intervention strategies for renovation of social housing estates

Laurentino38. Example of deprived social housing estates in Rome. Chapter 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents complained about low quality of all interventions implemented by ATER.
Concerning the renovation of the facade, for example, the same problems occurred shortly
after intervention.
Social quality
Social management. People strongly complain about failure of social management by
ATER. They do not feel safe at all because of the number of crime incidents in the
last years. Control by police is almost absent and ATER is incapable of managing
arrearage and especially squatting. An illegal network controls apartments that are
immediately occupied as soon as they are vacant (even when people go on vacation
or are hospitalized).
Social safety. Drug addicted are present in the neighbourhood and booster
criminality. This reinforced the bad reputation and unattractiveness of the
neighbourhood. The media contributes by reporting on this topic.
Social cohesion. Residents do really care their neighbourhood, especially about social
relationships that grew over years. They personally take care of open spaces even
though this is the responsibility of the Municipality. Despite all mentioned difficulties,
social cohesion is very strong. Together with green and favourable location, it is
often mentioned by the residents as the most important quality of Laurentino38.
Some physical interventions were implemented in Laurentino38 in the last years. In May
2006 demolition of some of the bridges started. The demolished volume is supposed to be
substituted by new housing for special groups, like the elderly and young couples. Despite
the high costs, this solution seems to be quite successful. The bridges in fact, where
considered by people as the most deprived building in the neighbourhood. In 2005, some of
the bridges were repainted. This intervention was appreciated by residents as a way to
identify the blocks with colours rather than with numbers. However, they all claimed
renovation should not only consider common facilities, but should also address buildings and
dwellings where the most urgent liveability problems are concentrated.
To qualitatively address ‘on the renovation major aspects people would like to spend money
’, four questions were posed to a group of residents and Pietro Barucci to reveal to what
extent the two parts share the purpose of renovation. It emerged that:
Residents and architects won’t spend money for renovation of dwellings on similar items.
Inhabitants would mainly improve technical equipments, while the architect would try to
solve problems at a higher level like, for example, management of common facilities and
open spaces. Both parties mentioned adaptation of existing facade to current technical
standards as a relevant issue (especially thermal insulation).
Divergences emerged concerning the building parts to be renovated. Unlike the architect,
residents would again solve technical problems, like deterioration of external side of the
facade or water infiltration. Improvement of building façade is mentioned on the top of the
list.
Different opinions also emerged concerning willingness of people to move elsewhere.
Residents highly value social relationships and accept technical or functional defects of
dwellings. The architect would only move into Laurentino38 to work.
Both agree on combining energy consumption and aesthetics for physical renovation of
buildings, but residents does not claim the need of readapting floor plans.
Finally, to get more insights into the ‘maintenance’ practice in Laurentino38, some questions
were asked to architects employed in the Technical Department of ATER. The most relevant
issues that were put forward are:
Despite the efforts, conditions of buildings and dwellings are not up to standard.
The following items should be both dealt with in future interventions and deserve further
attention:
o water supply,
o structural problems (especially stability of the blocks),
o sewerage system,
26. G