intervention strategies for renovation of social housing estates

Florijn Noord. An example of renovation, Bijlmermeer. Chapter 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(demolition of the inclined portion between Florijn Noord and Zuid) and extension of total
housing surface (additions at the bottom to get spacious atelier);
interventions within the dwellings: adaptation for special groups (atelier at ground floor
and students on the upper floors), horizontal combination (matching two units to get
dwellings for student) and vertical combination (matching ground and first floor to get a
duplex);
use of the block bottom: addition of small commercial activities (ground-first floor) and
conversions (storages transformed into atelier);
redefine accessibility: more elevators and subdivision of the galleries by means of elevators
and staircase volumes;
appearance of shared spaces: aesthetical improvement of entrances, staircases and
galleries (more space, new materials, colours and paintings) and substitution of parapets
(concrete panels into soft-green glass);
Improvement of technical aspects: addition of insulating layer (from inside), renewal of
water supply and sewage system, and installation of district heating.
In addition to the insights into the project itself, other questions were asked to the project
manager. The answers were integrated with the results of the study by Thomsen and van der
Flier (2005). The followings aspects emerged:
The most successful factor mentioned by the residents is the cooperation of the parties
involved within the renovation process.
The main fail factor was phasing of the process, especially management of the works and
land during the renovation. They are the cause of the slowing down of the process. This
aspect was confirmed by the project manager as well.
Involvement of residents in decision making was quite poor. Rather, participation could be
defined as ‘tokenism’: people have a voice and policy makers are obliged to comply with
them. The conclusion by the project manager is that participation could not have been
better than it was. Higher level of involvement, in fact, could result in a substantial rise of
costs, that rather could be spent in another way, according to the housing association;
According to the experience in the Bijlmermeer, a negative comment regards this
alternative procedure for selecting architectural firms, like a design competition. This
process can be very expensive and slow down the realization process. Besides, often the
presented designs do not completely meet requirements of the housing association (see
the example of the Kleiburg in the Bijlmermeer).
According to the project manager, there are factors that deserve further attention, like:.
o Better thermal insulation (but there are no regulations for higher
requirements to be satisfied by the housing association in renovating existing
housing stock. With the compulsory EPBD that will change after 2008);
o Improving on all the mentioned factors is important. However, the main
constraint is the budget. Better ‘look’ for buildings to be renovated, for
example, could be financially very costly and risky in terms of possible
market demand.
o Innovative projects should be more easily accepted by residents (renovation
is also a matter of agreement).
INTRODUCTION TO THE SEVENTH CHAPTER
After the overview on the Dutch context provided by the previous chapters, the seventh
deals with the Italian context. Actually, it describes a case study representing a part of the
deprived social housing stock in Rome. The neighbourhood is the very well-known Laurentino
38. This is a large social housing estates realized in the 1970s by using the tunnel
technology. The entire neighbourhood is now facing with many of the problems described in
the Bijlmermeer. The whole context is described over two sections.
The chapter presents the case following the same structure of chapter five and six.
15. F