ignorance are used as a method to verify rather than
question the data generated; and a discursive process of opening and closing the focus is
followed rather than a strict top-down approach (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Frost &
Osterloh, 2003;Gibbons et al. , 1994; Wiek & Lang, 2016).
One of the examples of Mode 2 application is the development of an effective healthcare
delivery system for the Scottish Health Advisory Service (SHAS) that meets the need for rapid
decision-making and a clear but flexible organisational structure (MacLean et al., 2002). Another
example is the development of hypersonic projectiles that overcome the challenges of
knowledge, material and technology limitations (Gibbons et al., 1994). Both examples raised
several issues, including the lack of guidance from existing science, discontinuous prior
experience, and the uncertainty of data and results. Applying the Mode 2 approach - as
explained by MacLean et al. (2002) for the first example and by Gibbons et al. (1994) for the
second - led to the formulation of a structure for collaboration between academics,
professionals, scientists and engineers in a trans- and interdisciplinary manner to overcome
such challenges and create an effective knowledge base to inform solutions (Gibbons et al.,
1994; MacLean et al., 2002).
2.2 Housing research-ers
Writing in 2009, Chris Allen (2009, p. 54) explains that tracking the problems in housing research
indicates that the problem is not the lack of a theorising methodology or a justifiable rationale,
but that a significant part of the problem lies in the way housing researchers investigate and
1 Interdisciplinary means that two or more academic disciplines collaborate in an activity that explores a particular topic
from different perspectives. See Szostak, R. (2013). The State of the Field: Interdisciplinary Research. Interdisciplinary
Studies, 1(31), 44-65.
2 Transdisciplinary approach enables collaboration between scientific and non-scientific actors and facilitates a
systemic approach to address complex challenges. See Pohl, C., & Hadorn, G. H. (2008). Core terms in transdisciplinary
research. Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 427-432). Springer.
3 Postnormal science is a recently emerged paradigm that investigates-to-evaluate decision-making processes, when
facts are uncertain, the stakes are high, solutions are ambiguous and the decision is urgent. See Nogueira, L. A., Bjørkan,
M., & Dale, B. (2021). Conducting Research in a Post-normal Paradigm: Practical Guidance for Applying Co-production of
Knowledge. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 337.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 11
define the ground of their knowledge in the context of social science knowledge production
(Allen, 2009). Allen's (2009) debate draws on Gadamer's (1975) philosophical views on the
perception of knowledge and Bourdieu's (2000) discussion of the practices of scholars to
conclude that housing research has succeeded in producing adequate theoretical knowledge,
but as soon as it believed that this knowledge was superior to other forms of knowledge,
particularly 'lived experience', it declared itself a failure (Allen, 2009; Bourdieu, 2000; Gadamer,
1975). Moreover, it seems that housing researchers have double standards when it comes to
questioning research methodology. They doubt the reliability of other scientific methods –
especially practice-based research – and overlook the issues of methodology and knowledge
organisation in housing, such as the origins and background of applied methodology (Allen,
2008, 2009).
The examination of the most influential works4 in the field of housing comes to the same
conclusion as Jacques Du Toit et al. (2022), namely that housing scholars focus on the direct
applications of approaches but present little to nothing about the context and ground on which
these approaches are built (Du Toit et al., 2022). It is also noteworthy that prototypical
methodological criteria useful for housing studies are still underdeveloped and lack a clear
schematically organised framework (Tobi & Kampen, 2018). Du Toit et al. (2022) add that
housing researchers often adopt their methodologies and designs from other social sciences
without assessing their applicability to housing research or considering existing proven
methodologies (Du Toit et al., 2022; Tobi & Kampen, 2018).
2.3 Sustainability research-ers
Meanwhile, at the level of sustainability research. The work of Wiek and Lang (2016) and
Spangenberg (2011) divides sustainability studies into one type that focuses on the descriptive
analysis of sustainability problems (descriptive-analytical), while the second type works on
developing solutions to these problems and testing their applicability (transformational)
(Spangenberg, 2011; Wiek & Lang, 2016). Even though the main methodologies of the two types
differ drastically, they share the same risks. Meppem and Bourke's (1999) study was one of the
first to point out that sustainability researchers must have a comprehensive understanding of
the subject; otherwise, the knowledge produced might not make sense in the context of
sustainability (Meppem & Bourke, 1999; Wiek & Lang, 2016). Murphy (2012) clarifies that when
researching sustainability, the researcher must explain the context and scale; otherwise, the
knowledge produced could be general and serve a limited purpose (Murphy, 2012).
Although the transition from disciplinary to interdisciplinary and later to transdisciplinary
approaches is regarded as progress for sustainability science, it poses a greater challenge for
4 The examination included: Vestbro et al. (2005) Methodologies in Housing Research; Maginn et al. (2008) Qualitative
Housing Analysis; An International Perspective, Studies in Qualitative Methodology; Smith (2012) The International
Encyclopaedia of Housing and Home.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 12
knowledge construction (Wiek & Lang, 2016). Jerneck et al. (2011) explain that this requires not
only a common ground of terminologies and perceptions, but also a clarification of 'uncertainty'
as an indicator of scientific disagreement rather than a data problem (Jerneck et al., 2011). The
work of Scerri & James (2010) explains that the coupling of qualitative and quantitative
methodologies is crucial to overcome the 'abstract view' of generated knowledge and avoid the
exclusive consideration of technical aspects (Scerri & James, 2010). Spangenberg (2011) adds
that the tendency towards 'fragmentation' in sustainability research puts the primary goals of
'solving' or 'analysing' at greater risk of generating fragmented knowledge (Spangenberg, 2011).
3. Conclusion
The identified features of Mode 2 directly deal with the presented risks of housing and
sustainability research; therefore, the claim that a shift from Mode 1 to Mode 2 is reasonable.
However, the question of whether it is necessary to move from the first to the second mode of
knowledge production remains unanswered and requires further investigation. But the
methodological problems and questions of housing and sustainability research that relate to
knowledge production have a threefold connotation:
‒ The methodological problems of housing and sustainability research can be traced back
to the researcher's understanding of knowledge production and the context in which
knowledge is produced, and therefore the risk of taking knowledge out of context is high
(Allen, 2008). The second problem relates to the principles of methodology construction.
As Du Toit et al. (2022) explained, any methodology needs to be comprehensively
structured before it can be applied. Therefore, a transdisciplinary methodology needs a
review phase, which is often neglected, resulting in some of the methodological
specificities being disregarded (Du Toit et al., 2022).
‒ Leech & Onwuegbuzie (2009) pointed out that for years the choice of methodology
seemed to be dichotomous –qualitative and quantitative– and only recently a third
choice –mixed– has been introduced, which poses a major challenge for addressing
transdisciplinary problems (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). Spangenberg (2011) adds that
despite profound changes in nature and society, the disciplinary organisation of
scientific knowledge production remains unchanged, especially in housing and
sustainability research (Spangenberg, 2011). Therefore, it is necessary to consider Mode
2 to overcome problems in the methodological structure and researchers' approach to
knowledge production. However, this change requires its own vocabulary with clearly
defined terms to avoid misunderstandings and fragmented knowledge.
‒ The search for common ground between sustainability and housing research does not
only mean finding a common methodology or goal but also extends to the
methodological issues that researchers in both fields face. The existence of
methodological differences is a natural outcome of the specificity of the fields. However,
developing an innovative framework that recognises these differences and responds to
rapid societal and technological change is crucial and needs further exploration.
Acknowledgment
The work presented in this publication has been conducted within the RE-DWELL Innovative
Training Network, funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 956082.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 13
References
Allen, C. (2008). Gentrification ‘research’ and the academic nobility: A different class?
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 180-185.
Allen, C. (2009). The fallacy of “housing studies”: philosophical problems of knowledge and
understanding in housing research. Housing, Theory and Society, 26(1), 53-79.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford University Press.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century
fractal innovation ecosystem. International journal of technology management, 46(3-4), 201-
234.
Du Toit, J., Napier, M., Marais, L., Cloete, J., & Crankshaw, B. (2022). A typology of designs for
housing research: improving methodological coherence of paradigm, approach and design.
Quality & quantity, 1-17.
Frost, J., & Osterloh, M. (2003). Dialogue Devices: Bridging between “Mode 1” and “Mode 2”
Knowledge Production. Communication in Organisations Structures and Practices, 81-101.
Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method. (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.) Continuum.
Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Baier, M., Clark, E., Hickler, T., Hornborg, A.,
Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. (2011). Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science,
6(1), 69-82.
Leech, N., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality &
quantity, 43(2), 265-275.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
The New Production of Knowledge, 1-192.
MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., & Grant, S. (2002). Mode 2 management research. British Journal of
Management, 13(3), 189-207.
Matthews, P. (2016, 2016/05/18). What is housing studies for and what impact does it have?
Housing Studies, 31(4), 490-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2016.1152028
Meppem, T., & Bourke, S. (1999). Different ways of knowing: a communicative turn toward
sustainability. Ecological economics, 30(3), 389-404.
Murphy, R. (2012). Sustainability: A wicked problem. Sociologica, 6(2).
Nogueira, L. A., Bjørkan, M., & Dale, B. (2021). Conducting Research in a Post-normal Paradigm:
Practical Guidance for Applying Co-production of Knowledge. Frontiers in Environmental
Science, 337.
Pohl, C., & Hadorn, G. H. (2008). Core terms in transdisciplinary research. In Handbook of
transdisciplinary research (pp. 427-432). Springer.
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual
origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681-695.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 14
Scerri, A., & James, P. (2010). Accounting for sustainability: combining qualitative and
quantitative research in developing ‘indicators’ of sustainability. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 13(1), 41-53.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2011). Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical
lessons. Environmental Conservation, 38(3), 275-287.
Szostak, R. (2013). The State of the Field: Interdisciplinary Research. Interdisciplinary Studies,
1(31), 44-65.
Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K. (2018). Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research
framework. Quality & quantity, 52(3), 1209-1225.
Wiek, A., & Lang, D. J. (2016). Transformational sustainability research methodology. In
Sustainability Science (pp. 31-41). Springer.

15
Energy poverty alleviation in social housing: Prototyping policies
with practitioners
Tijn Croon1, Joris Hoekstra1 and Ute Dubois2
1Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, The
Netherlands
2 ISG Business School, Paris, France
Keywords: energy poverty, social housing, co-creation, policy prototyping
1. Introduction
The European energy crisis of 2022 stresses the importance of protecting the most vulnerable
households. Price peaks disproportionally affect households with low incomes, limited savings,
and inefficient homes, and increased energy poverty: the inability to secure sufficient domestic
energy services that allow for participation in society (Bouzarovski & Petrova, 2015).
Since European social housing countries have become increasingly residualised, a
significant share of households in or at risk of energy poverty are being accommodated by
social housing providers (Poggio & Whitehead, 2017; Walker, 2008). However, while most
practitioners acknowledge that social housing providers (SHPs) have a responsibility in energy
poverty alleviation, targeted intervention approaches have hardly been explored (Desvallées,
2022). The body of scholarship on energy poverty measurement has grown rapidly, but its use in
practice has hardly been addressed (Bouzarovski et al., 2021). Sherriff et al. (2019) note that a
possible explanation might be that insights from research are inadequately communicated to
policymakers and practitioners. Charlier and Legendre (2021) add that the sense of urgency has
substantially differed across countries.
This paper aims to combat these gaps, by proactively engaging with practitioners across
Europe to find out which targeted intervention approaches are considered most effective, what
their benefits and potential (regulatory) obstacles are, and whether these perspectives differ in
different policy contexts. We indirectly examine the responsibilities SHPs are willing to accept
within a ‘just transition’, and explore whether, and if so how, their apparent techno-economic
approach to retrofit provision could be altered (De Feijter et al., 2019).
2. Policy prototyping
Generally, research strategies are based on either a deductive or an inductive approach to
science (Bryman, 2016). While the former offers ‘reliability’ and the latter indicates ‘probability’,
it could be argued that both miss the notion of ‘possibility’ (Barry & Hansen, 2008, p. 457).
Peirce (1965) therefore developed his abductive approach to develop ‘tentative explanatory
hypotheses’ or ‘proto-theories’ and initiate novel research trajectories. In policymaking,
deductive approaches (testing policy interventions through randomised controlled trials) or
inductive approaches (exploring why these did or did not work) could be complemented with
abductive approaches (Bason, 2014). Exploring new policy interventions (‘musement’ in Peirce’s
words) and making provisional guesses on their effects are key (Kimbell, 2015).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 16
Abductive approaches are often based on participatory research design. First, a carefully
selected mix of participants is asked to become part of the ‘innovation journey’, de facto acting
as ‘co-researchers’ and ‘codesigners’. As abductive policy experimentation requires a holistic
perspective, it is preferable to select a diverse array of participants. Then, researcher and
participants collectively delve into the subject matter, starting with a definition of the desirable
outcome and gradually moving towards a hypothesis of an underlying structure comprising
concrete rules, arrangements, and operations.
3. Research design
At the time of submitting this conference paper, the research process is ongoing. Nevertheless,
the following section presents an overview of the research design.
3. 1 Focus groups
This qualitative research design incorporates six focus group sessions, referred to as
‘workshops’, as the primary data collection method. The focus groups take approximately three
hours each, and their semi-structured design is set out below. They are planned in the fourth
quarter of 2022.
Introduction and benchmark
In order for all participants to start the session with approximately the same understanding of
the problem, we define energy poverty and describe its prevalence in social housing estates.
Subsequently, we ask what data the SHP already collects and/or uses about experienced
energy poverty in its stock, and what obstacles there are in collecting or using this data. We also
ask participants to elaborate on current efforts of the SHP to mitigate the negative impact of
the current energy crisis.
Brainstorm and prioritisation
To facilitate creative thinking, we divide the participants into three or four groups. Participants
then engage in an open and candid discussion on which additional approaches their SHP could
adopt. The approaches are recorded on sticky notes and displayed on a wall, and participants
are asked to rank them according to their perceived potential. While part of the following semi-
structured discussion is set beforehand to allow for comparison between SHPs and countries,
there is room for discussion on other highly-regarded innovative approaches as well.
Semi-structured discussion
Preliminary interviews taught us several crucial approaches that have been adopted by SHPs in
recent years, and we start off by discussing these approaches in detail:
‒ Prioritised retrofit: considering social factors (characteristics of households or
neighbourhoods) besides technical or financial data in prioritising renovations.
‒ Strategic rent setting: considering the risk of energy poverty when setting rents, for
instance based on a combination of energy efficiency and household income. Other
ways of financial compensation (subsidising energy, direct allowances) can also be
discussed in this round.
‒ Targeted allocation of dwellings: considering household income and other factors that
increase risk of energy poverty (age, ability, composition) when allocating dwellings at
the start of a tenancy.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 17
However, we reserve sufficient time for the input from the previous session. After the
discussion, the participants are asked to rank the various approaches again in terms of
potential.
After these six focus groups are finished, the recordings are thoroughly analysed to provide
insight in all possible policies and related deliberations, and to shed light on what incidental or
structural obstacles must be further studied by researchers and/or addressed by policymakers
before effectively targeted interventions are feasible.
3.2 Participant selection
The empirical research consists of six focus groups or ‘workshops’ in three different countries:
France, the UK, and the Netherlands (Table 1). Conducting the research in different countries
provides the opportunity to compare between regulatory contexts, and therefore to suggest
which legislation facilitates targeted intervention in one country and obstructs it in another. We
selected these three countries because of their traditionally substantial social housing sectors,
and these six major SHPs because they might be able to exercise thought leadership due to
their size and professionalism.
Table 1. Participating housing associations
Country
Region
Social housing provider
Rented dwellings
France
Countrywide
Polylogis
145,000
Paris Metropolitan Area
Paris Habitat
125,000
United Kingdom
England
Clarion
125,000
Greater London
Peabody
104,000
The Netherlands
Amsterdam Metropolitan Area
Ymere
75,000
Rotterdam
Havensteder
45,000
However, their size also implies a compartmentalised organisation, which makes it even
more important to select a diverse group of participants with a variety of backgrounds and
perspectives. The six to eight professionals we select per workshop work in different
departments and have supposedly different interests. Simply put, financial practitioners want
breakeven results, legal experts want compliance with the law, and social workers want
sufficient resources to protect vulnerable tenants.
Further analysis and discussion of these preliminary results will continue as part of the
ongoing research undertaken in the RE-DWELL project.
Acknowledgment
This research is carried out with the support of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 956082. We also
thank the Fuel Poverty Research Network, Housing Europe, the European Federation for Living,
and the six participating housing associations for their continuous input and support.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 18
References
Barry, D., & Hansen, H. (2008). The Sage handbook of new approaches in management and
organization. Sage.
Bason, C. (2014). Design for Policy. Gower.
Bouzarovski, S., & Petrova, S. (2015). A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation:
Overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary. Energy Research & Social Science, 10,
31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007
Bouzarovski, S., Thomson, H., & Cornelis, M. (2021). Confronting Energy Poverty in Europe: A
Research and Policy Agenda. Energies, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/en14040858
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Charlier, D., & Legendre, B. (2021). Fuel poverty in industrialized countries: Definition, measures
and policy implications a review. Energy, 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121557
De Feijter, F. J., van Vliet, B. J. M., & Chen, Y. (2019). Household inclusion in the governance of
housing retrofitting: Analysing Chinese and Dutch systems of energy retrofit provision.
Energy Research & Social Science, 53, 10-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.006
Desvallées, L. (2022). Low-carbon retrofits in social housing: Energy efficiency, multidimensional
energy poverty, and domestic comfort strategies in southern Europe. Energy Research &
Social Science, 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102413
Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: discovering policy lab.
https://researchingdesignforpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/kimbell_policylab_report.
pdf
Peirce, C. (1965) Collected Papers. Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P. (Eds). Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Poggio, T., & Whitehead, C. (2017). Social Housing in Europe: Legacies, New Trends and the
Crisis. Critical Housing Analysis, 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2017.3.1.319
Sherriff, G., Brown, P., & Butle, D. (2019). Future Directions for Fuel Poverty Research: A Delphi
Study.
https://www.fuelpovertylibrary.info/sites/default/files/Eaga%20CT%20Future%20Directio
ns%20for%20Fuel%20Poverty%20Research%20A%20Delphi%20Study%202019_0.pdf
Walker, G. (2008). Decentralised systems and fuel poverty: Are there any links or risks? Energy
Policy, 36(12), 4514-4517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.020

19
Visualising equitable housing: A prototype for an equitable
housing framework
Margaux Lespagnard1, Waldo Galle1,2 and Niels De Temmerman1
1 Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium
2 VITO Transition platform, Flemish Institute for Technical Research (VITO), Belgium
Keywords: equitable housing, qualitative housing, systemic model
1. Introduction
The growing housing crisis in Western Europe increases the pressure on conventional
support measures and further reduces the accessibility to equitable housing. In housing
projects, stakeholders in practice are often only confronted with a fraction of the project within
their expertise. Yet, an overarching, interdisciplinary housing concept could lead to stronger
and more equitable living situations and buildings.
This paper adopts the term equitable housing instead of affordable housing, as the term
equitable contains qualitative, social, environmental, and financial aspects. While
affordable housing is usually only perceived as the cost ratio of household income and housing
costs (Winters, 2021) This interdisciplinary nature of equitable housing projects is also stressed
in literature, where researchers often define extensive lists of criteria to explain equitable
housing. From user participation to hygiene to water efficiency, criteria are often very
widespread over different focuses and disciplines. (Gan et al., 2017; Karji et al., 2019; Mulliner et
al., 2013; Olakitan Atanda, 2019; Zarrabi et al., 2022), leaving the concept scattered and
complex.
Visualizing the complex and systemic nature of an equitable housing project in
a comprehensible way could help stakeholders in defining an inclusive and equitable
housing project. This research proposes a prototype for an equitable housing framework that
could serve as a base for an open discussion between stakeholders in a housing project. The
framework encourages them to think systemically and visualize their intentions. It can be used
when designing, drawing up and analysing housing projects.
2. Methodology
An explorative international literature study was set up to establish an in-depth understanding
of the different criteria for equitable housing. A series of twenty-one semi structured interviews
allowed to further define equitable housing in the Flemish and Brussels housing practice.
Among the interviewees were Architects, sustainability engineers, co-housing residents, social
housing companies, cooperatives, and community land trusts. Together, the literature studies
and the interviews resulted in an in-depth list of criteria for equitable housing projects. These
criteria were then grouped into 15 dimensions. These dimensions are distributed over four
categories: living, financing, dwelling, and using. The dimensions were then visualised in a
framework that aligned with the goals of the research; simplifying the complex concept of
equitable housing and encouraging systemic thinking.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 20
3. Results and discussion
Fifteen dimensions were defined to structure and simplify the long complex list of criteria
for equitable housing, derived from the literature study and the interviews (Table 1). Each paper
of the literature review discussed dimensions such as comfort, neighbourhood, social contact,
safety, responsibility, adequate living space, energy and water use. The other dimensions such
as solidarity, the total cost of ownership, capital accumulation, initial price, scale and total cost
of usership were not as important in literature but were mentioned and stressed by
the interviewees. Table 1 shows the meaning of each dimension.
Table 1. Fifteen dimensions of equitable housing (Gan et al., 2017; Karji et al., 2019; Mulliner et al.,
2013; Olakitan Atanda, 2019; Paduart, 2012; Zarrabi et al., 2022)
Dimension
Meaning
Comfort
Creating a healthy and comforting living environment, regarding
temperature, daylight, hygiene, acoustics, accessibility
Neighbourhood
Providing enough services in the area, like schools, greenspace, work,
public transport, healthcare, childcare
Social contact
Allowing social interaction without the invasion of privacy.
Safety
Creating a safe environment without the feeling of being controlled. Safety
also includes protection from natural disasters and tenure security.
Solidarity
Financial inclusion of all stakeholders in the project. Reducing social inequity
between inhabitants.
Responsibility
Involvement of all stakeholders in the project with the least amount of conflict.
Allowing stakeholders to make informed choices.
The total cost of
ownership
The cost that will be spent over time for (co-)owning the dwelling, including interest
rates and life cycle costs.
Capital
accumulation
Gaining financial security in the long run while living in a dwelling. This can be for
example through cost recovery, shares, or (co-)ownership.
Initial cost
The cost spent at the beginning of a project, including building costs,
and organisational costs.
Adequate living
space
The space inside the dwelling in relation to the resident’s needs,
including individually used and shared spaces.
Scale
The number of housing units and other functions in the project.
Service life
Lifespan envisioned for (part of) the project, including also long-term
project phasing and temporary use.
Energy and water
use
Strategies for efficient energy and water use, including reducing the use
of environmental resources.
Maintenance
costs
Costs spent on repair and maintenance of the building.
The total cost of
usership
The costs spent on using the project over time

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 21
Mulliner et al. (2013) describe how a group of criteria should be considered to develop
equitable housing. This research approaches equitable housing as an equilibrium
between interconnected dimensions. All dimensions are equally important or gain
importance, depending on the project and its inhabitants. This is symbolised by placing the
dimensions on a circle (Figure 1). The larger the radius of the circle becomes, the more of a
certain dimension is present in the project. However, each dimension must have an upper and
lower limit. For example, A minimum sum of maintenance costs is required to prevent a building
from decay, i.e., lower limit. On the other hand, there is also a maximum sum of maintenance
costs when stakeholders cannot afford the costs, or it is simply not worth it.
Figure 1. To create an equitable housing project, stakeholders should strive to stay in between the
defined upper and under limits, i.e., in the black zone. Source: Authors
Finding solutions that balance both the lower and upper limits for the fifteen dimensions in
the framework is thus key when developing an equitable housing project. The exact solutions
are very context-specific and will vary depending on the project and the stakeholders involved
in the decision-making. Defining one dimension will inevitably influence other dimensions, it
is thus key for users to think systemically when using the framework.
The goal of this research was not to find a new definition of equitable housing but to bring
together already existing knowledge and prototype a model that simply communicates this
knowledge. The goal was also to allow stakeholders to think more systematically when
addressing different disciplines, for example during a meeting where a group develops
and discusses their housing concept with the architect. In further research, the prototype of
the framework was adapted to a workshop format and tested based on actual projects.
Acknowledgement
This research is funded by Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO) through the
strategic basic research grant with grant number 1SD8521N.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 22
References
Gan, X., Zuo, J., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chang, R., & Wen, T. (2017). How affordable housing becomes
more sustainable? A stakeholder study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 427–437.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.048
Karji, A., Woldesenbet, A., Khanzadi, M., & Tafazzoli, M. (2019). Assessment of
Social Sustainability Indicators in Mass Housing Construction: A Case Study of Mehr
Housing Project. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101697.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101697
Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K., & Maliene, V. (2013). An assessment of sustainable
housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method. Omega, 41(2), 270–
279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2012.05.002
Olakitan Atanda, J. (2019). Developing a social sustainability assessment framework.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.023
Paduart, A. (2012). Re-design for Change: A 4 dimensional renovation approach towards a
dynamic and sustainable building stock [Doctoral thesis]. Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Winters, S. (2021). Vlaamse Woonmonitor 2021. 181.
Zarrabi, M., Yazdanfar, S.-A., & Hosseini, S.-B. (2022). Usage of lifestyle in housing studies: A
systematic review paper. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(2), 575– 594.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09883-4

23
Making sense of a new national context in comparative housing:
personal and systemic reflections of a researcher’s journey in
France
Christophe Verrier
Université Grenoble Alpes, Pacte Social Sciences Research Centre, Grenoble, France
Keywords: comparative housing policies, housing studies
1. Introduction
Considering the complex meshing behind housing systems, the fact that housing policies are
highly contextual is not particularly ground-breaking. Variegated political and institutional
pathways, economic conditions, the state of the housing stock, or simply socio-culturally
constructed housing aspirations each singularly shape the ways housing systems function so as
to—in an ideal world—provide decent homes for all. This complexity leads to a particular set of
challenges for comparative housing researchers.
For example, anyone discussing ‘social housing’ across national boundaries needs to
account for the wide variation in the meaning of the term, which may refer to very different
objects in different countries (Scanlon et al., 2014). It could refer solely to publicly owned units
offered as a last resort option for the most vulnerable (like in the United States), while it may
also refer to a broad tenure type geared at a range of household types by a wide variety of
actors, whether public, not for profit or collective (such as a in Sweden or Singapore). In fact,
even the previous sentences are oversimplifications, as only a—relatively—lengthy discussion
of national specificities of different cases studied allows to create a space for comparison and
differentiation (Haffner et al., 2009). In fact, defining and building understandings are central
pieces of most comparative housing literature publications.
Yet, this relatively well acknowledged difficulty hides a wider conceptual issue; the words
underpinning these definitions and differentiations, somewhat obscure the actual process
leading researchers to make sense of the various logics, institutions and actor behaviours
operating within a specific housing system. In fact, where the literature is quite explicit on the
multiple variations across contexts and what they mean for comparative work, there is little
interest given to the actual learning process, how individual researchers acquire the knowledge
necessary to carry research on housing, whether at home or abroad. Ultimately, this poses a
challenge for comparative work specifically: how can one effectively understand the national
specificities of an ‘external’ housing system to an extent that would allow them to carry
meaningful comparative work?
Stemming as a reflection on Van Heur’s (2020) call to better integrate personal histories and
the role of researchers' positionality in affecting the knowledge they produce; this contribution
will reflect on both the personal and systemic aspects involved in the process of “learning” a
new housing system. This, with a more specific aim to encourage comparative researchers
working on policies, institutions, and actors to better engage openly and reflectively with their
topics.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 24
2. Research work
This contribution will be articulated around the personal experience of the author in “learning”
the French and Dutch housing systems along with a broader reflection on the systemic
implications behind the housing as an object of knowledge acquisition. Firstly, the presentation
will trace the trajectory of the author as a Canadian slowly specializing on housing policy
research while moving between different countries. It will serve as an example of the different
conceptual and practical challenges that one can encounter in the process. This experience will
be framed as a form of knowledge acquisition bearing important similarities with that of
learning a second language: from the acquisition of a new vocabulary, to using a different
grammar, to interpret a new reality.
Following up on the parallels with didactics, the second part of the presentation will delve
more systematically into the “learning” of housing research through an analysis of the syllabi
and reading lists used in different housing studies classes in North America and Europe. This
analysis will study the different themes, topics and objectives of these courses in order to
compare the similarities and dissimilarities in the ways the topic of housing is introduced to
bachelor's and master’s students in the fields of public policy and urban planning. The analysis
will show that while crosscutting themes are plentiful, they are most often underpinned by a
specific syntax anchored in local realities. It will also posit that vocabulary and topics that may
seem connected can easily turn into false friends, where a foreign concept appears deceivingly
similar to another in one’s own frame of reference. On the surface, this situation raises
questions on the transferability of knowledge acquired in such classes: are these local
specificities only used as examples to present more general processes, or are they so particular
to a given context that they need to be specified? More deeply, this situation should also lead
us to reflect more openly on the impact of our own positionality in our work. Indeed, if these
courses introduce housing to students using a specific local syntax, one can reasonably wonder
in what ways this originally localized exposure (also in informal settings) later shapes the way we
approach our object of research. Pursuing the analogy with language, this question has
important similarities to those surrounding linguistic relativity as to “whether people who speak
different languages think differently” (Wolff & Holmes, 2011, p. 253).
3. Conclusion
This contribution argues that there is a clear need to explicitly reflect on the impact of our own
individual experiences in the way we carry out our research on housing, especially in
comparative work. Doing so could not only improve our capacity to deal with shortcomings in
dealing with unfamiliar contexts, but also represents an exciting opportunity to introspectively
explore the relationship we have with our research object. Ultimately, this presentation aims to
present possible avenues offered by a reflexive exploration of the interface between the initial
housing experiences of researchers, system-specific idiosyncrasies and the resulting
production of knowledge.
Acknowledgment
This contribution has been carried as part of the RE-DWELL project, which received funding
from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie
Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 956082.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 25
References
Haffner, M., Hoekstra, J., Oxley, M., & van der Heijden, H. (2009). Bridging the gap between
social and market rented housing in six European countries? Housing and Urban Policy
Studies (Vol. 33). IOS Press.
Scanlon, K., Whitehead, C., & Fernández Arrigoita, M. (2014). Introduction. In K. Scanlon, C.
Whitehead, & M. Fernandez Arrigoita (Eds.), Social Housing in Europe (pp.1–20). Wiley &
Sons.
Van Heur, B. (2020). Urban geography as if urban knowledge matters. Urban Geography, 41(5),
694–702.
Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive
Science, 2(3), 253-265.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 26
Panel 2: Environments and processes for co-design
Georges-Henry Laffont, Clément Guilloteau, Axelle Pavero, Learning from "ÎIot Neyron" in Saint-
Etienne: Thinking, designing and living the city in an alternative way
Leonardo Ricaurte, New approaches to Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Unveiling the social value
of housing design
Effrosyni Roussou, Nadia Charalambous, On becoming a spatial agent: A comparative analysis
of transdisciplinary design and build studio pedagogy in Cyprus and Sweden
Paola Briata, Gennaro Postiglione, Constanze Wolfgring, From unconventional households to
unconventional affordable housing

27
Learning from "ÎIot Neyron " in Saint-Etienne:
Thinking, designing and living the city in an alternative way
Georges-Henry Laffont1, Clément Guilloteau2, and Axelle Pavero3
1École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Saint-Étienne, EVS UMR5600, France
2 EPA Saint-Etienne, France
3 Cresson laboratory, UMR AAU and EVS UMR5600, France
Keywords: Saint-Etienne, co-creation, urban fabric, housing vacancy, popular centrality
In Saint-Etienne, the project “Neyron: rebuilding the neighbourhood around a popular
centrality”1 questions the links between innovation and the urban fabric by interlacing the
scales of living, from housing to the neighbourhood (Lussault, 2007). First, it queries the
concept of urban innovation (Arab et Vivant, 2018) as an “end in itself” in favour of an obligation
of means to ensure the habitability of urban spaces. Secondly, it allows us to characterize the
specificity and analyse the efficiency of the "layers of the city" method (Roncayolo, 2002).
Finally, the Neyron project gives rise to a discussion on the limits between situated response
and intention of replicability on a larger scale.
For this purpose, a multidisciplinary team 2 conducted analytical, methodological, and
reflexive work aimed at providing an outside view of Neyron project as it is conceived and led by
an analysis of the urban action and, thus, providing input in reflection order to support the
changes at and of Neyron. This contribution will first examine the relationship between
innovation and urban manufacturing in the context of Saint-Etienne, before explaining the
spatial characteristics and operational approach of the project in the light of the hypotheses
and initial results of the action research.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, innovation has been a major theme in debates on
urban design, focusing on the materiality of the city (Bourdin, 2001), its organizational methods,
regulations and processes (Offner, 2000), and, more generally, on the public policies
1 Neyron is a hill district in downtown Saint-Etienne close to the new Châteaucreux business EcoQuartier, whose
eponymous street is the subject of a "reactivation" project proposed by the EPA Saint-Etienne. This project, conceived
in a shared governance approach, aims to include many local partners to achieve a high level of complementarity
between the different innovations tested on the Neyron demonstrator.
2 This action-research project is conducted, in addition to the authors of this contribution, by Frédéric Bonnet (architect,
professor at the ENSA of Saint-Etienne) and the students of the third year of bachelor's degree, fourth and fifth years of
master's degree at the ENSA of Saint-Etienne.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 28
implemented there (Kunzmann, 2005). Urban planning and urban design are a field of
professional practices (Barles, 2018) where processual innovations are explored and
experimented with. It aims to produce a habitable urban space by working with and on its
materiality (Arab, 2017), while paying attention to individual well-being, community life and
environmental preservation3.
However, between singular processes claiming the "right to design the city off the beaten
track" and copied and standardized " ready-made thinking" and its "ready-to-use solutions",
innovation in urban planning seems to participate in the strengthening of the generic city.
Saint-Etienne, a shrinking city (Béal et al., 2020) has used these "good practices" to transform
its image and its urban fabric (Laffont, 2022). Nevertheless, from the 1990s onwards, this
devalued city (Guilloteau, 2020) reported a situation that complicated the spatial translation of
an urban renewal: an economic context that didn't support symbolic and material
transformations, a political and administrative system with low culture of the urban project, and
a lack of urban engineering to lead these transformations.
To stop the spiral of urban devaluation, the Établissement Public d'Aménagement de Saint-
Etienne (EPASE) was created in 2007. After a period particularly marked by the "mainstream"
orientation of its urban intervention (Morel-Journel & Pinson, 2012), today EPASE claims a
doctrine of bifurcation with respect to the "urbanistic ready-to-think" and a dual role of
developer able to regenerate places and uses, and of "housekeeper » in charge of repairing the
old and taking care of the existing4. Among these alternative urban planning actions, the project
"Neyron: rebuilding the neighbourhood around a popular centrality" stands out. This project
plans to a transform brownfield site located on a hilly area between the TGV station business
centre of Châteaucreux and the city centre (Figure 1).
3 Temporary reinvestment of abandoned spaces; sensitive experience, co-construction with other disciplines or actors;
artistic approach; etc.
4 “4 convictions pour innover : ces mots qui nous gouvernent” 2020, EPASE publication

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 29
Figure 1. Site of the Neyron project - personal achievement. Source: EPASE
This neighbourhood, defined by poor geotechnical quality, various types of pollution,
degraded housing, and a devalued image, however, has many resources to be regenerated and
to respond to the expectations of its inhabitants. EPASE's approach to urban innovation is
based on simple, frugal and affordable solutions. The aim is to meet various challenges:
regenerating the urban fabric of Neyron as well as its image; maintaining the social diversity of
the neighbourhood while upgrading the housing supply; adapting this neighbourhood to climate
transitions by a public space with a strong presence of vegetation and biodiversity; opening up
the neighbourhood by creating local facilities, services and uses while improving its
connectivity; involving residents beyond the various institutionalized mechanisms and
associative dynamism to free the creative thought of all, and thus updating the notion of
"practices" in urban planning (Figure 2).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 30
Figure 2. The transformation project of Neyron. Source: Atelier Ruelle
Thus, an action research project supports the EPASE’S team in three ways. First, by
contributing to the thought by questioning the "layers of the city" approach: How to build on
degraded subsoil with simple methods? How to regenerate fertile soil in a highly anthropized
environment? How to awaken a popular ground floor? How to (re)build an alternative and
affordable habitat? Second, by approaching residential and commercial vacancy not exclusively
as a problem to solve with a single programmatic response, but also and above all as a potential
for reloading the ways of thinking, doing and living in the city. Third, by playing an active role in
the Neyron project, especially in the theme of housing, based on major principles such as "living
with dignity", "appropriable and egalitarian housing", "pooling spaces and services for the living
together", "adapting housing, building and the neighbourhood to the evolution of lifestyles".
Bringing a critical and reflexive glance the research action will benefit from the
experimentation of a test plot near Neyron, allowing to validate, improve or adjust the proposed
recommendations in terms of housing.
References
Arab, N. and Vivant, E., (2018). L’innovation de méthodes en urbanisme: freins et leviers d’une
entreprise incertaine. Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 1.
http://journals.openedition.org/craup/324
Arab, N, (2017). L’élaboration collective des projets d’urbanisme : organiser l’intégration des
acteurs et gérer l’incertitude des processus de conception. Riurba, 3.
http://www.riurba.review/Revue/lelaboration-collective-des-projets-durbanisme-
organiser-lintegration-des-acteurs-et-gerer-lincertitude-des-processus-de-conception/
Barles, S. (2018). L’urbanisme, le génie urbain et l’environnement: une lecture par la technique.
Riurba, 1. http://riurba.net/Revue/lurbanisme-le-genie-urbain-etlenvironnementune-
lecture-par-la-technique
Béal, V., Cauchi-Duval, N., Gay, G., Journel, C. M., & Pala, V. S. (2020). Sociologie de Saint-
Étienne. La Découverte.
Bourdin, A. (2001). Comment on fait la ville, aujourd’hui, en France. Espaces et Sociétés, 105-106,
148-166.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 31
Guilloteau, C. (2020). L’Etablissement Public d’Aménagement de Saint-Etienne au défi de la ville
dévalorisée, Master thesis, Université Jean-Monnet de Saint-Etienne.
Kunzmann, K. R. (2005). Creativity in planning: a fuzzy concept?. disP-The Planning
Review, 41(162), 5-13.
Laffont, H. (2022). Le design et Saint-Etienne : chronique des liens entre évènementiel et
pérenne dans la fabrique urbaine. In I. Iosa, C.Rozenholc, & E. Lallement, Le pérenne et le
temporaire dans la fabrique urbaine (pp. 179-195). L’Harmattan.
Lussault, M. (2007). L’homme spatial. Seuil.
Morel-Journel, C. & Pinson G. (2012). Néo-management et/ou néolibéralisme des politiques
urbaines : analyse de l’outil EPA et de son acclimatation stéphanoise. In J.-M. Guénod,
Desseins de villes: Un retour de l’État aménageur? (pp. 172-216). Éditions de l’Aube.
Offner, J.-M. (2000). L’action publique urbaine innovante. In S. Wachter, A. Bourdin, J. Padioleau,
J. Offner, J. Theis, & F. Scherrer, Repenser le territoire, un dictionnaire critique (pp. 139-155).
Datar/Éditions de l’Aube.
Roncayolo, M. (2002). Lectures de villes, Formes et Temps. Editions Parenthèses.

32
New approaches to post-occupancy evaluation: Unveiling the
social value of housing design
Leonardo Ricaurte
School of the Built Environment, University of Reading, Berkshire, UK
Keywords: post-occupancy evaluation, social value, quality of life, architectural geography,
housing design
1. Introduction
This research focuses on identifying the spaces that are crucial in yielding the well-being and
quality of life of residents in housing schemes. Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is a promising
method for assessing a building’s adequacy to meet social impact goals, comply with building
regulations, and deliver improved sustainability and affordability, but it tends to focus on
environmental outcomes rather than the less tangible social outcomes (Hay et al., 2017; RIBA &
MacDonald P., 2020; Samuel, 2020). When it comes to housing, a decision about the height of a
bench in a common space, the position of windows and porches in relation to a playground, or
the size of a stairwell can affect the social value of a space, and only dialogue with inhabitants
can bring these nuances to light. Although architects such as Herman Hertzberger (1963, 1991)
have speculated about these effects, they have not yet been subject to systematic study or
reconciled with contemporary debates about the social value of housing. In the field of urban
design, for instance, Jan Gehl (Gehl, 1986, 2010, 2011; Gehl et al., 2006; Gehl & Svarre, 2013) has
developed scholarship and methodological approaches that rely on systematic participant
observation and surveys to determine what constitutes appropriate spaces that support vibrant
residential life and liveable neighbourhoods. This paper advocates that these enquiries can be
further complemented by incorporating input from disciplines such as the geographies of
architecture, particularly the research on ‘building events’ conducted by Lees and Baxter (Lees,
2001; Lees & Baxter, 2011), Jacobs et al., (2010) and Rose et al., (2010). Altogether, this can
deepen the development of a more structured and evidence-based POE that is able to create
and sustain learning loops that include the inhabitants’ experience of spaces and shed light on
the design process of housing schemes. The research question guiding the development of this
paper is therefore: To what extent can the social value created by the design of housing blocks
be better informed and conceptualised involving participant observation and geographies of
architecture as part of post-occupancy evaluation?
2. Social value and its implications for housing design
The backdrop of the discussion is the recent interest in the English built environment sector for
integrating social value as a pivotal aspect of its activity. Social value is understood as an
umbrella term that encompasses the wider economic, social and environmental effects of any
given activity; it is a concept that has become very prominent, especially in the UK after the
advent of the Social Value Act in 2012 (UK Green Building Council, 2020, 2021). Since then,
progress was made in incorporating the idea of measuring quantitatively the impact of projects
in communities and society. As it can be applied to a wide array of sectors, the concept can
have multiple interpretations and definitions. Efforts have been made to unify and agree on a
common approach to the built environment (Raiden et al., 2018; Raiden & King, 2021).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 33
Frameworks and tools have led to a better understanding of the protocols to assess the real
social impact of projects. This is the case in the UK Green Building Council’s reports Delivering
Social Value: Measurement (2020) and Framework for Defining Social Value (2021); offering an
overview of the necessary steps to identify it. However, there is still a lack of standardised
methods to measure social value, mainly because every development has specific
circumstances, and it is not as simple as prescribing metrics hastily. In 2020 the Royal Institute
of British Architects RIBA in collaboration with the University of Reading, published the Social
Value Toolkit for Architecture (Samuel, 2020), a document that encapsulates some of the key
aspects that architects should consider to create and measure social value in their projects, a
notable first step toward the involvement of architects in social value debates. The Quality of
Life Framework (URBED, 2021) discussed below builds directly on the Social Value Toolkit. The
current investigation aims to hone and theorise the process further, suggesting a more
comprehensive approach to POE as a method to ascertain the real social impact of design.
3. Human behaviour, space and design: Methodologies to produce places
that work
The Quality of Life Framework by The Quality of Life Foundation (QoLF) and URBED (2020) is a
research-based methodology that identifies a range of themes, i.e., control, health, nature,
wonder, movement and belonging, as responsible for creating liveable communities and quality
of life. This document is the result of a literature review on the effects of the built environment
on people's quality of life. It underscores the critical role of housing in this issue. The term
'housing' in this case alludes not only to the domestic and private spatial configuration of
dwellings, but rather accentuates the importance of considering the neighbourhoods in which
homes are located, the communities that live therein, and the transport links, community
facilities and open spaces that serve them, as key aspects when considering health and
wellbeing (URBED, 2021). This framework opened the way for the development of a POE service
offered by the QoLF (QoLF, 2022) that is the vehicle to analyse and reflect on the potential of
different spatial disciplines to complement the methodology. The aim is to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of the ways in which space users give meaning and value to the
built environment, so that architects and developers can use this information to better conceive
and improve new and existing housing schemes.
On the other hand, POE, however beneficial it may be to the built environment, is not
commonplace in the sector and there is a glaring lack of literature addressing this issue
(Durosaiye et al., 2019; Hadjri & Crozier, 2009). POE is often regarded as an activity that
demands long-term commitment and can be time-consuming. An issue that can be explained
by the short-term logic of the construction sector, and the fleeting commitment of developers,
especially private and profit-driven, to the communities and clients they engage with.
4. Where to look to?
The literature points at certain places within the confines of the housing block and the site as
possible targets of the empirical study. Gehl (1986, 2011) and Hertzberger (1991) agree on the
relevance of thresholds and transitions between levels of privacy as a key locus of successful
places. Gehl refers to this as the ‘edge effect’ (2011, p.149), and Hertzberger as the ‘in-between
space’ (1991, p.32). Both have to do with the design of entrances and the flow of activities
throughout, and the soft transition that they can provide. Lynch (1964) also identifies the edge
as an important constituent of the city image. And in A Pattern Language (1977), Alexander

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 34
alludes to it as the pattern of Building the edge which is further complemented by the one of
Activity pockets.
Here insights from geography, particularly architectural geographies can be very valuable in
informing the array of methods that can be put in place as part of a comprehensive POE. As
Jacobs (Jacobs, 2006) argues, there have been calls in the field of geography for a new ‘critical
geography of architecture’ that asks geographers to analyse the built forms up close and
recognise them as “occupied performative events” (Jacobs, 2006, p.10). They suggest that
spaces and places are conceptualised through the socially mediated practices they contain as
part of being inhabited. Accordingly, buildings are not just static and closed masses stacked in
urban blocks, but permeable entities in which users play a significant role through movement,
interaction and relationships (Jenkins, 2002). Therefore, the building is conceptualised as a
‘building event’, “conceived of in this way, a building is always being ‘made’ or ‘unmade’, always
doing the work of holding together or pulling apart” (Jacobs, 2006, p.11). In this vein, buildings
are seen as assemblages of human and non-human actors who impact each other following an
Actor-network theory approach. Stewart Brand (Brand, 1995) conveys a similar idea with the
‘Shearing layers of change’. He asserts that this ensemble involves a hierarchical relationship,
which in turn alludes to the temporal property and associated behaviour. As Brand puts it, “Site
dominates the Structure, which dominates the Skin, which dominates the Services, which
dominates the Space plan, which dominates the Stuff” (p.17). Thus, architecture is not static but
very much alive and the ‘building event’ can be that vehicle to unpack residents’ lived
experiences of their housing estates, by looking at the feel of buildings, feelings in buildings and
feelings about buildings (Rose et al., 2010) . In this way, a new approach to POE can be
generated that places the social interactions within the spaces under study at the centre of the
enquiry. As Lees and Baxter (Baxter & Lees, 2008; Lees, 2001; Lees & Baxter, 2011) have shown,
using an ethnographic approach to disentangle the different layers of 'building events' can
provide rich data about community cohesion, sense of belonging and social value.
5. Conclusion
Evidence-based design is a neglected area in architectural research (Groat & Wang, 2013).
Architectural practises can benefit from investigating what makes a good design from the
users' perspective. Methods such as POE and participant observation can not only help to
balance the scale between the social, economic and environmental facets of projects, but also
reinvigorate the role of research in design. In this sense, POE can bring together different
strands of research from various disciplines that seek to analyse the built environment and
create new pathways to explain the phenomena. This research aims to expand the knowledge
of how buildings work by focusing on the human dimension and the interaction and behaviour
of inhabitants in built spaces. The empirical study, which incorporates all these considerations,
is still being conducted on a specific case study and will be completed in the coming months.
Acknowledgment
This paper is an output of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Action - Innovative Training
Network (MSCA-ITN) RE-DWELL project: Delivering affordable and sustainable housing in
Europe (H2020 Grant agreement No 956082).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 35
References
Baxter, R., & Lees, L. (2008). Chapter 9 - The rebirth of high-rise living in London: towards a
sustainable, inclusive, and liveable urban form. In Regenerating London (Vol. 1, Issue 40, pp.
151–172). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203886717_chapter_9
Brand, S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Penguin.
Durosaiye, I. O., Hadjri, K., & Liyanage, C. L. (2019). A critique of post-occupancy evaluation in the
UK. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34(1), 345–352.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09646-2
Gehl, J. (1986). “Soft edges” in residential streets. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research,
3(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815738608730092
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press.
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings (6th ed.). Island Press.
Gehl, J., Kaefer, L. J., & Reigstad, S. (2006). Close encounters with buildings. Urban Design
International, 11, 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000162
Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life (Vol. 2). Springer.
Groat, L. N., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural research methods. John Wiley & Sons.
Hadjri, K., & Crozier, C. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation: Purpose, benefits and barriers.
Facilities, 27(1–2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770910923063
Hay, R., Samuel, F., Watson, K. J., & Bradbury, S. (2017). Post-occupancy evaluation in
architecture: experiences and perspectives from UK practice. Building Research &
Information, 46(6), 698–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1314692
Hertzberger, H. (1963). Flexibility and polyvalency. Ekistics, 15(89), 238–239.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43616104
Hertzberger, H. (1991). Lessons for students in architecture (Vol. 1). 010 Publishers.
Jacobs, J. M. (2006). A geography of big things. Cultural Geographies, 13(1), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474006EU354OA
Jacobs, J. M., Cairns, S., & Strebel, I. (2010). More on “big things”: building events and feelings.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(3), 334–349.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40890991
Jenkins, L. (2002). Geography and Architecture: 11, Rue du Conservatoire and the Permeability of
Buildings. Space and Culture, 5(3), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331202005003003
Lees, L. (2001). Towards A Critical Geography of Architecture: The Case of an Ersatz Colosseum.
Ecumene, 8(1), 51–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/096746080100800103
Lees, L., & Baxter, R. (2011). A ‘building event’ of fear: thinking through the geography of
architecture. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(2), 107–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011.545138
Lynch, K. (1964). The image of the city. MIT Press.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 36
Raiden, A., & King, A. (2021). Social Value in Practice (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003024910
Raiden, A., Loosemore, M., King, A., & Gorse, C. (2018). Social Value in Construction (1st ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315100807
RIBA, & MacDonald P. (2020). Post Occupancy Evaluation An essential tool to improve the built
environment (A. Forth, Ed.). RIBA.
Rose, G., Degen, M., & Basdas, B. (2010). More on “big things”: Building events and feelings.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(3), 334–349.
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1475-5661.2010.00388.X
Samuel, F. (2020). RIBA social value toolkit for architecture. Royal Institute of British Architects.
https://www.architecture.com/-/media/GatherContent/Social-Value-Toolkit-for-
Architecture/Additional-Documents/RIBAUoR-Social-Value-Toolkit-2020pdf.pdf
UK Green Building Council (2020). Delivering Social Value: Measurement.
https://www.ukgbc.org/ukgbc-work/delivering-social-value-measurement/
UK Green Building Council (2021). Framework for Defining Social Value.
https://www.ukgbc.org/ukgbc-work/framework-for-defining-social-value/
URBED (2021). The Quality of Life Framework. https://www.qolf.org/framework/

37
On becoming a spatial agent: A comparative analysis of
transdisciplinary design and build studio pedagogy in Cyprus
and Sweden
Effrosyni Roussou and Nadia Charalambous
Department of Architecture, University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Keywords: transdisciplinarity, design and build pedagogy, live studio, spatial agency, commons
1. Introduction
As the traditional design studio becomes increasingly obsolete in the face of complex and
multi-faceted realities, architectural education is in urgent need of profound restructuring
(Awan et al., 2011; Doucet, 2017; Salazar Ferro et al., 2020). For several decades, the live studio
framework, i.e. a framework that exposes students to the contingencies of a “real-world”
experience, intertwined with a web of spatial, social, environmental and political aspects, has
been challenging the archetype of the architect, allowing for a proliferation of the ways of
being-in-context for students, educators, institutions and communities alike (Abrahams et al.,
2021). There is, however, room for further exploration in the ways in which the live studio is
interpreted and implemented, within a rising post-capitalist wave of thought, both in the
different geographical and cultural contexts, but also in its ideological standpoint and
underpinnings.
The aim of this paper is to contribute to the ongoing discussion on reshaping live studio
architectural education as a transformative and transdisciplinary pedagogy geared towards
design activism, direct action and reclaiming learning as a commons that transcends the
boundaries of academia (Bollier, 2021). More specifically, this paper will reflect on the
opportunities, implications, as well as the limitations of a situated, transdisciplinary, design &
build studio as a hub for training future architects in becoming socially conscious spatial agents,
able to assess and respond effectively to complex challenges and work collectively towards a
common future.
2. From architecture to spatial agency
Spatial agency is a term that illustrates the gradual moving away from architecture and the way
it has been established as a practice through the modern era. It seeks to highlight a
transdisciplinary practice of synergy-forming that puts “spatial judgement, mutual knowledge
and critical awareness” at the forefront (Lorne, 2017). The value of synergies has been illustrated
by the steadily rising adoption of co-creation methods over the past decades, both in practice,
and education.
Through co-creation processes in architecture pedagogy, i.e. the live studio, students are
exposed to unique contributions where everyone’s competences, knowledge and lived
experiences can be recognised, highlighted and utilised. The entanglement of all the different
knowledge and meanings can create connections and reconfigurations can challenge the
primacy of established pre-conceptions of what is each participant’s role, be it student,

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 38
educator, or stakeholder and allows for multiple ways of an individual’s situatedness (Abrahams
et al., 2021). Therefore knowledge & knowledge production become a “commons” that can be
co-produced in a reflexive and exploratory way, which allows for fresh ideas to emerge. Design
& build as a method of learning can add the element of praxis in the form of a tangible and
immediate impact in space. Knowledge co-production, in this sense, moves away from
theorisation and exercise-on-paper to the neighbourhood and the city, thus breaking the barrier
between academia and society in a most direct way.
2.1 Case studies
In exploring how can a transdisciplinary design & build studio impact student perception, two
case studies are selected: The first one is a design & build workshop in the University of Cyprus
(department of Architecture), which is directly linked to the 2nd year “co-creating urban
commons” studio. The second is the summer design & build course called “DARE to Build”
offered by Chalmers University of Technology to master students of the Department of
Architecture and Civil Engineering. In Table 1, the two courses are presented through relevant
basic descriptors.
Table 1. The two courses illustrated through basic descriptors
Co-creating Urban Commons (CY)
DARE to Build (SE)
Initiating Entity
University of Cyprus
Chalmers University of Technology
Objective/Visio
n/Agenda
Expose future graduates to real-world
contingencies through a collaborative, co-
creation framework illustrated through the
interaction with different agents and
disciplines as well as with practice while at
the same time promoting engagement and
a sense of responsibility towards the
commons.
Reconcile the disparity between
monodisciplinary education and multi-
disciplinary practice, while at the same
time creating impact and outreach in
local communities.
Students
2nd, 3rd and 4th year architecture students
Master students, engineers and
architects
Educational
methods
Urban Living Lab, design & build
Problem-and-project-based learning
(PPBL), design & build, CDIO (conceive,
design, implement, operate)
Urban Context
Latsia Municipality (suburban Nicosia)
Million home programme
(Miljonprogrammet) suburban areas in
Gothenburg
Scale/Location
Neighbourhood-level interventions,
Nicosia, Cyprus
Neighbourhood-level interventions,
Gothenburg, Sweden
Status/Runtime
2022-
2018-
Duration & Pace
3 weeks, full time (5 ECTS)
5 weeks, fulltime (7,5 ECTS)
Stakeholders &
Partnerships
Latsia Municipality, Nicosia Development
Agency, local community
Municipality of Gothenburg, local
housing companies, local community

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 39
By perceiving live projects as case studies that fall under the broader scope of urban studies,
this comparative analysis adopts the viewpoint of scholars within the field, such as Jennifer
Robinson and Manuel Aalbers; they argue for a proliferation of comparative analyses that move
beyond clusters of similarity and pre-established theorisations of places (e.g. comparing
housing policies of northern European countries between themselves because the “global
south” is just too different) towards a more relational approach, fortified by a reflexive process,
and a postcolonial lens (Aalbers, 2022; Robinson, 2016). Sweden and Cyprus, two national
contexts with diverse cultural, socio-political environmental and economic characteristics
provide an interesting testbed for a comparative analysis that aims to move away from
contrasting through either a western superiority perspective or a romanticised reading of local
practices, to a search for common trajectories. Furthermore, prior familiarity with both contexts
presents an opportunity of ethnographic strategies and elements that can be incorporated and
enhance the analysis (Ronald, 2011).
2.2 Methods
This comparative analysis aims to provide insight on the impact of a transdisciplinary design &
build pedagogical model on student perceptions regarding their positioning as future
professionals, their attitude towards processes of cooperation and co-creation with various
stakeholders, as well as their confidence levels regarding transdisciplinary, hands-on teamwork.
To achieve this, the study draws on social sciences methodologies within a participatory action
research (PAR) framework; a set of two questionnaires was handed out to the participating
students of both courses (Figures 1 and 2), one in the beginning of each course and one at their
completion, in order to trace and document both the collective and the individual shifts in
mindsets and perceptions. Within the PAR framework, a reflexive insider researcher perspective
methodology is used, solidified both by the aforementioned prior familiarity with these contexts
in both a macro (cultural, historical) and a micro (educational, interpersonal) level, and by an
active and immersed role as a teacher throughout the process. This position enabled the
enrichment of the research process by building bonds of trust between those involved, through
which observation and in-depth analysis of formal (focus group session) and informal, everyday
interactions was facilitated, while working collaboratively towards a common goal.
Figure 1. UCY students posing while sitting on a
cement block bench that they designed & built.
Source: Effrosyni Roussou
Figure 2. Chalmers students enjoying celebratory
cake after the completion of the outdoor
classroom. Source: Effrosyni Roussou

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 40
3. Conclusion
To sum up, the expected outcome of this exploration is a set of observations on the limitations
and opportunities of a transformative design & build pedagogy as well as the ways in which it
impacts the (self) perception of future architects. By tracing the common trajectories of the two
study cases, embedded in their own cultural, economic, environmental and socio-political
contexts, the scope of impact identification is broadened to shed light on aspects of this
matter that may exist beyond educational methods and curriculum structure. Preliminary
analysis reveals interesting questions regarding the correlation of long-term sustaining co-
creation processes and shifts in students’ perception. Overall, steps in this direction of
education can directly contribute to a better-informed architectural education, able to guide
students through the necessary shift in perception in the present that may secure better
practitioners in the future.
Acknowledgment
This paper is an output of E. Roussou’s doctoral research, conducted under the auspices of RE-
DWELL, an Innovative Training Network (ITN) funded by the H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie
programme of the European Union (2020-24), with project number 956082.
References
Aalbers, M. B. (2022). Towards a relational and comparative rather than a contrastive global
housing studies. Housing Studies, 37(6), 1054–1072.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2022.2033176
Abrahams, C., Delport, H., Perold, R., Weber, A. M., & Brown, J. B. (2021). Being-in-context
through live projects in architectural education: Including situated knowledge in community
engagement projects. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 9(SI), 99–125.
https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v9iSI.337
Awan, N., Schneider, T., & Till, J. (2011). Spatial Agency: Other Ways Of Doing Architecture.
Routledge.
Doucet, I. (2017). Learning in the ‘Real’ World: encounters with radical architectures (1960s–
1970s). Journal of Educational Administration and History, 49(1), 7–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2017.1252735
Lorne, C. (2017). Spatial agency and practising architecture beyond buildings. Social and Cultural
Geography, 18(2), 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2016.1174282
Robinson, J. (2016). Comparative Urbanism: New Geographies and Cultures of Theorizing the
Urban. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 187–199.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12273
Ronald, R. (2011). Ethnography and Comparative Housing Research. International Journal of
Housing Policy, 11(4), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2011.626605
Salazar Ferro, C., Artega Arredondo, I., Rodriguez, C. M., & Nadal, D. H. (2020). Active Learning in
Architectural Education: A Participatory Design Experience (PDE) in Colombia. International
Journal of Art and Design Education, 39(2), 346–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12280

41
From unconventional* households to unconventional affordable
housing
Paola Briata, Gennaro Postiglione and Constanze Wolfgring
Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Keywords: housing typologies, unconventionality, affordability, research by design, reuse
Over the past years, a multi-disciplinary group of colleagues at Politecnico di Milano has been
exploring how contemporary social and demographic dynamics challenge housing policies and
projects. These issues have been at the core of teaching activities in design-based studios
involving architecture students as well as in field research with the aims to investigate the state
of the art of dwelling practices and to develop alternative housing solutions able to overcome
an emerging distance between demand and supply. Profound socio-demographic
transformations have taken place in Europe and Italy over the past decades, leading to
major changes in household composition (an increase in the number of households of single
people, divorced couples with children, single parents and the elderly, as well as in the spread of
the phenomenon of cohabitation, not only among young people) and in what is typically
referred to as the family (Meyer & Carlson, 2014). As a consequence, the ideal equivalence
between the nuclear family and a corresponding housing typology, as promoted by the
Modern Movement, collapsed (Star strategies + architecture, 2016). At the same time, changes
in the labour market have forced people to organize their lives in more than one place
(Rolshoven, 2007) which has led to the emergence of new lifestyles. In addition, worsening
employment and economic conditions have reduced housing affordability, increased precarious
and informal housing conditions, and set constraints on access to housing, even for middle-
income groups (Costa et al., 2014; Ronald & Elsinga, 2012).
Taking these societal transformations as a starting point, the research and
teaching experience aims at investigating ‘unconventional’ housing practices and projects,
hence, at analysing how people (individuals, households) and professionals (e.g., architects,
planners) respond to these developments in the organization and design of housing solutions,
* By “unconventional”, we mean above all the non-equivalence between the idea/ideal(s) of family households and the
apartment typology.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 42
and at exploring the potential of such solutions to promote housing affordability.
While ‘unconventional’ housing can take many shapes and emerge from a diversity of
household and living arrangements, their emergence often reflects the inadequacies,
unaffordability, dissatisfaction with, or inaccessibility of conventional housing offers.
The research adopts a mixed methodology, combining case studies of unconventional
housing practices and projects (Boudet, 2018; Guidarini, 2018; Coricelli et al., 2018)
with architectural ethnography (Cranz, 2016; Kaijima et al., 2018; Stender et al., 2021; Briata &
Postiglione, 2020) and a research-by-design approach within architectural design studios. Over
a period of six years, BA and MSc architecture students have, in fact, conducted design
explorations on the Milanese existing (residential and non-residential) building stock – a
decision taken to empower adaptive reuse as a sustainable approach also in housing –, with the
task to develop “unconventional” affordable housing solutions.
Prior to the design task, the students were asked to explore examples of unconventional
household situations and housing solutions by adopting ethnographic methods and tools
(direct participant observation, interviews, photography, drawing, writing, etc.) in order to gain
insights into the strategies of households in the organisation and use of their dwellings which,
in a further step, should underpin the design. The application of an interdisciplinary approach
within an international setting – students usually come from many different countries – has
been perceived as great potential and resulted in a broad discussion.
The present research by design strives to contribute to the advancement of knowledge
on the (so far underexplored) link between unconventional housing solutions and affordability
in different ways:
a) in conceptual terms, by attempting a systematic analysis and classification of the case
studies collected in the past years - distinguishing between unconventional housing
practices, housing solutions that are often bottom-up or third-sector driven
targeting particular (often precarious) population groups, and unconventional housing
projects, experimenting new ways of dwelling, often with an articulated architectonic
design programme;
b) in architectural terms, by discussing how architecture and design choices can promote
the affordability of housing (Brysch & Czischke, 2022) - through its layout (e.g.
the minimization of private spaces in favour of shared spaces), the choice of materiality,
the implementation of design elements allowing for flexibility and adaptability to
changing household and life situations, self-build/renovation.
The case study investigations enriched critical observations on co-housing behaviours
and the spatial and distributional particularities to be considered when designing for co-
housing (Kries et al., 2017). The data collected were translated by the research team into
guidelines and recommendations for the design of a housing typology intended for shared
living encapsulated in a five-point Tentative Manifesto:
1. The Nucleus: it stands for one or more persons bonded together by either blood or
intimate relationships;
2. The Unit: it is the private space of the Nucleus, and it consists of a room with a bed-
alcove and an independent bathroom. It is the core of the new housing typology
configuration;

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 43
3. The Cluster: it is the private space of a multi-person Nucleus, and it consists of a Unit
and an extra room;
4. The Aggregation: it is the combination of Units and Clusters, and it replaces the concept
of the Apartment;
5. The Con-le-ctive space: it is the combination of Connective and Collective, and it
consists of the shared areas among Units and Clusters.
To carry out the design exercise (Figures 1-3), residential and non-residential buildings in
Milan were chosen from a wide range of twentieth-century examples. The projects reveal with
immediacy the differences in organization and layout of interior space, testifying to the
complexity of housing needs and the vitality of new configurations, as well as the attempt to
articulate public, private and collective spaces in a way to ensure a balance between moments
of conviviality and sharing, and those that are more intimate.
The project is based on a redefinition of the terms of living, aiming at the identification of a
new idea of a private room (equipped with a niche for a bed and an independent bathroom)
(Dogma 2017, 2019) and its relationship to collective (shared) spaces. The room-space dialectic
constitutes the main topological matrix for the design of the new apartments that echoes the
relationship between buildings and public/open space within the established city.
Figure 1. Diagrams of typical 1UR. Source: Authors

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 44
Figure 2. Aggregation: Connective=collective. Source: Authors
Figure 3. Design proposal. Source: Authors

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 45
References
Boudet, D. (2018). New Housing in Zürich. Park Books.
Briata, P. & Postiglione, G. (2020). Gratosoglio Ground Zero. Persone, luoghi, pratiche. In G.
Cafiero, N. Flora, & P. Giardiello (Eds.) Costruire l’abitare contemporaneo. Nuovi temi e
metodi del progetto. Il Poligrafo.
Brysch, S. L., & Czischke, D. (2022). Affordability through design: the role of building costs in
collaborative housing. Housing studies, 37(10), 1800-1820.
Coricelli, F., Quaglio, C., Robiglio. M., Rolfo, D., & Russi, N. (2018). Re-housing. La casa come
dispositivo di integrazione. Quaderni del Future Urban Legacy Lab. Politecnico di Torino.
Costa, G., Bezovan, G., Palvarini, P. & Brandsen, T. (2014). Urban Housing Systems in Times of
Crisis. C. Ranci, T. Brandsen, & S. Sabatinelli, S. (Eds.), Social Vulnerability in European Cities.
The Role of Local Welfare in Time of Crisis (pp. 160-186). Springer.
Cranz, G. (2016). Ethnography for Designers. Routledge.
Dogma (2017). The Room of One’s Own. Black Square.
Dogma (2019). Loveless. The Minimum Dwelling and its Discontents. Black Square.
Guidarini, S. (2018). New Urban Housing. Skira.
Kaijima, M., Stalder, L., & Iseki, Y. (Eds.) (2018). Architectural ethnography. Toto Publisher.
Meyer, D. & Carlson, M. (2014). Family Complexity: Implications for Policy and Research. The
Annals of the American Academy, 654, 259-276.
Rolshoven, J. (2007). The Temptations of the Provisional. Multi-Locality as a Way of Life.
Ethnologia Europaea, 37(1-2), 17-25.
Ronald, R. & Elsinga, M. (2012). Beyond Homeownership: Housing, Welfare and Society.
Routledge.
Kries, M., Müller, M., Niggli, D., Ruby, A., & Ruby, I. (Eds.) (2017). Together! The New Architecture
of the Collective. Ruby Press.
Star strategies + architecture (2016). The Interior of the Metropolis. Domestic Urbanism, MONU,
24, 106-113.
Stender, M., Bech-Danielson, C., & Hagen, A. L. (Eds.). (2021). Architectural anthropology:
exploring lived space. Routledge.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 46
Panel 3: Transforming governance: Between
coordinative action and self-organization
Antonin Margier, The rise of homeless villages in Portland: Institutionalization of tiny home
villages or informalization of public policies?
Jolien Groot, Frans Schilder, Housing-to-go: to what extent do the perceived benefits of
replaceable housing units materialise? Synthesis of a series of studies into the possibilities and
limitations of replaceable housing units in the Netherlands
Andreas Panagidis, Nadia Charalambous, Co-creation from the South: The case of Cyprus
Androniki Pappa, Alexandra Paio, Local partnerships and urban governance: The case of Lisbon

47
The rise of homeless villages in Portland: Institutionalization of
tiny home villages or informalization of public policies?
Antonin Margier
Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Université de Rennes, France
Keywords: homelessness, tiny home villages, informality
1. Introduction
In a global context of economic crisis (Peck, 2012), public authorities and local governments are
compelled to cope with austerity, resulting in transformations of public policies ranging from
local policy tinkering (Tonkiss, 2013) to the institutionalization of existing informal practices. In
Portland, Oregon, on May 21st of 2021, elected officials, policy makers and public stakeholders
gathered to celebrate the opening of St. Johns Village, a village of 19 tiny homes funded and
developed by the local government as a means to provide beds for homeless individuals. This
structure is officially inspired by the homeless villages that have informally sprung up in west
coast cities in the last years.
In the light of this evolution, the main research questions that drive the article are: how
and to what extent informal housing practices influence public authorities and reconfigure
the local policies for ending homelessness? How the informality circulates from
homeless advocates and grass roots organizations to the local government?
2. The tiny home villages in Portland: From grassroots organizations to
public authorities
In the United States, the emergence of tiny home villages for the homeless provides evidence
of the ways in which informality have spread in the development of the American city. These
self-managed homeless villages have been increasing for more than a decade in many cities, in
particular in the west coast cities, in parallel to the rise of the housing crisis and within a context
of austerity urbanism (Peck, 2012). Whether they are perceived as a symbol of the economic
crisis (Herring & Lutz, 2015) or as a creative solution to cope with it (Evans, 2020), these villages
are nowadays part of the urban landscape in many American cities (Evans, 2020; Fowler, 2017).
These homeless villages appear as a more permanent and effective solution than temporary
assistance (food banks, night shelters, etc.) and as a cheaper alternative than the development
of housing units. For these reasons, public authorities tend to draw on those villages: “tent
cities have not only been sanctioned, but also publicly supported as tools of social welfare in
light of the costs and shortage of existing shelters” (Herring & Lutz, 2015: 696). In regard to this
evolution, tiny homes villages have become well studied within the academic research about
homelessness, giving rise to different interpretations. On the one hand, some scholars argue
that the development of these homeless villages is part of the punitive management of poverty
in public spaces (Herring & Lutz, 2015) as a space of containment and seclusion (Herring, 2014;
Speer, 2018). On the other hand, other scholars point out the role of this housing model as it
would provide safe spaces, hence giving the opportunity for homeless people to exercise a level
of agency they are often denied in congregate shelters where the many strict rules reduce their
own autonomy (Gowan, 2010). In that perspective, these villages are also perceived as spaces of

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 48
resistance and empowerment. The rise of homeless villages in American cities hence sheds
light on the ambivalence of the management of homelessness which is both punitive and
compassionate (Speer, 2018; Stuart, 2016).
This debate on American tent cities leaves in the shadows the role of informality in their own
development and the ways in which this informality transforms (and diffuses in) the governance
of homelessness. Through the analysis of the evolution of homeless villages (and their
management) in the city of Portland, this paper aims at understanding the ways in
which informality cannot be reduced to the target of public interventions but also results in
the transformation of urban governance (Davis, 2017) and in a co-construction of
alternative shelters for the unhoused.
The example of the homeless villages in Portland points out the ways in which
informal housing practices are not limited to the megacities of the Global South but are
also impregnating the production and the governance of the western cities. In order to address
the emergence of homeless informal villages in the city, public authorities adopt a variable
strategy, ranging from the suspension of laws (to give them the space to operate) to
their formalization or their destruction. Within the context of housing crisis, the effectiveness of
these villages to provide a safe shelter to people living on the streets brought the city to
institutionalize this model, by drawing on these existing villages and by shaping it in a way that
respond to the goals of public policies. Although these informal practices have
been progressively transforming city regulations and homelessness policies for years, the
pandemic accelerated the momentum of this institutionalization of the village model and
grassroots organizations worked together with public authorities for developing and operating
these villages. But the willingness of public authorities to develop tiny home villages might
be ambivalent. Relying on multiple criteria and rules for developing a village,
this institutionalization could run counter the effectiveness and the qualities originally
associated with the informal homeless villages. Due to the willingness of public authorities to
control the villages and to contract their operation to professional services providers, this mode
of management reduces the principles of autonomy and self-management, considered as a
key element in the capacity of the villages to empower the homeless.
3. Conclusion
Then, this example highlights how public authorities cope with the rise of austerity urbanism
(Peck, 2012) and informal housing practices in the cities of the Global North; between
permissiveness and control, between laisser-faire and regulation. In this gap, the post-crisis
urbanism is drawing, between a politicization from bellow and an instrumentalization of the
grass roots movements.
References
Evans, K. (2020). Tackling Homelessness with Tiny Houses: An Inventory of Tiny House Villages
in the United States. The Professional Geographer, 72(3), 360-370.
Fowler, F. (2017). Tiny homes in a big city. Cass Community Publishing House.
Gowan, T. (2010). Hobos, Hustlers, and Backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco. University of
Minnesota Press.
Herring, C. (2014). The New Logics of Homeless Seclusion: Homeless Encampments
in America’s West Coast Cities. City and Community, 13(4), 285-308.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 49
Herring, C. & Lutz, M. (2015). The roots and implications of the USA’s homeless tent cities. City,
19(5), 689-701.
Peck, J. (2012). Austerity urbanism. American cities under extreme economy, City, 16(6), 626-655.
Speer, J. (2018). The rise of the tent ward: Homeless camps in the era of mass
incarceration. Political Geography, 62, 160-169.
Stuart, F. (2016). Down, out & under arrest: Policing and everyday life in skid row. The University
of Chicago Press.
Tonkiss, F. (2013). Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city. City, 17(3), 312-324.

50
Housing-to-go: to what extent do the perceived benefits of
replaceable housing units materialise? Synthesis of a series of
studies into the possibilities and limitations of replaceable
housing units in the Netherlands
Jolien Groot1,2 and Frans Schilder1,3
1 PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
2 Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Keywords: replaceable housing, flexible housing, innovation, target group housing
1. Introduction
To combat the adverse effects of an affordable housing shortage, the Dutch central
government has made ‘flexible housing’ a key point of housing policy. Flexible housing is a term
used by the government to describe different housing solutions with a temporary component:
from temporary housing in transformed office buildings to mobile tiny houses. All these
solutions share the characteristic that they do not intend to offer a permanent home to the
tenant. Flexible housing is not a typical Dutch phenomenon. Non-traditional, flexible and shared
forms of housing seem to have become more common across various national contexts,
incorporated as a housing strategy by public housing providers, co-operations, or transformed
into commercially successful housing concepts (Fitzpatrick & Pawson, 2014; Doling & Ronald,
2019; Debrunner & Gerber, 2021). The Netherlands’ particular take on temporary and flexible
housing provision has been shaped in a wider policy environment featuring sector restructuring,
shifting demand and diminishing housing affordability (Hochstenbach & Ronald, 2020).
Anticipated benefits of promoting the realisation of flexible housing include the addition of a
more accessible stock of housing units, spurring innovation in housing construction to improve
sustainability in the sector, and a speedy increase in total housing construction (Ministry of the
Interior and Kingdom Relations, 2019). However, flexible housing did not bring about the
acceleration of affordable housing provisions Dutch policymakers hoped to see. What factors
hamper the realisation of flexible housing in the Netherlands?.
2. Findings
Our research has evolved in steps and is laid out in two reports (Groot et al., 2020, 2022). The
first study identified potential areas to allocate flexible housing. Physical-spatial and legal
considerations were central to this research phase. The potential space for flexible
accommodation was analysed using a geographic information system (GIS) that PBL previously
used to map inner-city transformation possibilities (Van Duinen et al., 2016). The analysis was
applied to the province of North Holland, the region for which the most spatial plans and zoning
data were available. We found many locations, such as empty fields and fallow ground or vacant
offices and shops, that the government could consider using for flexible housing (the dark blue
areas in Figure 1a). However, the majority of these underused locations are in rural areas and,
using dummy target group requirements such as proximity to public transport are rejected as

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 51
potential locations. Less than 20 percent of locations identified in step 1 were left (Figure 1b).
Still, according to our estimation, these locations enable the construction of 1.6 to 4.45 million
temporary dwellings. Note that ambitions for all new construction until 2030 ‘only’ comprise
900,000 dwellings (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 2022).
Figure 1. Potential sites for flexible housing in North-Holland, 2019
Although the analysis has important limitations, the results raise the question of why,
despite an ambition to realise up to 15.000 units per year, the production of flexible housing has
peaked at just under 5.000 units. The second study uncovered several challenges related to
planning and creating flexible housing. For this, we interviewed people who were involved in the
realisation of these projects. In the selection, we have strived for variation in location, type of
home or building (transformation or new/modular) and type of operator (corporation or other).
We found three central challenges to increasing the supply of flexible housing. First, space
is often contested by planning professionals and other policymakers. Local governments need
to consider whether flexible housing is the best use of a location. Given other policy objectives
in the realm of, e.g., nature conservation or the energy transition, other uses (green space, solar
panels, wind turbines) are regularly considered of equal or greater importance. This
consideration can be easily understood given the lack of binding covenants for housing, as
opposed to binding European and national legislation in other fields. The first set of covenants
for housing production is planned for October 2022. This could potentially result in different
priorities in the planning process; however, the status of these covenants compared to
(inter)national legislation will need to prove itself.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 52
Second, space is often also socially contested. Flexible housing suffers greatly from
NIMBYism, primarily because of unsuccessful projects in the past and the severe overallocation
of this type of dwelling to socially vulnerable people such as asylum seekers and former and
ambulant psychiatric patients. Therefore, public support for building flexible housing is
generally lacking, and people protest the development of flexible housing in their
neighbourhoods. Thorough and timely government communication may help in practice but
hardly leads to any guarantees for the outcome of the process. As a result, many projects are
realised at less attractive locations.
Third, the business case for a movable temporary housing project is often negative. Flexible
housing is legally allowed for no more than 15 years. Developers, therefore, often seek the
guarantee that they can use the buildings again at a different location after the exploitation
term ends, as that results in a positive business case. Apart from location, other financial
aspects make investments in moveable flexible housing difficult, such as unknown residual
values of the constructions. The business cases can be very different for temporary housing in
retrofitted buildings. We even see developers engage in temporary housing to be later able to
redevelop on the same site.
3. Conclusion
One of the most important findings of our studies for the (potential) future of flexible housing is
that there should be a more fundamental discussion on the potential benefits and costs of
flexible housing. The discussion is currently focused on land and money. It has little
consideration for issues like the impact of temporary housing on households and the use of
temporary solutions for mostly permanent problems. Continuing the current road, realising
flexible housing with a high concentration of people with special needs or creating high-density
real estate in amenities-poor environments, flexible housing will likely not set sail.
Acknowledgment
This paper is an output of the science project carried out by researchers of the Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency. We thank our colleagues who contributed to our research,
and our informants, for their time and the knowledge shared.
References
Debrunner, G., & Gerber, J.-D. (2021). The commodification of temporary housing. Cities, 108,
102998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102998
Doling, J., & Ronald, R. (2019). ‘Not for Housing’ Housing: Widening the Scope of Housing
Studies. Critical Housing Analysis, 6(1), 22.
Duinen, L. van, B. Rijken & E. Buitelaar (2016). Transformatiepotentie:
woningbouwmogelijkheden in de bestaande stad. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.
Fitzpatrick, S., & Pawson, H. (2014). Ending Security of Tenure for Social Renters: Transitioning
to ‘Ambulance Service’ Social Housing?. Housing Studies, 29(5), 597–615.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2013.803043
Groot, J., Rijken, B., Daalhuizen, F., van Bemmel, B. & Schilder, F. (2020). Ruimte voor
flexwoningen. Naar een afwegingskader voor het plannen van locaties voor tijdelijke
woonruimte. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 53
Groot, J., van der Staak, M., Daalhuizen, F. & Schilder, F. (2022). Flexwoningen als aanvulling op
het woningaanbod. Een verkenning van de kansen en obstakels bij het realisatieproces.
Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.
Hochstenbach, C., & Ronald, R. (2020). The unlikely revival of private renting in Amsterdam: Re-
regulating a regulated housing market. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,
52(8), 1622–1642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20913015
Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (2019). Kamerbrief over stimuleringsaanpak
Flexwonen. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties.

54
Co-creation from the South: The case of Cyprus
Andreas Panagidis and Nadia Charalambous
Department of Architecture, University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Keywords: co-creation, global South, urban living labs, planning
1. Introduction
In Greek-Cypriot, postcolonial society, the modernist ideals of the 20th century have largely
influenced planning institutions that give shape to the urban landscape. Moreover, the
dominance of private real-estate development industries in Nicosia and the coastal cities of the
island is physically manifested by the incessant parcellation of land, opportunistic development
and various forms of peri-urban growth with interconnected socio-environmental implications
(Constantinides, 2018; Ioannou, 2016). More democratic and equitable processes of urban
development are urgently needed with a focus on the increased participation of citizens as co-
creators of urban knowledge. However, contemporary literature argues that urban theory from
the global North can no longer be simply copied and applied to the global South. Instead, new
urban theory engages with the heterogeneous realities of different contexts. This is particularly
relevant to the burgeoning theory and practices of citizen participation and co-creation in urban
planning in Europe. This paper investigates the weaknesses and opportunities of active civic
engagement in housing and neighbourhood development matters in the Greek-Cypriot context
of Southern Europe. Finally, it concludes with recommendations in applying the methodology of
Urban Living Labs in order to facilitate inclusiveness and co-creation in planning in ‘Southern’
regions.
2. Research work
In the period of rapid urbanisation in Cyprus during the 1950s and ‘60s and more recently, in
post-crisis construction busts and booms, private property ownership has been the dominant
driver in decisions about urban land. These trajectories of urban development involve the
promotion of individual home ownership and the construction of infrastructure mainly in the
interest of further capital accumulation by the development industry. More recent efforts to
attract foreign investment, by large scale property developments and luxury housing, are
arguably widening the state-citizen gap in decisions about housing. Furthermore, urban
governance has been in these ways very much infrastructure-led (Ekers et al., 2012) and
property-led, and therefore, in accordance with global trends of urban growth.
However, in contrast to many industrialised Western European countries, suburban
expansion in postcolonial Cyprus did not take place in the form of large-scale housing
developments backed by state policies. Instead, “spontaneous urban development” and urban
informality, as in other South European cities (Leontidou, 1990), characterise the organisation of
housing and land uses. In addition, dominated by a technocratic state and a form of “Greek-
Cypriot corporatism” (Mavratsas, 1998), civil society has been found to be underdeveloped
(CIVICUS, 2011). Accordingly, a lack of citizen participation and the lack of power to negotiate
decisions about urban development is reflected by the many people dwelling and working in the
margins between powerful state and market actors. Informal and co-produced urban spaces
(here understood as spontaneously co-produced) by actors who “do not typically fit into state-

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 55
led and ‘professional’ planning schemes” (Galuszka, 2019, p. 144) are common, yet not
recognised or institutionalised. These characteristics place Cyprus in the discussions around
citizenship and participation in the global South.
In the meantime, new urban governance arrangements are on the agenda of many European
governments promoting “active citizenship” and social innovation concerning the decision-
making processes that involve citizens in the planning and provision of housing and public
services (Bisschops & Beunen, 2019; Boonstra, 2015; Garcia & Haddock, 2016; Morgan, 2018).
Also, opportunities for new infrastructure networks and governance arrangements that reshape
power imbalances particularly exist in the suburbs (Filion & Keil, 2017; Hamel & Keil, 2016). In
these views the suburbs are cast as fertile “laboratories” for fostering alternatives to dominant
governance coalitions that have determined housing and infrastructure. The case of
Oosterwold in the Netherlands is one prominent example (Cozzolino et al., 2017).
Furthermore, recent research is increasingly emphasising co-creation (Davis & Andrew, 2017;
Koster, 2015) – the sharing of decision-making powers between municipalities, citizens and
other actors – and this term is being applied in housing development and urban regeneration
experiments at the neighbourhood scale. Innovative governance processes encouraging self-
organisation to engage citizens beyond participation in planning are being investigated in
settings labelled by the terms Urban Living Labs (ULLs), city labs or citizen innovation labs. In
ULLs the joint knowledge and abilities of citizens, urban professionals, and local authorities is
mobilised in collaborative environments where innovation can take place in real-life settings.
Temporary settings of experimentation provide opportunities for exploring different paths to
institutional norms by prioritising collaboration among stakeholders.
However, as these novel approaches are being transferred mainly from Northern cities to
Southern Europe, there is a need to investigate co-creation by “seeing from the South” (Watson,
2009) and to avoid the mistake of applying a universal concept to contexts which to date have
been perceived at the fringes of urbanity. In support of the “peripheral turn” in urban studies, it
is important to challenge general guidelines that are replicated, including ULLs, and to adapt
these novel governance approaches to their respective contexts (Galuszka, 2019). The ways in
which civic engagement is fostered in Cyprus, especially regarding matters of urban
development and informality, will form the main research question. How are processes and
methods of citizen participation in planning influenced by socio-cultural traits?
Interviews will be conducted with a civil society group who deal with community
engagement and urban regeneration in Nicosia, with municipality employees and with staff of
NGOs involved in the Active Citizens Fund Cyprus Programme (Outcome 1, “Increased Citizen
Participation in Civic Activities”). An online questionnaire will also be used to collect data from
citizens in order to investigate how the different path-dependent, political, economic and
cultural histories that are entangled with home ownership and neighbourhood development
patterns, may affect the opportunities and needs for co-creation in urban planning. Available
secondary data regarding citizen participation in planning will be examined.
3. Conclusion
This paper aims to add to the theoretical discussion of co-creation, social innovation and active
citizenship from a “southern” perspective, including the overlapping interpretations of the
global South and Southern Europe. It will challenge existing parameters and guidelines of civic
engagement and innovation in urban planning and housing by exploring the need to develop a
southern perspective of co-creation. The goal is to enhance the diversity of southern

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 56
perspectives of urban theory, to challenge assumptions around best practices of sustainable
urban development, but also to improve the methodology of applying co-creation to tackle
housing and planning issues in postcolonial contexts.
Acknowledgment
This work is carried out with the support of RE-DWELL, an Innovative Training Network (ITN)
funded by the H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme of the European Union (2020-24),
with project number 956082.
References
Bisschops, S., & Beunen, R. (2019). A new role for citizens’ initiatives: the difficulties in co-
creating institutional change in urban planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 62(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1436532
Boonstra, B. (2015). Planning strategies in an age of active citizenship: A post-structuralist
agenda for self-organization in spatial planning. In PhD Series In Planning.
CIVICUS (2011). An Assessment of Civil Society in Cyprus.
Constantinides, G. (2018). Reasons for and Consequences of Urban Sprawl. In N. Patsavos & I.
Pissourios (Eds.), The Cypriot City Paradigm: Urbanity Issues in Design and Planning. Cyprus
Architects Association & Domes.
Cozzolino, S., Buitelaar, E., Moroni, S., & Sorel, N. (2017). Experimenting in urban self-
organization: Framework-rules and emerging orders in Oosterwold. Cosmos + Taxis, 4(2),
49–59.
Davis, A., & Andrew, J. (2017). Co-creating Urban Environments to Engage Citizens in a Low-
carbon Future. Procedia Engineering, 180, 651–657.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.224
Ekers, M., Hamel, P., & Keil, R. (2012). Governing suburbia: Modalities and mechanisms of
suburban governance. Regional Studies, 46(3), 405–422.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.658036
Filion, P., & Keil, R. (2017). Contested Infrastructures: Tension, Inequity and Innovation in the
Global Suburb. Urban Policy and Research, 35(1), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2016.1187122
Galuszka, J. (2019). What makes urban governance co-productive? Contradictions in the current
debate on co-production. Planning Theory, 18(1), 143–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218780535
Garcia, M., & Haddock, S. V. (2016). Special issue: housing and community needs and social
innovation responses in times of crisis. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(3),
393–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9466-1
Hamel, P., & Keil, R. (2016). Governance in an emerging suburban world. Cadernos Metrópole,
18(37), 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1590/2236-9996.2016-3702

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 57
Ioannou, B. (2016). Post-colonial urban development and planning in Cyprus: Shifting visions
and realities of early suburbia. Urban Planning, 1(4), 79–88.
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i4.768
Koster, M. (2015). Citizenship agendas, urban governance and social housing in the Netherlands:
an assemblage approach. Citizenship Studies, 19(2), 214–228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2015.1005951
Leontidou, L. (1990). The Mediterranean City in Transition: Social Change and Urban
Development. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511522208
Mavratsas, C. V. (1998). Greek-Cypriot political culture and the prospect of European Union
membership: A worst-case scenario. Cyprus Review, 10(1), 67–76.
Morgan, K. (2018). Experimental governance and territorial development. In Background paper
for an OECD/EC Workshop on 14 December 2018 within the workshop series “Broadening
innovation policy: New insights for regions and cities.”
Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central
urban issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259–2275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342598

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 58
Local partnerships and urban governance: The case of Lisbon
Androniki Pappa and Alexandra Paio
ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal
Keywords: urban governance, local partnerships, quintuple helix, data analysis
1. Introduction
Collaborative forms of governance in urban regeneration are increasingly gaining ground in
cities around the world, contributing to the active engagement of citizens in decision-making
processes that affect their neighbourhoods and lives. In some cases, municipalities embrace
local grassroot initiatives, as for example with the implementation of participatory budgets,
enabling active citizens to creatively invent ways to regain and co-manage the urban commons.
In a similar vision, the Department of Housing and Local Development of the Municipality of
Lisbon launched in 2011 a participatory budget program, namely BIP/ZIP, to annually fund
bottom-up initiatives led by local partnerships in priority neighbourhoods that enable responses
to social and territorial emergencies.
The aim of this research is to investigate the matrix of local partnerships that have been
formulated throughout the eleven years of BIP/ZIP and understand their dynamic role in the
transformation of the urban governance in the city of Lisbon.
2. Participatory budgets and urban commons
Participatory budgeting is a tool to democratise urban governance, in the sense that it
facilitates collective decision-making on the allocation of municipal or state resources. As one
of the most successful innovations of democratic governance of the last 25 years (Allegretti &
Hartz-Karp, 2017), it not only enables the dialogue between public administrations and the
general public, but also promotes inclusive democracy, in the sense that it most often aims at
engaging into public policy those parts of the society that are frequently excluded from political
processes.
The promotion of the collaborative management of urban resources and facilitation of
multi-stakeholder cooperation has been also theorised in the notion of urban commons9.
Several commons theorists, also referred to as “institutionalists” (Huron, 2018), explore the role
9 The concept is based on the idea that city resources such as public spaces and infrastructure ought to be accessible
by urban communities, not only for use but also for co-responsibility and management in a way that supports the
sustainability of those communities and especially the most vulnerable.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 59
of urban commons in reshaping the urban governance through the integration of their
collaborative management in local strategies. Christian Iaione (2015, 2017) also in collaboration
with Sheila Foster (2020; 2015) argue that in order to establish the city as commons, it is
necessary to facilitate “quintuple helix” governance structures, that stimulate partnerships
among five types of actors: civic (social innovators and active citizens), social (third sector
organizations), cognitive (cultural institutions, schools and universities), public (public
institutions) and private (local enterprises and industries) (Quintuple Helix | LabGov, n.d.).
2.1 BIP/ZIP local partnerships program
The BIP/ZIP participatory budget aims to foster the socio-territorial cohesion in Lisbon by
integrating 67 ‘priority’ neighbourhoods (Figure 1). To do so, the programme promotes active
citizenship through the establishment of partnerships between parish councils, societies, local
associations and non-governmental organisations that propose initiatives towards specific
local issues. To present, the programme has funded 426 projects with an implementation grant
of up to 50,000 euros per project, involving thousands of different partner entities.
Structurally the facilitation of partnerships targets the democratisation of local governance
based on ‘quality delivery’ that is territorial intervention through concrete local action (Crespo &
Caetano, 2021). The partner types per project is open, given that the public sector, represented
by the parish councils is always involved, as well as ensuring that the third sector and local
community are an essential part too. Therefore, the collaborative culture is on the one hand
formally regulated by the municipality and on the other hand informally produced by
experimentation between new associations and local communities.
Figure 1. The 67 Priority areas of BIP/ZIP. Source: Author

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 60
3. Methodology
The first step of the methodology employs data analysis to explore the transformation of the
urban governance through the emerging roles of different types of partners – organisations,
based on two key aspects: i. the types of partners/institutions and their involvement in projects,
which entails the indicators of partner type, number of entities in each type and number of
different projects in which they are involved; and ii. the evolution of the types of partners
through time based on the parameter of year of participation. This second aspect of the
evolution of the partners through time is also extrapolated to the quintuple helix governance
model to offer an overview at the level of urban actors. To do so, the partner types are
correlated to the quintuple helix’s urban actor types.
The dataset for the analysis is composed by coding qualitative information from three
sources: the successful application files available at the website of BIP/ZIP https://bipzip.cm-
lisboa.pt/; the website ForumUrbano https://forumurbano.pt/; as well as documents shared by
the Municipality of Lisbon with the first author during a four-month research secondment.
In overview, we analysed 416 projects and recorded 1276 individual partner entities which
through their repeating involvement reach almost 4000 participations. Each project involves
between 2 and 22 entities with the most frequent being 3 partners.
3.1 Results
In overview, we analysed 416 projects and recorded 1,276 individual partner entities which
through their repeated involvement reach almost 4,000 participations. A preliminary statistical
analysis revealed insights into the overall participation in the programme, such as the
observation that 45% of the partner entities participated only once, and the fact that each
project involved between 2 and 22 partner entities, with the majority of projects involving three
partners. When examining the different types of partners/institutions, our analysis found that
among the 18 types we identified, informal groups, cultural associations and private institutions
for social solidarity each include more than 200 entities. They have a high involvement in
projects, as well, being involved in 400 to 997 projects. Additionally, the analysis of the evolution
of partner types, and consequently the quintuple helix actors over time, showed fluctuations in
the number of entities and their participation in projects for most types. However, the types of
partners associated with the social sector have a significantly leading involvement, compared
to other types, while the cognitive sector consistently has the lowest level of involvement.
4. Conclusion and discussion
This study presents a first step in understanding the transformation of the urban governance in
Lisbon through a study of the emerging roles of the local partners of BIP/ZIP. The statistical
analysis and visualisations provide insightful information on who is engaged in this
transformation, showcasing two paces of involvement: one of institutions with a short
participation in one or two projects and one of institutions that are repeatedly involved.
Looking at the types of partners/institutions, a further step would be to reconsider the
categorisation beyond their governance model and use the scope of the project, for example
the categories defined as “other” and “informal group”.
The analysis of the partner types through the number of entities and the number of projects
involved provides information on the temporality of the institutions in terms of governance.
However, due to data limitation, this research has not taken into consideration the lifespan of

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 61
each institution to understand if and for how long have entities that were explicitly formed for
the participation in a BIP/ZIP project remained as operational entities after the completion of
the project.
Lastly, the analysis of the types of partners over time and their correlation to the quintuple
helix illustrates the evolution of the governance change and points out leading and less
involved sectors. The analysis based on the dimension of time can further integrate social or
urban phenomena, such as the pandemic.
Methodologically, the next stage of this research includes the spatial depiction of the matrix
of partnerships in the urban fabric, to illustrate the complex relationships of partners in the
formation of the city.
Acknowledgment
The work presented has been carried out within the RE-DWELL Innovative Training Network,
funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the
Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 956082.
References
Allegretti, G., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2017). Participatory budgeting: A methodological approach to
address sustainability challenges. Methods for Sustainability Research, 203–216.
Calzada, I., & Cowie, P. (2017). Beyond Smart and Data-Driven City-Regions? Rethinking
Stakeholder-Helixes Strategies. Regions Magazine, 308(4), 25–28.
Crespo, J. L., & Caetano, L. (2021). BIP/ZIP program: Intervention in the neighborhoods and
priority areas in Lisbon (PT). Urban Maestro, New Governance Strategies for Urban Design.
Foster, S. R., & Iaione, C. (2020). Urban Commons. Urban Studies.
Huron, A. (2018). Carving Out the Commons: Tenant Organizing and Housing Cooperatives in
Washington, D.C. University of Minnesota Press.
Iaione, C. (2015). Governing the Urban Commons.
Iaione, C. (2017). The Co-Cities Protocol. https://labgov.city/co-city-protocol/
Iaione, C., & Foster, S. (2015). The Co-cities Report: building a “Co-cities Index” to measure the
implementation of the EU and UN Urban Agenda.
quintuple helix | LabGov (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2022, from
https://labgov.city/tag/quintuple-helix/

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 62
Panel 4: Housing assessment for social and
environmental sustainability
Alberto Quintana Gallardo, Ignacio Guillén Guillamón, Energy poverty and climate change in
impoverished households: Social life cycle assessment and solutions
Julia Nerantzia Tzortzi, Rola A. Hasbini, Simulating heat transfer performance for double-walls
concrete residential building envelope in Mediterranean climate
Zoe Tzika, Saskia Furman, Towards integrating social and environmental sustainability in
housing: Conceptualisation, measurement frameworks, and indicators
Annette Davis, Alberto Quintana Gallardo, Rethinking housing as a kit-of-parts and shearing
layers: An LCA approach

63
Energy poverty and climate change in impoverished households:
Social life cycle assessment and solutions
Alberto Quintana Gallardo and Ignacio Guillén Guillamón
Center for Physics Technologies, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
Keywords: social life cycle assessment, climate change, energy poverty
1. Introduction
The effects of climate change are already noticeable in many parts of the world. As the years go
by, these effects will become more and more extreme worldwide. Besides the impact on nature,
the dramatic temperature increase will significantly affect the human population. However, not
everybody will suffer the effects in the same way. Lower-income and impoverished households
are more exposed to those changes. This vulnerability is due to the lower quality of the building
envelope on their homes. Insufficient insulation increases the energy needed to maintain a
comfortable temperature in the home and the price of the electricity bill. Exposure to high
temperatures may lead to cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders, heat strokes, and even
increase the incidence of domestic violence (Heat and Health, n.d.), (Extreme Heat Contributes
to Worsening Mental Health, Especially Among Vulnerable Populations, n.d.).
Some governments and local administrations are making considerable efforts to
mitigate these damaging impacts. However, determining what actions to take, what areas
should be prioritized, and the long-term effect of those measures is highly complicated. The
Social Life Cycle Assessment methodology (S-LCA) can be a valuable tool to support
those decisions. Using S-LCA, it is possible to evaluate communities' current social state
and foresee the effectiveness of such policies before their application. This methodology
enables the parametrization of social impacts through a set of indicators. These indicators
represent aspects such as human rights, governance and health, and safety. Each can be rated
either qualitatively or quantitatively (Norris, 2012).
Nevertheless, unlike LCA and LCC, S-LCA is not yet correctly standardized. While
the ISO/AWI 14075 is under development, S-LCA practitioners continue using the
environmental LCA standards (ISO 14040), (Pollok et al., 2021). The methodology is in a
maturation process, and case studies can be instrumental in fostering its improvement (Larsen
et al., 2022). Under the current energy crisis, finding ways to mitigate social issues such as
energy poverty is more urgent than ever. In 2020, the United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP) updated its S-LCA Guidelines (Life Cycle Initiative et al., 2020).
To our knowledge, no studies have discussed the use of Social LCA to analyse the combined
effect of energy poverty and climate change in the context of impoverished households. This
work seeks to analyse the UNEP Guidelines and assess their suitability for being used in these
situations. The outcome will be a framework to obtain an adapted methodology for S-LCA
studies in the context of energy poverty and climate change in the building sector.
Policymakers, researchers, and building industry professionals can apply these ideas to their
work.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 64
2. Methods
The study critically analyses the UNEP guidelines following the method proposed by Bowen
(2009). The research goes through the four iterative phases of an S-LCA (Goal and Scope, S-LCI,
S-LC impact assessment, and interpretation) to find the key indicators that require special
attention in energy poverty studies. The study is conducted using the Social Hotspots Database
and Simapro.
3. Results and discussion
After the literature analysis, it is clear that S-LCA is a methodology that, with minor adaptations,
can be a suitable tool to study the combined effect of energy poverty and climate change on
impoverished households. When it comes to the iterative phases of S-LCA (Figure 1), it is
essential to establish the goal and stakeholders of these kinds of studies.
Figure 1. Iterative phases of S-LCA. Source: Adapted from (Norris, 2012)
The main goal will be to provide policymakers with information to assess which households
might need at risk of vulnerability. By obtaining that information, public measures can be taken
to help those in need. Also, the main stakeholders are the local community, the ones affected
by energy poverty and climate change, the society as a whole, the policymakers, and the energy
providers. The S-LCA inventory is one of the most critical steps in Life Cycle related studies. The
inventory consists in gathering and organizing all the available data relevant to the subject of
study. The inventory defines the links and relations between the processes. Those relations will
define the impact results in the latter phases. Using accurate and independently reviewed
databases is instrumental in developing a truthful inventory. However, those databases are not
explicitly designed for studies on energy poverty and climate change. The information provided
by the databases needs to be complemented with local data.
The Social Impact Assessment and Interpretation phases are the areas that need to
undergo the most changes. Figure 2 depicts the most commonly followed impact categories
and subcategories in S-LCA studies. While all the impact categories are relevant for these kinds
of studies, subcategories such as forced labour and freedom of association can be avoided.
Defining a set of indicators would be the most critical part of obtaining significant results. The
proposed indicators are Salary to energy expenditure rate (Taylor, 1993), thermal comfort (Hills,
2012), building envelope quality (Llera-Sastresa et al., 2017), local risk of heatwaves (Llera-
Sastresa et al., 2017), and exposure to natural disasters (Knutsson & Ostwald, 2006).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 65
Figure 2. Assessment system from categories to inventory data. Source: Adapted from SHD and (Life
Cycle Initiative et al., 2020)
4. Conclusion
After the completion of the study, several conclusions can be drawn:
‒ Social Life Cycle Assessment is a suitable methodology for studies on the combined
effect of energy poverty and climate change on impoverished households.
‒ The methodology needs minor modifications, especially regarding the inventory and the
impact indicators.
‒ Databases such as the Social Hotspots Database need to be complemented with
location-specific data to depict the local context accurately.
‒ The proposed indicators are Salary to energy expenditure rate, thermal comfort, building
envelope quality, local risk of heatwaves, and exposure to natural disasters

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 66
Acknowledgment
Author AQG gratefully acknowledges l’Ambassade de France en Espagne for funding the study
under the Appel à projets scientifiques de l’Ambassade de France en Espagne au titre de
l’année 2022.
References
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027/FULL/PDF
Extreme Heat Contributes to Worsening Mental Health, Especially Among
Vulnerable Populations. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2021,
https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/extreme-heat-contributes-to
worsening-mental-health-especially-among-vulnerable-populations
Heat and Health. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2021, from https://www.who.int/news room/fact-
sheets/detail/climate-change-heat-and-health
Hills, J. (2012). Getting the measure of fuel poverty. Final Report of the Fuel Poverty.
Knutsson, P., & Ostwald, M. (2006). A Process-Oriented Sustainable Livelihoods Approach– A
Tool For Increased Understanding of Vulnerability, Adaptation and Resilience. Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11027-006-
4421-9
Larsen, V. G., Tollin, N., Sattrup, P. A., Birkved, M., & Holmboe, T. (2022). What are the challenges
in assessing circular economy for the built environment? A literature review on integrating
LCA, LCC and S-LCA in life cycle sustainability assessment, LCSA. Journal of Building
Engineering, 50, 104203. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2022.104203
Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, & Social LCA Alliance. (2020).
Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (Vol. 15, Issue 2).
http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf
Llera-Sastresa, E., Scarpellini, S., Rivera-Torres, P., Aranda, J., Zabalza-Bribián, I., & Aranda-Usón,
A. (2017). Energy vulnerability composite index in social housing, from a household energy
poverty perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(5), 19–21.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050691
Norris, C. B. (2012). Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Technique Providing a New Wealth
of Information to Inform Sustainability-Related Decision Making. Life Cycle
Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products, 433–451.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118528372.CH20
Pollok, L., Spierling, S., Endres, H. J., & Grote, U. (2021). Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review
on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges. Sustainability, 13(18),
10286. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU131810286
Taylor, L. (1993). Fuel Poverty: From Cold Homes to Affordable Warmth. Energy Policy, 21(10).
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-4215(06)80013-3

67
Simulating heat transfer performance for double-walls concrete
residential building envelope in Mediterranean climate
Julia Nerantzia Tzortzi and Rola A. Hasbini
Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering, Advanced
Construction Materials and Innovative Buildings Technologies, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Keywords: Mediterranean dwellings, double walls, concrete building envelope, simulation, heat
transfer, greenhouse gases emissions reduction
1. Introduction
It is well-known the fact that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main global warming agent. In Europe,
36% of CO2 emanates from the building sector which consumes 40% of the energy usage
(European Commission, 2020). To meet the Paris agreement, researchers are investigating
construction techniques, which can be applied to new and/or renovated buildings, to achieve
NZEB (Net Zero Energy Buildings) or nearly NZEB (MOOC, 2021).
The efficient energy performance of a building envelope is largely tied to its thermal
performance; therefore, a related improvement should be one of the primary goals (COMSOL
Multiphysics® webinar, 2022). In this perspective, this research focuses on a simple construction
technique: the double-wall concrete for buildings envelopes. In Mediterranean climatic zone,
this type of construction reduces heating/cooling loads; greenhouse gases emissions related
to the energy consumption are, therefore, reduced.
1.1 Methodology
To prove the argument of decreased heating loads requirement by reverting to a double-
concrete wall construction in residential buildings, we adopted the following methodology: first,
a virtual laboratory is set in COMSOL Multiphysics® version 6.0 simulation software where
parameters related to the internal and external temperature are initially configured as well as
those related to proposed materials properties; second, a prototype residential apartment plan
is drawn first with a single-concrete-wall construction and then with a double-wall concrete;
third, the heat transfer performance through both layouts is simulated.
Similarly, two simulations for peak summer temperature are also performed for both the
single and the double-concrete wall building envelope respectively.
2. Simulations
For this research, a computer simulation is defined as virtual modelling representation of a
physical reality for analytical study. Furthermore, a parametric computer simulation is defined
as a variables-based representative computer model which can be manipulated for various
studies while based on the originally modelled one.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 68
2.1 Methods
Framing the analysis within the Mediterranean climatic zone, the peak external temperature is
set to 0 ℃ (winter) while internal temperature is set to 23 ℃ (comfort level). A prototype one-
bedroom studio is proposed consisting of only two-rooms: a living room with a kitchen counter
and a bedroom with a toilet. For the same layout, the simulation is conducted first for the
single-concrete-wall construction building envelope and then for the double-wall concrete one.
The simulations are performed as an application of COMSOL Multiphysics® Heat Transfer
module for Buildings and Constructions (COMSOL Multiphysics® software, 2022) – Stationary
Study. Some of the considered parameters are indicated in the Table 1 below.
Table 1. Heat transfer simulation parameters
Parameters
Type
Figure
Parameter 1
External temperature
0 ℃
Parameter 2
Internal temperature
23 ℃
Parameter 3
Atmospheric pressure
1 atm
Parameter 4
Convective heat transfer coefficient
4 W/m2.K
Other parameters related to the geometry of the proposed dwellings layouts are indicated in
the layouts below drawn on AutoCAD 2023 (AutoDesk) (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. Prototype dwelling with a single concrete wall as a building envelope (drawing is not at scale)

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 69
Figure 2. Prototype dwelling with a double-wall concrete as a building envelope (drawing is not at scale)
2. 2 Results
Within the wall space, the first simulation shows interference of the internal temperature with
the external one while the second simulation shows non-interference, except at structural
jointing continuous elements (Figures 3 and 4). Hence, a double-wall concrete envelope would
insulate the inner heated space from the external cold environment due to the effective
presence of the interstitial air space.
Figure 3. Heat transfer through single-wall concrete building envelope for peak winter temperature in
Mediterranean climatic zone. Simulation by Authors using COMSOL Multiphysics® version 6.0 (drawing is
not at scale)
Living
Bedroom
IN
OUT

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 70
Figure 4. Heat transfer through double-wall concrete building envelope for peak winter temperature in
Mediterranean climatic zone. Simulation by Authors using COMSOL Multiphysics® version 6.0 (drawing is
not at scale)
The simulations are based on the European norm EN 15026 (COMSOL Multiphysics®
documentation, 2022). COMSOL Multiphysics Heat Transfer Module capabilities are based on
the three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation (COMSOL
Multiphysics®, 2022).
2.3 Discussion
Adequately separating the internal heated wall from the external cold one reduces the amount
of heat needed to maintain a comfortable temperature inside.
Reduction of heating/cooling loads results in a reduction of the related greenhouse gases
(GHG) emissions. Whether for new or for renovated building envelopes, the double wall
construction effectively contributes to reducing the GHG from the building sector. Further
enhanced insulations techniques would, efficiently, minimize those GHG emissions.
Limitations of the study are related to the virtual set-up where the impact of orientation, sun,
prevailing wind direction and, overall yearly heating/cooling loads amount are not calculated.
Furthermore, for model simplification, the impact of construction details, such as precast
panels specific shapes and fixations, is not taken into consideration; steel reinforcement in
structural elements, mortar and material finishes have been neglected through the study.
Finally, given the fact that the study is stationary, time related changes were not analysed.
2. 5 Further work
Similar simulations were conducted for the peak Mediterranean summer conditions i.e., an
external temperature of 35 ℃ and an internal air-conditioned temperature of 22 ℃. For the case
of the double-concrete wall, the simulations showed separate cooling behaviour of the internal
concrete wall from the warmer external one (Figures 5 and 6).
IN
OUT
Living
Bedroom

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 71
Based on SimaPro version 9.4.0 calculations and in reference to EcoInvent database version
3.8 database, an initial life cycle assessment showed an increase of 68.9% of the CO2
emissions, at production phase; this result is inferred when comparing the production of the
double-wall concrete i.e., with an internal masonry concrete blocks construction, to a single
external concrete layer for the Mediterranean residential building envelope. Primary calculations
and simulations showed that this amount could be offset after two years of building usage.
Figure 5. Heat transfer through single-wall concrete building envelope for peak summer temperature in
Mediterranean climatic zone. Simulation by Authors using COMSOL Multiphysics® version 6.0 (drawing is
not at scale)
Figure 6. Heat transfer through double-wall concrete building envelope for peak summer temperature in
Mediterranean climatic zone. Simulation by Authors using COMSOL Multiphysics® version 6.0 (drawing is
not at scale)
Living
Living
Bedroom IN
IN
OUT
OUT
Bedroom

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 72
The impact of suggested further measures such as the initial orientation of the building
structure and the provision of natural ventilation for the enhancement of the building envelope
thermal performance requires further more serious parametric investigations. Further
construction technical considerations such as adequate finishing and thermal insulation
characteristics are, also, factors to be optimized within the context of the building envelope
best heat transfer performance.
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, a proper construction assessment of the building envelope together with the
adoption of advanced simulation tools may effectively minimize CO2 and other GHG emissions
from Mediterranean dwellings and from the building sector, in general.
With regard to the impact of double-concrete walls construction in optimizing heat transfer
between outer and inner spaces of Mediterranean residential buildings, this study has proven
the efficient reduction of heating load requirement; thus, the effective reduction of related
greenhouse gases emissions.
Future research would simulate various other possible climatic conditions adopting different
building envelope techniques and materials. Collected in a dedicated database, classified
results would help professionals chose optimum construction techniques and materials for the
building envelope.
Acknowledgment
This paper is one of the outputs of the research undertaken by the authors, at the Department
of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering at Politecnico di Milano, as
related to the topic “green parametric solutions for the building envelope”. The authors are
grateful to the Politecnico di Milano doctorate academic society for providing extensive
adequate research environment. Special appreciations are expressed towards Dr. Carlo Andrea
Castiglioni for his valuable guidance and support of the research.
References
COMSOL Multiphysics® Version 6.0., Energy Performance of Buildings [Online recorded
webinar] https://www.comsol.com/support/learning-center/article/How-to-Optimize-
Energy-Performance -of-Buildings-41991.
COMSOL Multiphysics® Version 6.0 – documentation (2022). Condensation risk in a wood-
frame wall - Dynamic modelling of heat and moisture transport.
https://www.comsol.com/model/download/928571/models.heat.wood_frame_wall.pdf
COMSOL Multiphysics® Version 6.0 (2022). Heat Transfer Module.
https://www.comsol.com/heat-transfer-module.
COMSOL Multiphysics® Version 6.0 software (2022). Application Library. Path: Heat_
Transfer_Module / Buildings_and_Constructions / wood_frame_wall
European Commission (2020). In focus: energy efficiency in buildings.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/focus-energy-efficiency-buildings-2020-lut-17_en
MOOC (Massive Online Open Courses) (2021). Deep Renovation for Energy Efficient Residential
Buildings. Politecnico Di Milano.

73
Towards integrating social and environmental sustainability in
housing: conceptualisation, measurement frameworks, and
indicators
Zoe Tzika1 and Saskia Furman2
1 School of Architecture, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
2 School of Architecture La Salle, Ramon Lull University, Spain
Keywords: sustainable housing, social sustainability, environmental sustainability, sustainable
measurement frameworks, total quality assessment
1. Introduction
The global housing crisis is an important social, environmental, and economic issue that is
increasingly affecting more households, leading to housing deprivation. Housing is a “human
right” (United Nations, 1948) and a primary physiological human need, underpinning progress
towards improved quality of life, health, wellbeing, and life satisfaction. At the same time the
climate emergency demands more ecological ways of living that vastly reduce energy
consumption in order to achieve the European Commission’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2050
(European Commission, 2020). The current lack of adequate sustainable housing can be
addressed by employing good practices throughout the design and construction of new
housing, alongside drastic maintenance of existing buildings and neighbourhoods via
regeneration, reuse and retrofit. The importance of involving communities in the decision-
making process, by communicating lived experiences and realities, has been highlighted as a
key factor to obtaining more equitable and socially just results (Dempsey et al., 2011). There is a
demand for further empirical housing research to better understand the housing conditions of
individuals and communities, subsequently improving the failings of housing.
2. Methodology
This research explores the meaning of sustainability in housing, to better understand the
potential to address current inequalities. Social and environmental sustainability were explored
under a broadly constructivist and critical paradigm, not only to challenge their separation, but
also to recast the entire relationship between them. Sustainability was first analysed as a
theoretical concept, followed by its practical application. In the first part, a literature review was
conducted concerning social and environmental sustainability in housing as stand-alone, and
integrated concepts. In the second part, Sustainable Assessment Tools (SATs) and their
associated indicators were analysed. Framework indicators and conceptual definitions
identified within the literature were then compared. This analysis indicates that future
investigation into the successes and failures of housing case studies should be conducted
through an integrated approach to sustainability, to identify areas for improvement.
3. Conceptualisation
Sustainability in the housing context is used as an umbrella term to incorporate the demands
for affordable, inclusive, and environmentally responsible living environments. The most

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 74
common conceptualisation of sustainability follows the triple bottom line paradigm (Elkington,
1997), formed by social, environmental, and economic pillars. Other scholars have also added
political, cultural, or institutional aspects (Littig & Grießler, 2005). However, sustainability is
often used ambiguously or in a techno-managerial way (Mehmood & Parra, 2013) following a
functionalist approach which silences existing conflicts and depoliticises the concept
(Paidakaki & Lang, 2021). This reduces its meaning to ticking boxes on pre-defined frameworks
that often prioritise environmental aspects (Berardi, 2012) because they are easier to measure
(Manoochehri, 2016). Should sustainability be understood as part of a broader process following
democratic values of decision-making, the co-production of housing can lead towards societal
transformation.
Social sustainability proposes social relations within a city that improve the existing by
opposing social inequalities, such as segregation and exclusion (Brindley, 2003). There are three
main aspects of social impact within communities: social materiality (physical living conditions,
physical health, and economic fairness), social equity (justice, human rights, and economic
opportunities), and community life (community wellbeing and social networks). Further literature
considers the relationship between social sustainability and the other two pillars through five
main approaches (Edwards, 2019): a limiting constraint on the other dimensions (Boyer et al.,
2016); a human developmental approach (Dempsey et al., 2011); a bridging approach between
the others; a maintenance approach that preserves culture (Vallance et al., 2011); or an
integrated, process-oriented approach (Edwards, 2019). Several critical points were identified to
be examined during case study analysis: assessment of objective or subjective conditions,
ontology of the ‘community’ and ‘neighbourhood’ groups, top-down or bottom-up indicators,
and assessment of current or future oriented impact (Magee et al., 2012).
Environmental sustainability in housing revolves around reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and energy consumption (European Commission, 2021). Energy efficiency can be achieved
through two approaches: active and passive maintenance strategies affecting ventilation,
heating, water, and electricity (Kubba, 2012b); and embodied energy savings. Passive
maintenance design strategies include building shape and orientation, passive solar gain,
daylighting, natural ventilation, thermal mass, and insulation to preserve warmth (Hannula, 2012;
Kubba, 2012a), while active strategies use smart energy management systems to monitor and
control mechanical systems, alongside energy production through renewable energy sources
(RES). Energy savings through embodied energy can be achieved during production,
transportation, material assemblage, and building technique (Hannula, 2012). Existing buildings
have high embodied energy and therefore high environmental sustainability potential when
integrated with passive and active maintenance techniques. Further, if residents’ needs are
integrated with care to avoid top-down decision-making that exacerbates disempowerment,
social sustainability can be reached.
Separating environmental sustainability from the other pillars can lead to housing with
especially low energy consumption. Such is the case with net zero energy buildings (NZEB) and
energy positive buildings, which use on-site RES to produce as much, or more, energy than
needed for building operation (D’Agostino et al., 2022; Kubba, 2012b). However, NZEBs rely on
technical solutions that could create further social sustainability issues: increased upfront and
maintenance costs, exacerbated inequalities, inaccessibility, and emotional distress (Lowe et al.,
2018). Improving energy efficiency and housing quality while paying close attention to residents’
needs can directly improve social sustainability through financial cost, health and wellbeing, and
quality of life (URBED, 2022). To unify environmental and social sustainability, it is necessary to
situate pragmatic environmental solutions within the critical paradigm.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 75
4. Measurement
The shift towards sustainable development in recent decades has prompted the evolution of
SATs to objectively measure sustainability. SATs are perceived as useful guides for decision-
making during different phases of a project: planning, design, construction, maintenance, and
end-of-life (Karji et al., 2019). Measurements can help assess housing and resident satisfaction,
identify successes and failures in housing, and suggest further improvements. Comparative
studies of SATs have been performed to better define key indicators and remove subjectivity
from measurements (Thuvander et al., 2012; Al Waer & Sibley, 2005). Total quality assessment
(TQA) systems aim to consider ecological, economic and social aspects, often including both
qualitative and quantitative approaches for the varying criteria (Berardi, 2012). To test this aim,
the four most widely used and researched TQA systems were chosen from the literature
(Berardi, 2012; Karji et al., 2019; Orova & Reith, 2019; Thuvander et al., 2012) and analysed —
BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE and DGNB —as well as the EU Level(s) Framework, launched in 2020
to homogenise housing sustainability measures (European Commission, 2021). The building
scale and neighbourhood scale variation of each framework were analysed to broaden the
scope of sustainability indicators.
5. Conclusion and discussion
The analysis found that the social dimensions of sustainability are only partially considered in
existing measurement frameworks, which tend to favour building energy performance. As social
sustainability is less profitable, it does not fit succinctly into existing market-orientated
structures, and therefore sustainable technical housing infrastructure is favoured. However,
housing sustainability must be approached holistically. To achieve this, the following
recommendations are suggested: apply sustainability as a transformative process, rather than
functioning as a checklist; take an embedded approach to incorporate community well-being,
economic affordability, and energy efficiency; approach sustainability as a dynamic concept, in
the same way that contexts, practices, and technologies evolve over time; be place-specific as
homogenised frameworks are incompatible with the realities of diverse contexts. Finally,
sustainability should be the result of a broader collaborative process between communities and
institutions, so that residents have the opportunity to influence governing institutions towards
policies for housing provision and adaptation aligned with their needs.
Acknowledgment
The work presented has been carried out within the RE-DWELL Innovative Training Network,
funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the
Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 956082.
References
Berardi, U. (2012). Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and
Rated Buildings. Sustainable Development, 20(6), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.532
Boyer, R. H., Peterson, N. D., Arora, P., & Caldwell, K. (2016). Five approaches to social
sustainability and an integrated way forward. Sustainability, 8(9), 878.
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU8090878

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 76
Brindley, T. (2003). The social dimension of the urban village: A comparison of models for
sustainable urban development. Urban Design International, 8, 53-65.
https://doi.org/10.1057/PALGRAVE.UDI.9000093
Chen, G., Cheng, L., & Li, F. (2022). Integrating Sustainability and Users’ Demands in the Retrofit
of a University Campus in China. Sustainability, 14(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610414
D’Agostino, D., Mazzella, S., Minelli, F., & Minichiello, F. (2022). Obtaining the nzeb target by
using photovoltaic systems on the roof for multi-storey buildings. Energy and Buildings,
112147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112147
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable
development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417
Edwards, M. (2019). Social Sustainability and Housing for Vulnerable Groups in Sweden: An
Integrated Literature Review. Oxford.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals With Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford.
European Commission (2021). 2021/0426 (COD) Directive of The European Parliament and of
the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast). https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550&from=E
European Commission (2020). 2050 long-term strategy. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-
action/climate-strategies-targets/2050-long-term-strategy_en
Hannula, E.-L. (2012). Going green: a handbook of sustainable housing practices in developing
countries. UN-HABITAT. https://unhabitat.org/going-green-a-handbook-of-sustainable-
housing-practices-in-developing-countries
Karji, A., Woldesenbet, A., Khanzadi, M., & Tafazzoli, M. (2019). Assessment of Social
Sustainability Indicators in Mass Housing Construction: A Case Study of Mehr Housing
Project. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101697.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2019.101697
Kubba, S. (2012a). Green Design and the Construction Process. In S. Kubba, Handbook of Green
Building Design and Construction (pp. 105–144). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-
12-385128-4.00003-2
Kubba, S. (2012b). Impact of Energy and Atmosphere. In S. Kubba, Handbook of Green Building
Design and Construction (pp. 385–492). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-
385128-4.00009-3
Littig, B., & Grießler, E. (2005). Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism
and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1–2), 65–79.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2005.007375
Lowe, R., Chiu, L. F., & Oreszczyn, T. (2018). Socio-technical case study method in building
performance evaluation. Building Research and Information, 46(5), 469–484.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1361275
Magee, L., Scerri, A., & James, P. (2012). Measuring Social Sustainability: A Community-Centred
Approach. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 7(3), 239–261.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9166-x

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 77
Manoochehri, J. (2016). Social sustainability and the housing problem. In M. Dastbaz, I. Strange,
& S. Selkowitz (Eds.), Building Sustainable Futures: Design and the Built Environment (pp.
325-347). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19348-9_14
Mehmood, A., & Parra, C. (2013). Social innovation in an unsustainable world. In F. Moulaert, D.
MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), The International Handbook on Social
Innovation (pp. 53–66). Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849809986.00014
Orova, M., & Reith, A. (2019). Multiscalarity in International Sustainable Assessment Systems: A
Qualitative Comparison of LEED, CASBEE, BREEAM, DGNB and ESTIDAMA on Building,
Neighbourhood and City Scale. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
290(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/012056
Paidakaki, A., & Lang, R. (2021). Uncovering social sustainability in housing systems through the
lens of institutional capital: A study of two housing alliances in Vienna, Austria. Sustainability,
13(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179726
Thuvander, L., Femenías, P., Mjörnell, K., & Meiling, P. (2012). Unveiling the Process of
Sustainable Renovation. Sustainability, 4(6), 1188–1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4061188
United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-
rights
URBED (2020). The Quality of Life Framework. http://urbed.coop/projects/quality-life-
foundation-framework
Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of
concepts. Geoforum, 42(3), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002
Al Waer, H., & Sibley, M. (2005, April). Building sustainability assessment methods: Indicators,
applications, limitations and development trends. In Conference on Sustainable Building
South East Asia, 1-13.

78
Rethinking housing as a kit-of-parts and shearing layers: An LCA
approach
Annette Davis1 and Alberto Quintana Gallardo2
1 School of Architecture La Salle, Ramon Llull University, Spain
2 School of Architecture, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
Keywords: life cycle assessment, shearing layers, design for disassembly,
industrialised construction, kit-of-parts
1. Introduction
Our built environment generates many climate challenges and at the forefront to address
these are decarbonisation, implementing regenerative principles, and the transition to a
Circular Economy (ARUP, 2016; EMF, 2015). As 75% of building stock in the EU is residential
(EC, 2022), focusing on housing is key to responding to these issues.
Carbon emissions in housing can be reduced over the building lifespan using strategies
such as Design for Disassembly (DfD) and Industrialised Construction (IC), with the planned
reuse of building components, known as a kit-of-parts. Shearing Layers is similar concept that
treats buildings as layers and components, which can be utilised to improve the circularity of
housing.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to quantify the environmental impacts of buildings
(EC, 2010). However, the conventional LCA methodology does not support the use of
these innovative construction approaches, in addition to a current lack of guidance over
the replacement of different building elements.
The aim of this study is to propose an LCA methodology that supports a circular approach
to housing and the replacement of building components. The kit-of-parts and Shearing
Layers concepts were applied a case study house, to investigate the impact these
theoretical assumptions have on carbon emissions during a 100-year lifespan.
1.1 Housing as a kit-of-parts
A kit-of-parts approach to housebuilding breaks down the home into a library of
separate standardised and pre-engineered components, much like a LEGO set (Howe et al.,
1999). Large building elements such as wall panels, roofs, and bathroom pods are considered
products that can be mass customised to provide different housing configurations. Production
is made economically viable using economies of scale through IC, also known as Modern
Methods of Construction (MMC), which commonly takes place off-site under controlled factory
conditions (Andersson & Lessing, 2017).
Circular housing requires repairing, reusing, remanufacturing, and recycling
building components over the course of the lifecycle, both during the use phase (whilst the
home is inhabited) and at the end of its useful life. These processes rely on DfD to safely
remove building elements whilst avoiding damage to other building parts, which would
otherwise result in greater carbon emissions (Crowther, 2005; Cruz Rios & Grau, 2019).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 79
1.2 Housing as shearing layers
Another approach to housebuilding is Shearing Layers, a concept created by Duffy (1992) and
further developed by Brand (1994), which conceptualises buildings through six layers, these are
the Site, Skin (façade), Structure, Services, Space plan (partitions and fittings), and Stuff
(furnishings). Each of these have differing expected lifespans and hence require
different frequencies of replacement. The recent European-wide framework Level(s)
incorporates this concept within indicator 1.2 for Global Warming Potential, to provide users
with metrics for component lifespans to perform an LCA (Dodd & Donatello, 2020).
1.3 Life cycle assessment
LCA is a methodology and decision-supporting tool used by industry professionals and scholars
to measure and compare the environmental impacts of buildings. LCAs are based on the
international standard EN 15978 that consists of phases A-D, covering the product and
construction phase (A), use (B), demolition (C), and beyond end-of-life benefits (D). There
is ongoing research into utilising LCA to combine the Shearing Layers concept to measure the
impacts of building components (Densley Tingley & Davison, 2012; Joensuu et al., 2022; Pushkar
& Verbitsky, 2014). Nevertheless, there lacks a robust LCA methodology outlining the
replacement of kit-of-parts components.
2. Methods
2.1 Research framework
This study applied the kit-of-parts and Shearing Layers concepts to housing, to break down the
building into manageable elements and measure their environmental impacts using LCA. The
LCA methodology used was based on the international standard illustrated in Figure 1,
measuring carbon emissions of kit-of-parts components over the product and
construction phases (A1-A5) and parts of the use phase over a 100-year period including:
replacement (B4), operational energy (B6) and water (B7) usage.
Figure 1. Building life cycle phases and modules. Source: Author’s own image based on EN 15978

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 80
A kit-of-parts was organised into four of Brand’s (1994) Shearing Layers: the structure, skin,
services, and space plan; the stuff and site were considered out of the scope of this study. The
lifespan of each layer was based on values provided by the Level(s) framework (Dodd &
Donatello, 2020), with the exception of the structure. As illustrated in Figure 2, over a 100-year
period, the structure would be built once, the skin replaced every 30 years, the services every 25
years, and the space plan every 20 years.
Figure 2. Shearing Layers and assumed life spans. Source: Author’s own image based on Brand (1994)
and Dodd & Donatello (2020)
2.2 A Case study: Single family house
Edificación Eco-Eficiente (E3) served as a case study to apply the LCA, a prototype house built
in 2011 at the UPV campus in Valencia, Spain. Prominent characteristics are the steel structure,
ventilated ceramic façade, and photovoltaics on the roof to produce on-site renewable energy.
Built using industrialised methods, the house was prefabricated and assembled on-site within
19 days. Although E3 was not designed using a kit-of-parts or the Shearing Layers concept, the
Bill of Quantities could be organised into assumed kit-of-parts components and subsequently
into the four separate layers.
2.3 Analysis tools and methods
SimaPro was used to perform the analysis of materials and processes in conjunction with the
ecoinvent Life Cycle Inventory database. Materials were adapted to the availability of European
suppliers, to support the comparison of future case studies from different European countries.
The annual energy consumption was provided from a previous study by the Centre for
Physics Technologies at UPV, and water consumption was assumed as the Spanish national
average.
3. Results and discussion
The LCA revealed which building layers emit the most carbon, whilst the kit-of-parts enabled
identification of which components should be re-designed to reduce environmental impacts.
The carbon emissions due to replacement (B4) of the skin, services, and space plan over the
100-year period were greater than the total embodied energy to produce and construct the
original building (A1-A5). The results also show E3 is a positive energy building, however, it is not
net-positive energy within the 100 years. This means more embodied energy was spent to

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 81
produce the building and replace parts, than the amount of energy produced by
the photovoltaics.
4. Conclusion
The assumed lifespan of building elements has a significant impact on carbon emissions over
the building lifespan. Assumptions based on the kit-of-parts and Shearing Layers concepts
were applied, highlighting the importance to strike the right balance between prolonged periods
of the useful life of building parts, and their planned replacement. This work is being
further developed as part of the on-going doctoral research with RE-DWELL.
Acknowledgment
The work presented in this publication has been carried out within the RE-DWELL Innovative
Training Network, funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 956082. This work has
been developed with the support of Professor Ignacio Guillén.
References
Andersson, N., & Lessing, J. (2017). The Interface between Industrialized and Project
Based Construction. Procedia Engineering, 196, 220 – 227.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.193
ARUP. (2016). The Circular Economy in the Built Environment.
https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/circular-economy-in
the-built-environment
Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Viking.
Crowther, P. (2005). RAIA/BDP Environment Design Guide: Design for Disassembly - Themes
and Principles. Environment design guide, 1-7.
Cruz Rios, F., & Grau, D. (2019). Circular Economy in the Built Environment:
Designing, Deconstructing, and Leasing Reusable Products. In Encyclopedia of Renewable
and Sustainable Materials (pp. 338–343). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-
803581-8.11494-8
Densley Tingley, D., & Davison, B. (2012). Developing an LCA methodology to account for the
environmental benefits of design for deconstruction. Building and Environment, 57, 387–395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.005
Dodd, N., & Donatello, S. (2020). Level(s) indicator 1.2: Life cycle Global Warming Potential (GWP).
https://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/product-bureau/sites/default/files/2020-
10/20201013%20New%20Level(s)%20documentation_Indicator%201.2_Publication%2
0v1.0.pdf
Duffy, F. (1992). The Changing Workplace. Phaidon Press.
EC (2010). ILCD Handbook - General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment: Detailed Guidance (1st
ed.). Publications Office of the European Union.
EC (2022). EU Buildings Factsheets. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/eu-buildings-factsheets_en

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 82
EMF (2015). Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe.
https://emf.thirdlight.com/file/24/_ABkCs_h7gRYB_Am9L_JfbYWF/Growth%20within%3
A%20a%20circular%20economy%20vision%20for%20a%20competitive%20Europe.pdf
Howe, A. S., Ishii, I., & Yoshida, T. (1999). Kit-of-parts: A review of object-oriented construction
techniques. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC1999/0025
Joensuu, T., Leino, R., Heinonen, J., & Saari, A. (2022). Developing Buildings’ Life
Cycle Assessment in Circular Economy-Comparing methods for assessing carbon footprint
of reusable components. Sustainable Cities and Society, 77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103499
Pushkar, S., & Verbitsky, O. (2014). LCA of different building lifetime shearing layers for the
allocation of green points. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 142, 459–469.
https://doi.org/10.2495/ARC140391

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 83
Panel 5: From housing issues to policy and back
Alex Fernández, Marja Elsinga, Marietta Haffner, Investigating the role of ESG bonds and loans
in financing housing renovation among social housing providers: a comparative approach to six
European countries
Joris Hoekstra, Martina Gentili, The position of young adults on the Amsterdam housing market:
How to better connect system world and life world?
Sara Caramaschi, Marco Peverini, Towards a socio-ecological and territorial understanding of
housing issues: A new interpretation of housing dynamics in the case of Milan, Italy

84
Investigating the role of ESG bonds and loans in financing
housing renovation among social housing providers: a
comparative approach to six European countries
Alex Fernández, Marja Elsinga and Marietta Haffner
Department of Management in the Built Environment, TU Delft, The Netherlands
Keywords: ESG, social housing, energy transition, green finance, sustainability
The energy transition across Europe’s built environment will probably be one of the main
financial challenges of the coming decades. Renovating the social housing stock to attain the
built fabric standards introduced in the European Directive on Energy Performance of Building
(EPBD) will require the mobilisation of both public and private funding as envisioned by the
European Commission in the Renovation Wave. In this landscape of increased investment
needs, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards have risen to a prominent
position as the main indicators of sustainable investment. While ESG-earmarked funds have
grown significantly in the last years, there is widespread concern about the real impact of ESG-
funded projects and whether these are in fact bringing additional investment into key
transitional activities such as the renovation of the social housing stock. This project poses two
questions, first, How does ESG funding interlock with the renovation strategies of social
housing providers? And second, How do institutional factors affect the uptake of ESG funding?
To answer these questions, this project draws from semi-structured interviews with finance
officers from housing providers across six European countries with large social housing stocks:
Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, France, Sweden, and the UK. The main objective of this
paper is to critically assess the contributions of ESG funding to the energy transition and
contextualise it within traditional forms of private and public financing of social housing.
Sustainability transition and its financial implications have become an area of legislative
focus for European institutions. For instance, the Strategy for financing the transition to a
sustainable economy has proposed a set of voluntary standards for European Green Bonds
(EUGBS). This standard requires bond issuers to align with the EU Taxonomy, a classification of
environmentally sustainable economic activities. When it comes to building renovation, the
Taxonomy requires a 30% reduction in primary energy consumption to characterize an
investment as “green” and thus be financed through a green bond. For new constructions, the
green requirements are even more stringent with primary energy demands set at least 10%
lower than national nearly-zero-energy requirements. The introduction of ESG standards does
not only target borrowers at the project level but also the information investment funds release
to end-investors. The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (“SFDR”) imposes a set of
information disclosure requirements on funds so these are comparable and clearly labelled. For
asset managers, these regulations result in increased transparency requirements, updated
prospectus and the release of more granular information. The SFDR also details indicators to
identify green assets. In the case of real estate, a formula has been proposed for the
identification of those energy inefficient assets by taking into account the value of buildings
under EPC C and nearly zero-energy (NZEB) in proportion to overall stock value. These
indicators serve to assess how Taxonomy-aligned are different investment funds. The EU’s
legislation on ESG has so far focused on environmental indicators and the social Taxonomy is

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 85
yet to be finalised, as a result, while green financing is becoming more tightly regulated, social
indicators remain less stringent.
Real estate is one of the areas where Taxonomy-alignment is supposed to be higher and
willingness for investment is stronger. However, transitional risks in real estate are deeper since
banking and the wider financial sector are reliant on property valuations, albeit with major
divergences by country. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) (Alessi & Battiston, 2022), has
estimated that while a 100% of real estate activities are taxonomy-eligible only 15% of them are
taxonomy-aligned, despite the existence of widespread transitional risks for 70% of the sector.
The goals of the EU legislation and guidance are to serve as labels directing investment towards
sustainable activities and signalling which areas are under higher environmental risks.
Ultimately, the objective of ESG finance is to increase the pool of investors into aligned
activities resulting in more favourable lending conditions such as lower interest rates and
broader investor bases. Traditionally, the academic literature on Green finance has focused on
the question of additionally, that is whether ESG brings additional funding into aligned sectors.
Some researchers highlight Green Bonds as not generating additional capital for environmental
protection, as these usually refinance conventional ones at more advantageous rates
(Bongaerts & Schoenmaker, 2019). Research on Green Bonds (Fatica & Panzica, 2021) has found
that ESG-linked securities do seem to be financing new investments into aligned projects.
When it comes to social housing, our preliminary findings point to unequal access to ESG
finance. Countries such as the UK where social housing providers have been accessing private
funding for decades seem to be more accommodating to ESG reporting requirements. For
example, Peabody, a large London-based provider, has issued a 12-year £350m green bond
under its new sustainability financing framework specifically targeting the energy transition and
housing stock renovation. In other countries such as the Netherlands where most social
housing associations are funded via loans from the Local Authorities and the Water Banks the
implementation of ESG criteria seems to be taking place at the financial intermediary level.
Similarly, in France, the Caisse de Dépôts(CDC), a bank providing low-interest loans to housing
associations, has issued a green bond that has been used for housing renovation by a Parisian
housing association. Preliminarily, the capacity of ESG finance to bring additional funding to
social housing renovation seems to be path-dependent hinging on national institutional
arrangements and prior direct access to capital markets.
Acknowledgment
The work presented has been carried out within the RE-DWELL Innovative Training Network,
funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the
Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 956082.
References
Alessi, L., & Battiston, S. (2022). Two sides of the same coin: Green Taxonomy alignment versus
transition risk in financial portfolios. International Review of Financial Analysis, 102319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102319
Bongaerts, D., & Schoenmaker, D. (2019). The Next Step in Green Bond Financing. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3389762
Fatica, S., & Panzica, R. (2021). Green bonds as a tool against climate? Business Strategy and
the Environment, 30(5), 2688–2701. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2771

86
The position of young adults on the Amsterdam housing market:
How to better connect system world and life world?
Joris Hoekstra and Martina Gentili
Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology,
The Netherlands
Keywords: housing affordability, young adults, capability approach
In recent years, the housing market of Amsterdam, traditionally known for its large share of
social rental dwellings, experienced a trend of commodification and financialization. Due to its
central position and good facilities, the Dutch capital has become very popular among both
home seekers and investors.
As previous research testifies (Hochstenbach & Boterman, 2015; Lennartz et al.,
2016; Jonkman, 2019), in Amsterdam starters on the housing market, particularly young
people, have been experiencing housing difficulties for years, due to soaring house prices and
rents, the precarization of the labour market, the decline of the social housing sector and
processes of gentrification. For more vulnerable young people – those with a lower socio-
economic background, those without family support, migrants and refugees – it is especially
challenging to find a suitable dwelling. They cannot access homeownership and are struggling
due to unaffordable rents on the private rental market, and to strict income requirements and
long waiting lists in the social rental sector. Housing insecurity for this segment is on the rise,
even though the city government has developed several measures to try and protect the
more vulnerable groups.
Based on life course interviews and inspired by the Capability Approach, this paper
investigates how young people navigate through this complex housing market. What are
their strategies? How do their housing strategies intertwine with other aspects of their life? To
what extent are these strategies supported by existing policies?
Here, we present the results of extensive qualitative work carried out in the framework of
a Horizon 2020 project called UpLift - Urban PoLicy Innovation to address inequality with
and for Future generaTions, which started in 2020 and will run until June 2023. The overall aim
of the project is to explore how young people’s voices can be put at the centre of youth
policy, with local case studies addressing the domains of housing, education and employment.
In Amsterdam, 40 in-depth life course interviews with people aged 18 to 45, that are currently or
have been facing housing difficulties, have been complemented with several group
discussions with young people about housing issues, thus providing an account of a wide range
of experiences of young people over the course of the last two decades. The theoretical lens
of the Capability Approach allowed us to explore the interaction of personal life stories
and policy context, highlighting how the “system world” of policies, market and institutions
can expand or restrict the capabilities of (young) entrants in the housing market, particularly
those with a weak socio-economic position.
In its initial section, this work introduces the housing problem in the context of Amsterdam,
and it provides a brief analysis of the literature in this regard, together with an exploration of the

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 87
empirical application of the Capabilities Approach. Then it proceeds to outline the methodology
and to present the results of the qualitative analysis.
We conclude that the housing problem in Amsterdam is so severe, that it also affects
the choices that young people make in the field of labour market and education.
A particularly concerning pattern emerged, where young people delay the end of
their studies in order to be able to remain longer in their student accommodation, thus
postponing their full entrance in the labour market for fear of not finding an affordable home.
Indeed, compared to other young people, students are a relatively protected category in the
housing market. For example, if they manage to find student housing, so much so that a few of
the interviewees broke the rules or enrolled in programmes they did not intend to follow simply
in order to keep their student accommodation.
Finding a new dwelling is so challenging that the perspective of moving seems to be
scary and stressful even for the highly educated and well employed youngsters in our sample.
In this regard, there seems to be an increasing gap between the system world of the
policy makers, and the life world of the young adults themselves. Indeed, while the problem
of affordability has been acknowledged by both local and national governments and is
currently being tackled, albeit not very successfully, the issue of precarity remains unaddressed.
Despite the cries for stability from young people, temporary contracts are now the norm in the
private rental market, and are increasingly used also in the social rental sector, while
homeownership is an unattainable objective for most (Huisman, 2016a, 2016b, 2019). Among our
participants, not even those with a high level of education and well-paying jobs had yet
managed to achieve homeownership, unless some very substantial help came from previous
generations.
Finally, to further elaborate on the detachment between the system world of policy and
the life world of young people, our results show that there is a fundamental erosion of
young people’s trust towards institutions that are perceived as slow, burdensome and not
attuned to young people’s needs. This is especially true for people with a migration background.
In turn, this mistrust leads to a low level of knowledge of local policies that could be
helpful, especially with regard to employment. Except for the most obvious and well-known
national subsidies for rent and unemployment, interviewees tend to be unaware and
uninterested in the initiatives and programmes offered by public administrations, while they are
more inclined to rely on NGOs and other local associations. Nonetheless, the most common
strategy to face life difficulties – in housing, in employment and in most other life domains – is
to seek the material and immaterial support of their personal networks of friends and family.
However, it is important to note that several actors in Amsterdam – chiefly the Municipality
and some housing associations – have shown an interest in improving housing affordability and
security and have started to recognize the value of seeking input from vulnerable young people
who have first-hand experience in housing problems in the creation of more effective policies.
In order to close the gap between the system world and the life world of young people,
we propose to take advantage of this recent trend and give young people a greater voice in
the development of housing policies. An example of how this could be done is an advisory
board formed by young people that could contribute to the discussion on existing housing
needs and problems, and on potential solutions and policy approaches. In addition to the
interview work, the UpLift project aimed to initiate such a process of cooperation by working
with a local NGO, a housing association and the Municipality to set up a youth board and start a

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 88
co-creation process of youth housing policy, with a particular focus on temporary contracts
and mixed housing concepts.
Acknowledgment
This paper is an output of the Horizon 2020 project UpLift - Urban PoLicy Innovation to address
inequality with and for Future generaTions.
References
Hochstenbach C., & Boterman, W.R. (2015). Navigating the field of housing: housing pathways of
young people in Amsterdam. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(2): 257–274.
DOI: 10.1007/s10901-014-9405-6.
Huisman, C. J. (2016a). A Silent Shift? The Precarisation of the Dutch Rental Housing Market.
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(1): 93-106.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10901-015-9446-5.
Huisman, C. J. (2016b). Temporary Tenancies in the Netherlands: From Pragmatic policy
Instrument to Structural Housing Market Reform. International Journal of Housing Policy,
16(3): 409-422. DOI: 10.1080/14616718.2016.1195563.
Huisman, C. J. (2019). Non-enforcement as a technique of governance – the case of
rental housing in the Netherlands. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 6(2):
172-200. DOI: 10.1080/23254823.2018.1522263.
Jonkman, A. (2019). Distributive Justice of Housing in Amsterdam. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Lennartz, C., Arundel, R. & Ronald, R. (2016). Younger Adults and Homeownership in Europe
Through the Global Financial Crisis. Population, Space and Place, 22(8): 823– 835. DOI:
10.1002/psp.1961.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 89
Towards a socio-ecological and territorial understanding of
housing issues: A new interpretation of housing dynamics in the
case of Milan, Italy
Sara Caramaschi and Marco Peverini
DAStU – Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Keywords: housing issues, territorial inequalities, regional polarization, territorial ecology
1. Introduction: A fragmented debate on shrinkage and attraction
Demographic trends in the European context are characterised by two contrasting tensions. On
the one hand, demographic shrinkage and aging affect struggling rural areas and
deindustrialized cities. These territories experience a persisting decline in socio-spatial
development, as well as a long-lasting solidification of structural deficits in terms of services,
occupation, and quality of life (Kühn, 2015). Overall, peripherality and shrinkage negatively
influence the sustainability of the local housing market, the prospects of new economic
projects, as well as the overall habitability of the building stock (Couch & Cocks, 2013; Keenan et
al., 1999). Ultimately, this encourages future waves of out-migration and leads to a vicious circle
that reproduces peripherality (Massey, 1990).
On the other hand, the attraction exerted by some economically more prosperous urban
centres creates interregional inequality and polarization. Such centripetal and centrifugal forces
lead the younger and more dynamic segments of the population from peripheral areas to more
attractive agglomerations (Rodriguez-Pose & Storper, 2020). To illustrate the latter tensions,
present-day talent, youth, wealth and innovation are flowing to a limited set of mostly large
metropolitan areas (Florida, 2017), contributing to rising housing prices and making housing
increasingly unaffordable or unavailable for local residents (Figure 1).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 90
Figure 1. Milano, Italy. Source: Sara Caramaschi, 2022
These spatial and economic divergences are not new, as they also occurred throughout the
twentieth century in different forms (e.g., migration to major industrial cities). However, today
the situation is more complex, as a number of geopolitical factors such as income, housing
costs, and services create internal and external inequalities. While attractive cities remain
prosperous, the pains are felt strongly by both low-/middle-income communities living and
working in these territories and by those areas that are left behind. Regarding the latter, the loss
of population and human capital together with the amount of unused or abandoned stock
affect struggling rural and deindustrialized shrinking cities. In more attractive and jobs- and
skill-abundant areas, housing affordability is considered to be among the most important issues
of our time – especially due to exclusionary housing markets (Peverini, 2021). As a reaction, the
growing focus on competitiveness and growth – deeply rooted in prevailing neoliberal logics of
development – is not the best option for both scenarios.
Development strategies against peripheralization target specific interventions allocated
through national or European programmes on infrastructures and services. However, these are
not sufficient to bridge the increasing core-periphery gap and do not consider the issue of
building emptiness and the overall inability to maintain the built environment (Caramaschi &
Chiodelli, 2022). In core areas, on the contrary, the shortage and/or unaffordability of housing is
usually addressed by incentivizing the enlargement of the stock, without considering more
sustainable policies that prevent housing emptiness and speculation. In brief, the tendency to
consider strategies that either advance competitiveness or solve its pitfalls does not address
the most pressing issues and deficits of current geographically uneven development and
regional futures.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 91
2. A new framing of territorial dynamics through housing: research
questions, theoretical framework and method
We aim to link the two perspectives described above by looking at housing issues (i.e.,
abandonment and oversupply; unaffordability, pressure, and land rent distribution) as a
privileged vantage point for understanding territorial inequalities and polarization. We argue
that a revised framework on housing issues is needed, considering the multiple scales and
dynamics at which housing may originate socially and environmentally unsustainable patterns.
A more choice-centred and place-centred understanding of what is fair and what may create
well-being, therefore, needs to come into play (Sen, 1993). This means exploring the actors’
identity, aspirations, possibilities and attachments, thus revealing which structural
(dis)advantages affect them the most. Which housing dynamics are occurring in shrinking and
attractive territories? What are the social and environmental consequences of these dynamics
on shrinking and attractive territories?
Simultaneously, we believe that new models of transcalar governance capable of mitigating
centripetal and centrifugal forces are crucial for a more socially and environmentally sustainable
housing system. Which are the territorial scales and relations at stake? Who are the actors
involved? Which elements could drive a new framing of the problem?
To do this, the paper applies the analytical lenses of socio-ecological transition and of
territorial ecology to housing issue. Territorial ecology is a systemic view of the consequences
of individual and collective actions on the sustainability of local socio-ecosystems (Buclet, 2021).
The main idea is to simultaneously look at the social and environmental sustainability of
housing dynamics that is happening among territories that are subject to regional polarization.
In terms of housing, we are interested in the coevolution between individuals’ and
communities’ choices and the (built and natural) environment at multiple territorial scales. It
must be stressed that territories here are intended as socio-ecosystems and treated as
relational elements of a National system. This perspective is explored theoretically by analysing
the scholarly debate on geographical patterns of convergence and divergence, and empirically
by looking at housing dynamics occurring among the city of Milan – Italy’s economic capital and
one of Europe’s most competitive locations (Clark et al., 2018) – and a set of less attractive
Italian territories that suffer the magnetism of this core area.
Acknowledgment
This paper draws from broader research projects about housing issues and territorial fragilities
undertaken by both authors. Currently, Dr. Sara Caramaschi is working on a research project on
processes of uneven geographical development that produce and reproduce peripherality in
Italy. Dr. Marco Peverini develops his research in the framework of the Observatory on Housing
Affordability in Milan Metro-area (OCA). They both work as postdoctoral researchers at DAStU –
Politecnico di Milano.
References
Buclet, N. (2021). Territorial Ecology and Socio-ecological Transition. Wiley.
Caramaschi, S., & Chiodelli, F. (2022). Reconceptualising housing emptiness beyond vacancy
and abandonment. International Journal of Housing Policy, 1-24.
Clark, G., Moonen, T., & Nunley, J. (2018). Milan’s Competitiveness. Urban Land Institute.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 92
Couch, C., & Cocks, M. (2013). Housing vacancy and the shrinking city: Trends and policies in the
UK and the City of Liverpool. Housing Studies, 28(3), 499–519.
Florida, R. (2017). The new urban crisis: How our cities are increasing inequality, deepening
segregation, and failing the middle class-and what we can do about it. Basic Books.
Keenan, P., Lowe, S., & Spencer, S. (1999). Housing abandonment in inner cities–The politics of
low demand for housing. Housing Studies, 14(5), 703–716.
Manfred, K. (2015). Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio-Spatial Inequalities.
European Planning Studies, 23(2), 367–78.
Massey, D. (1990). Social Structure, Household Strategies, and the Cumulative Causation of
Migration. Population Index, vol. 56(1), 3–26.
Peverini, M. (2021). Grounding urban governance on housing affordability: a conceptual
framework for policy analysis. Insights from Vienna. Partecipazione e conflitto, 14(2), 848–
869.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2020). Housing, urban growth and inequalities: The limits to
deregulation and upzoning in reducing economic and spatial inequality. Urban Studies, 57(2),
223–248.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and Well-Being. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life
(pp. 30–53). Clarendon Press.

93
Panel 6: New sustainable housing solutions in the
existing city
Marco Peverini, Federica Rotondo and Paola Savoldi, Yes, we can! Systems of standards,
practices and conditions toward a socially sustainable densification
Agnieszka Włoch-Szymla, Contemporary socio-spatial change in the built environment of the
socialist estates in Krakow
Lorenzo Stefano Iannizzotto, Alexandra Paio, Rethink terrain vague potential for sustainable
habitat

94
Yes, we can! Systems of standards, practices and conditions
toward a socially sustainable densification
Marco Peverini1, Federica Rotondo2 and Paola Savoldi1
1 Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
2 Department of Territorial Science, Planning and Policy, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
Keywords: housing needs, norms, urban policies, densification, social sustainability
1. Housing needs, built environment and sustainable housing solutions
In the last century, urban growth took place through expansion processes that
profoundly transformed the shape and organization of cities. A significant portion of the new
buildings represented the answer to an urgent and massive demand for housing. However, the
current conditions are far from peaceful. Despite the large number of houses built over the
"short century," a new and different housing demand emerged (Allen et al., 2004; Eleb & Simon,
2013; Bricocoli et al., 2021). Furthermore, the size and obsolescence of the inherited
patrimony require interventions that cannot be exclusively punctual. It is, in fact, a question that
not only affects individual artefacts but concerns a perspective that considers cities and
citizens together (Callon et al., 2014).
This contribution discusses how to face emerging housing needs by practicing "light
and socially sustainable densification" approaches to the built heritage (Peverini et al.
2020), offering responses that are attentive to the specific context and the expressed needs
(Bramley 2012; Fijalkow, 2022). The hypothesis is that it is worth considering forms of light
densification involving (i) a minimal or almost zero volumetric increase in the existing heritage
and (ii) an approach to transformation of the built environment that modifies its vocations and,
only partially, its spatial organization. Overall, we highlight how it is possible, starting from the
needs and opportunities offered by the heritage conditions, to favour these forms
of densification, identifying operational spaces for action and hypothesizing an adaptation
of existing norms. In this perspective, the rules are assumed not only as construction
requirements but as the outcome of technical, social, and cultural mediations, therefore, a tool
with a political value (Borraz, 2004; Fijalkow 2015).
As part of a research conducted at the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies of
the Politecnico di Milano, the present contribution aims at enriching the debate starting from a
limited number of recent European experiences (in the cities of Vienna, Bologna, and Milan), as
“tactics” of innovation (Donolo et al., 1988) in the system of standards that are tested
to produce new and sustainable housing solutions.
2. Tactics of innovation: Systems of standards, practices and conditions for
a light and socially sustainable densification
Without any rigidly comparative pretension, the considered experiences are
synthetically reconstructed concerning the original characteristics, the regulatory dimensions
involved, the process of interaction and mediation between the different actors who guided

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 95
their construction, and the building and urban repercussions. In all three cases, it is possible to
assess the processes and outcomes that have characterized the different contexts, underlining
the traits of interest in a transversal manner, in the belief that they can contribute to feeding
the terms of the debate and of the experiments to come (Passeron & Revel, 2005).
‒ The Vinzirast Mittendrin project involves the reuse of a vacant building in the city centre
of Vienna, made possible by the coalition of a variety of civil society and institutional
actors, with the shared goal of creating housing solutions for students, refugees and the
homeless in a collective setting.
‒ The Cinisello Balsamo case regards new public housing realized by increasing the height
of existing residential buildings owned by the municipality. This latter has thus activated
a "latent" resource of the existing public built stock, making housing available at social
rents in response to the municipality's housing emergency
‒ The Bologna case regards the temporary adaptation of a public building to residential
use, to host displaced households coming from formerly squatted buildings around the
city. It advocates to an incremental and agile intervention of housing inclusion that
makes use of the exceptional and temporary rental for residential use of an empty
building.
The paper analyses how practices of light densification result from the ability to grasp the
conditions and opportunities of the moment, prefiguring solutions that are sometimes
temporary or marked by an incremental logic of transformations (Lindblom, 1959). The
investigated practices begin to nourish a catalogue of practical cases. They are not numerous,
but they are worth recognizing and discussing them, capitalizing on a sort of empirical heritage.
In fact, it is not only a question of theoretically delineating the problem, but also of maturing
practical knowledge, assuming real situations as a reflexive field of exercise to identify spaces
for action and to prefigure some adaptation of existing standard systems (Figures 1-3). The
process of the reuse of the built environment, albeit temporary or long-lasting, often have non-
linear development times. Sometimes, spontaneous coalitions of interests on the part of social
actors active in the city trigger accelerations and project triggers, where the availability of the
entire building makes the realization of an aspiration matured in previous times feasible. In
other cases, it is instead the sudden push of the emergency, the urgency to resort to alternative
solutions to the ordinary ones.
The challenge consists in practicing a light densification, attentive to the possibility of
socially sustainable responses, in a medium-term perspective, without the pretence of
prefiguring a definitive solution. This is an incremental perspective which, however, requires a
systematic approach: in terms of governance and regulation, through programs, measures and
resources defined at the urban (and metropolitan) or even national scale and in terms of skills
and design dimensions, from the constructive one (the envelopes, the windows, the remodelling
of spaces), to the urban one (the mutual relations between the building and its surroundings,
the complementarity of vocations, the availability of space and services).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 96
Figure 1. Vinzirast Mittendrin, Vienna. Source: Authors
Figure 2. Public housing, Cinsello Balsamo. Source: Authors
Figure 3. Student housing, Bologna. Source: Authors

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 97
Acknowledgment
This paper draws from the research project Si può fare! L’abitare contemporaneo tra
norme, pratiche e progetti supported by the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies of
the Politecnico di Milano; in addition to the authors of this paper, the research team members
are: Massimo Bricocoli, Stefano Guidarini, Gennaro Postiglione, Stefania Sabatinelli.
References
Allen, J., Barlow J., Leal, J., Maloutas, T., & Padovani, L. (2004). Housing and Welfare in Southern
Europe, Blackwell, London.
Borraz, O. (2004). Les normes, instruments dépolitisés de l’action publique. In P. Lascoumes &
et P. Le Galès, Gouverner par les instruments (pp. 123-161), Presses de SciencesPo
Bramley, G. (2012). Affordability, poverty and housing need: triangulating measures
and standards, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27, 133-151.
Bricocoli M., Peverini M., Rotondo F., & Savoldi, P. (2021). Rethinking norms for contemporary
housing needs. Emerging local practices in Europe. Proceedings of the XLII Conferenza
italiana di scienze regionali, 1-11.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. & Barthe, Y. (2014). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur
la démocratie technique. Le Seuil.
Donolo, C., Fichera, F., Carrieri, M., & Crosta, P. L. (1988). Le vie dell'innovazione: forme e limiti
della razionalità politica. Feltrinelli.
Eleb, M., & Simon, P. (2014). Le logement contemporain. Entre confort, désir et normes (1995–
2012). Primento.
Fijalkow Y. (2022). The Notion of Housing Need in France: From Norms to Negotiations (19th–
21st Centuries), Urban Planning, 7(1), 197-206.
Fijalkow Y. (2015). De la rénovation urbaine au developpement durable: du poids des
normes dans le logement (XIXe – XXIe siècles). Métropolitiques.eu
https://metropolitiques.eu/De-la renovation-urbaine-au.html
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–
88.
Passeron J., & Revel J. (2005). Penser par cas. Éditions de l’École des hautes études en
sciences sociales.
Peverini M., Rotondo F., & Savoldi P. (2020). Densificare altrimenti: norme e condizioni per una
trasformazione socialmente sostenibile del patrimonio esistente. Industria delle costruzioni,
472, 24-33.

98
Contemporary socio-spatial change in the built environment of
the socialist estates in Krakow
Agnieszka Włoch-Szymla
Department of Spatial Development, Cracow University of Economics, Poland
Keywords: large-scale housing estates, post-socialist transformation, socio-spatial
change, housing policy, sustainable development
1. Introduction
The post-communist urban and housing heritage has experienced a process of permanent
adaptation to the requirements of current social needs, to environmental requirements and new
spatial planning conditions. After the fall of communism, housing development has undergone
many unwanted and uncontrolled transformations. At present, it is in the process of adapting to
the contemporary political, social and economic conditions and to the challenges of the future.
In the past, in a city of socialist modernism (1956-1989), living in a housing estate
offered almost the only opportunity to improve one’s conditions and quality of life. After 1989,
the system of public investments in housing ceased, and housing construction passed into
the hands of private investors, which significantly influenced the quality of urban spaces.
The privatization of housing construction, combined with the lack of local spatial plans, led
to urban sprawl, to the construction of housing estates in peripheral areas, deprived of
infrastructure and often to gated estates for selected social groups. However, currently there is
a tendency to return to the estates dating from the times of the communist era. Buildings
from that period are very often located near old city centres and are well-connected with
other districts of the city. They are well-equipped with social and service infrastructure and have
a lot of freely accessible green recreational spaces.
2. Research work
The paper considers the relationship between the size of the area of “socialist” housing estates
and the present legal regulations on social and spatial changes in Krakow. To underline this
relationship, this study draws on empirical evidence from housing from that period and of
different size categories: from the administrative district to a selected fragment of a housing
estate managed by one administrator. The current socio-spatial transformation of large housing
estates shapes the regulated urban environment through stabilization of legal regulations and
an entrepreneurial approach of local authorities to improving the quality of life. Therefore, the
study also refers the legal possibilities of transforming housing estates to the current
sustainable development objectives. It turns out that the spaces of multi-family housing
estates built according to the regulations in force at that time meet the contemporary needs of
residents. These spaces also have a great potential to implement the principles of sustainable
development of housing estates. The positively changing legal possibilities and social attitudes,
and often the fact that a housing estate is managed by one administrator, create opportunities
for easier resident turnover and greater accessibility depending on the family situation and
current needs.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 99
The main objective of this work is to offer answers to the following questions:
‒ What current legal regulations affect the management of housing estates built in
the period of the People’s Republic of Poland?
‒ What is the impact of the size of housing estates on the legal possibilities of managing
them in the context of improving living conditions?
‒ What are current qualitative requirements with regard to the spatial and
social conditions of “socialist” housing estates?
‒ Finally, to what extent do “socialist” housing estates meet qualitative
requirements resulting from sustainable development?
The research focuses on Polish cooperative housing estates built in the period of Socialist
Modernism. The work presents a historical background, contemporary qualitative requirements
as well as research indicators related to the quality of life and to meeting sustainable
development requirements in housing estates. The research method proposed by the author is
presented in the context of the actual housing estates with a view to identifying further
development measures and strategies for housing estates built in the discussed period. The
territorial focus in on the city of Krakow, in which three housing estates of different size have
been selected for a detailed analysis.
The issue of “socialist” housing estates, in both its theoretical and empirical aspects,
deserves attention because it is an underexplored research area that is often viewed through
many stereotypes which should be verified at different spatial scales and by using different
research methods. The changes in the housing estates of post socialist cities, the image of
such estates, their social perception and their position in the spatial structures of cities are of
key significance to their future, taking into account the large part they represent in cities’
housing resources.
The complexity of the social and spatial aspects of housing estates requires an integrated
approach that draws on the experience of various theoretical and methodological approaches
adopted by scientists who explore and interpret specific phenomena: geographers, sociologists,
urban planners, architects as well as the representatives of other sciences who explore cities as
areas inhabited by people, such as, environmental psychologists and social anthropologists.
To date, social and spatial diagnoses as well as transformation trends in the housing estates
of Polish cities are widely discussed in a number of works including Komar (2014), Szafrańska
(2016), Węcławowicza et al. (2004), and Zaniewska (2013). The case of Krakow has been
presented by Zborowski (2005), among others. The literature on the subject also presents other
cases of post-socialist cities in Europe (Aernouts et al., 2020; Sendi & Kerbler; Temelová et al.,
2011). However, as a dynamic phenomenon large socialist housing estates require further
theoretical and empirical research in response to social and spatial changes in cities. In this
context, it is necessary to combine the case of cooperative housing with spatial urban quality
and to present relationships between managing a housing estate and its spatial quality.
The adoption of specific assumptions and the specificity and complexity of research –
with regard to similarities and diversities – as well as the common occurrence of processes in
“socialist” housing estates require the use of three spatial research scales: macro, meso,
and micro.
‒ A macro scale – urban and architectural transformations and legal regulations
concerning entire housing estates within a given district.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 100
‒ A meso scale – functional and spatial transformations and legal possibilities in
smaller neighbourhoods within a given estate.
‒ A micro scale – internal transformations and the legal status which includes spatial
changes with regard to buildings.
The summary of the two first research questions:
The research indicates that cooperative policies focused on inhabitants’ well-being
and cooperation between housing estate boards and residents have a positive impact on the
urban and social aspects of residential areas. Some cooperatives have their representatives in
district and city councils, allowing for a constructive dialogue with decision-makers on
important issues with a view to undertaking common action. Unfortunately, the fragmentation
of housing estate land ownership has a negative impact on joint undertakings.
On a meso scale, residents frequently report the need for spatial and functional
changes, which reflects an increasing interest in social participation. Unfortunately, a frequent
problem is the lack of unanimous decisions on behalf of residents in controversial matters
related to, e.g., green areas or car parks. Another issue is a negative impact of decisions made
by different administrators within the same residential areas, indicating the lack of cooperation
and focus on the self-interest of the estate under management.
The most difficult problem is posed by transformations inside buildings. They
require specific interventions, and, unfortunately, because of the ownership status and the
need for owners’ consent and willingness, as well as the lack of confidence, it is difficult
to implement projects on a micro scale aimed to improve the quality of housing, e.g., through
flat swaps. However, some socially positive changes in “socialist” housing estates
are increasingly frequent.
3. Conclusion
Recognizing the strength of specific local imperatives, the research indicates a
correlation between a certain size of housing development and the legal possibility and variety
of transformations. It also turns out that the functioning of an estate is often related to a
legal situation in which different actors have a different impact on the entire estate.
References
Aernouts, N., Marranghi, E. and Ryckewaert, M. (Eds.), (2020). The Regeneration of Large Scale
Social Housing Estates. Spatial, Territorial, Institutional and Planning Dimensions. Soholab.
Komar, B. (2014). Współczesna jakość spółdzielczej przestrzeni osiedlowej w świetle zasad
rozwoju zrównoważonego na wybranych przykładach. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej.
Sendi, R. & Kerbler, B. (2021). The Evolution of Multifamily Housing: Post-Second World War
Large Housing Estates versus Post-Socialist Multifamily Housing Types in Slovenia.
Sustainability, 13, (18), 10363.
Szafrańska, E. (2016). Wielkie osiedla mieszkaniowe w mieście postsocjalistycznym.
Geneza rozwój przemiany percepcja, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łodzkiego.
Temelová, J., Novák, J., Ouředniček, M. & Puldová, P. (2011). Housing Estates in the Czech
Republic after Socialism: Various Trajectories and Inner Differentiation. Urban Studies, 48
(9), 1811-1834.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 101
Węcławowicz, G., Guszcza, A., & Kozłowski, S. J. (2004). Large Housing Estates in Poland:
Policies and Practices: RESTATE Report 3f. Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University.
Zaniewska, H. (2013). Architektoniczno-urbanistyczne i społeczne aspekty
dostosowania powojennej zabudowy osiedlowej do standardów XXI wieku. Przegląd
Budowlany, 84, (3), 145-148.
Zborowski, A. (2005). Przemiany struktury społeczno-przestrzennej regionu miejskiego w
okresie realnego socjalizmu i transformacji ustrojowej (na przykładzie Krakowa). Kraków:
Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

102
Rethink terrain vague potential for sustainable habitat
Lorenzo Stefano Iannizzotto and Alexandra Paio
ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal
Keywords: terrain vague, sustainability, collaborative methodology, nature-based
solutions, sustainable habitat design
1. Introduction
As cities continue to be the primary habitat for humanity, their study has become increasingly
vital in addressing the pressing global challenges of sustainability and inclusiveness in the
future. The contemporary city is subjected to processes of transformation that are generating
new types of spaces within itself and at its borders. Among these spaces there are terrain
vague, undeveloped spaces within urban areas, at different scales, where emptiness prevails
over fullness and naturalness prevails over built, with unclear boundaries or thresholds.
Emptiness can be thought as both negatively and positively, in fact, as referred by Solà Morales
(1995), the “emptiness, therefore, as an absence but also as a promise, as a contrast, as a place
of possible and hopeful waiting.”
These spaces can play an important role in promoting an inclusive, affordable,
sustainable, resilient urban regeneration, by integrating the environmental approach, through
the nature-based solutions (Rok, 2019), and the social approach, through the co-creation
process (Cardoso & Paio, 2021). In fact, there is a correlation between green spaces accessibility
and social equality (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Urban Garden in Lisbon. Source: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 103
1.1 Emptiness as a promise
Contemporary cities are changing their physical structure and their immaterial and symbolic
relationships (Sieverts, 2003). Many authors have attempted to define a new urban form that
they named zwischenstadt (Sieverts, 2003), città diffusa (Secchi, 2005), or generic
city (Koolhaas & Mau, 1995), planetary urbanization (Brenner & Schmid, 2010),
regional urbanization (Soja, 2010). Common characteristics are: the end of traditional divisions
between city and countryside; urban and rural dimensions interpenetration, overlaps and
hybridization, creating blurred and indeterminate boundaries (Secchi, 2005; Sieverts, 2003); the
place where local actions and regional, national, global decisions compete.
Contemporary cities generate within themselves and create urban voids at their borders
(Pineiro, 2020). These voids have been defined in many ways, such as terrain vague (Solà
Morales, 1995), territori attuali (Careri, 2004), spazi interclusi (Rossi & Zetti, 2018), nuove terre
(Marini, 2010), spaces in-between (Spirito, 2015), third landscape (Clément, 2005), or urban
interstices (Brighenti, 2013). These are unbuilt spaces within urban areas, at different scales,
where emptiness prevails over fullness and naturalness prevails over built (Careri, 2004); waiting,
abandoned, marginal, underused, ambiguous spaces (Solà-Morales, 1995). There may be a
tendency to think that urban voids have been randomly generated and that nobody use them.
However, they show clearly the relation with the territorial palimpsest (Corboz, 1985) and they
are often used for informal activities. In fact, emptiness can be thought as both negatively and
positively (Kamvasinou & Roberts, 2014). These spaces allow any possibility and are bearers of
hope and freedom (Solà Morales, 1995). They have a great environmental, social and economic
value (Clément, 2005); they can be integrated with traditional public spaces, or being linked
each other, creating a network of in-between spaces of transition, cooperation, threshold
(Kamvasinou & Roberts, 2014; Cavaco, Santos & Brito-Henriques, 2018; Lokman, 2017; Stavrides,
2014; Young, Keil, 2010).
2. Methods
Methodologically, the research follows a literature review comparison in order to define the
theoretical background of this field of research. Furthermore, in order to evaluate the potential
of urban voids for the contemporary city, two examples will be chosen, and a comparative
analysis is proposed on the basis of three criteria based on both nature-based solutions (Rok,
2019) and sustainable development objectives (UN, 2018).
3. Results and discussion
This paper presents a new approach to terrain vague spaces: no longer an approach based on
land consumption, mono functionalism of spaces and zoning, but a more flexible, dynamic, and
reversible approach based on human-centric design and identity embedded in situ. This new
approach is based on time, system, participation, and diversity. In fact, terrain vague can be
linked, creating a network of in-between spaces of transition, offering equal access to green
spaces (Stavrides, 2014; Sendra & Sennett, 2020); they offer possibility of temporary alternative
uses, engaging citizens and strengthen sense of community through bottom-up and co-
creation process (Kamvasinou & Roberts, 2014); they can generate the increase the economic
value of neighbourhood, stimulating urban regeneration (Cavaco, Santos, & Brito-Henriques,
2018). A new way of designing habitat based on diversity, which represents their greatest
resource (Clément, 2005).

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 104
These spaces can offer at least two different solutions to achieve a more
sustainable habitat. On the one hand, these empty and free spaces represent an important
resource for future housing development, because they are rare empty spaces within the dense
built urban environment. These spaces can be occupied temporarily with temporary and
reversible constructions, to meet the demand for housing at a specific time of city expansion; or
they offer cheap free space for the construction of low-cost social housing: this is the case of
the SRU Lisboa Ocidental programme in Lisbon, for instance.
On the other hand, they have great potential for improving the built environment of the
neighbourhood and quality of citizens life concerning to ecological, social and economic issue.
In fact, these spaces perform or could perform important ecological functions, they can
guarantee equal access to green spaces for an inclusive city and it is proven that the presence
of green spaces increases the value of surrounding buildings.
The preliminary results will discuss the potential of terrain vague related to
habitat development, some holistic approaches involving different actors and how they
strengthen communities including co-creation processes in sustainable habitat design (Figures
2 and 3).
Figure 2. Becoming Garden. Source: Diventare Giardino, Archilovers

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 105
Figure 3. Festival a Rua è Nossa. Source: LABIC Barreiro Velho
3. Conclusion
Because of its potential, terrain vague inspires solutions for the unsolved problems of the
contemporary city. But it is necessary to develop a new approach to these spaces: we can
no longer follow an approach based on land consumption, mono functionalism, zoning, and top-
down design; these spaces require a more flexible, dynamic, temporary and reversible
approach focused on urban relations systems (Rossi & Zetti, 2018; Solà-Morales, 1995) and
based on union between top-down and bottom-up policies, with new experiments in
participatory urban design.
References
Brenner, N. & Schmid, C. (2011). Planetary urbanisation. In M. Gandy (Ed.), Urban Constellations.
Jovis.
Brighenti, A. M. (2013). Urban Interstices: The Aesthetics and the Politics of the In between.
Dorset Press.
Cardoso, A. & Paio, A. (2021). LABTUR: una contribución metodológica a las prácticas de co-
creación del espacio público. ACE: Architecture, City and Environment, 16 (46)
http://dx.doi.org/10.5821/ace.16.46.9893. 10.5821/ace.16.46.9893
Careri, F. (2004). Walkscapes: Walking as an aesthetic practice. Gustavo Gili.
Cavaco, C., Santos, J. & Brito-Henriques, E. (2018). Ideas for Intervention in Abandoned Urban
Spaces. Experiences from Eastern Lisbon and Barreiro. Academia de Escolas de
Arquitetura e Urbanismo de Língua Portuguesa.
Clément, G. (2005). Manifesto del Terzo paesaggio. Quodlibet.
Corboz, A. (1985). Il territorio come palinsesto. Casabella 516, 22-27.
De Carlo, G. (1964). Questioni di architettura e urbanistica. Argalia.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Reinhold.

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 106
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
Kamvasinou, K. (2011). The public value of vacant urban land. ICE - Municipal Engineer, 164(3),
157–166. https://doi.org/10.1680/MUEN.9.00020
Kamvasinou, K. & Roberts, M. (2014). Interim spaces: vacant land, creativity and innovation in the
context of uncertainty. In M. Mariani & P. Barron (Eds.), Terrain Vague: Interstices at the
Edge of the Pale (pp. 187–200). Routledge.
Koolhaas, R., & Mau, B. (1995). S, M, L, XL. Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large. 010 Publishers.
Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le droit à la ville. Anthropos.
Lokman, K. (2017). Vacancy as a laboratory: design criteria for reimagining social-ecological
systems on vacant urban lands. Landscape research, 42(7), 728-746.
Marini, S. (2010). Nuove terre: Architetture e paesaggi dello scarto. Quodlibet.
Omar, N. A., & Saeed, E. H. (2019). Urban Voids As Potentioal Resources For The City
Development. JES. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 47(5), 585-600.
Pineiro, S.L. (2020). A Glossary of Urban Voids. Jovis.
Rok, A. 2019. The City as Ecosystem, in Actors of Urban Change. MitOst e.V.
Rossi, M., & Zetti, I. (2018). In mezzo alle cose: Città e spazi interclusi. Dipartimento di
Architettura Università degli Studi di Firenze.
Secchi, B. (2005). La città del ventesimo secolo. Laterza.
Sendra, P., & Sennett, R. (2020). Designing Disorder: Experiments and Disruptions in the City.
Verso.
Sieverts, T. (2003). Cities without cities. Spon Press.
Soja, E. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. University of Minnesota Press.
Solà-Morales, I. (1995). Terrain vague. Anyplace, Anyone, 118-123.
Spirito, G. (2015). In-between places: Forme dello spazio relazionale dagli anni Sessanta a oggi.
Quodlibet.
Stavrides, S. (2014). Open Space Appropriations and the Potentialities of a “City of Thresholds.”
In M. Mariani & P. Baron (Eds.), Terrain Vague: Interstices at the Edge of the Pale. Routledge.
United Nations. (2018). The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals An
opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean (LC/G.2681-P/Rev.3).
Young, D., & Keil, R. (2010). Reconnecting the disconnected: The politics of infrastructure in the
in-between city. Cities, 27(2), 87-95.