intervention strategies for renovation of social housing estates

Physical measures for renovation of social housing estates Chapter 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sense of anonymity. However, a weakness could be social problems due to the services
closing during the night.
Feasibility might be strongly restricted by the location and negative reputation of the area,
and by competition with other neighbourhoods. This is true also for housing differentiation,
improvement of accessibility and appearance.
Energy efficiency.
Energy savings for renovation of existing social housing estates is not compulsory, but it will
be in the coming years. A weakness of including energy saving measures in renovation could
be that housing associations might be reluctant in implementing them because the benefits
of their investments go directly to the residents and not to the housing association.
Besides the strength of having more money for living from lower energy bills,
implementation of energy measures is important to improve societal awareness of the
residents.
Better energy efficiency mainly depends on the technical characteristics of the façade and
the roof However, there is a wider range of alternative measures that are worth to be
considered apart from improving thermal insulation and adding sun power (hot water) and
photovoltaic panels (like heat pumps, heat power, central systems and biogas). Aspects like
natural ventilation, overheating, health, condensation, cold bridges and noise due to air
circulation need also to be considered in renovation. By means of re-use of the casco
structure almost everything is possible with respect to high energy efficiency. Also, the waste
of (selective) demolition might be recycled.
Appearance.
A more attractive appearance of the building can be obtained adopting those measures
intended for interrupting the repetition and massiveness as well as the silhouette (profile) of
a block. Of all the measures particularly those aiming at extending and subtracting volumes,
might be effective in breaking monotony of especially large housing estates. In this respect,
the entire substitution or integrations of existing façade, like new claddings, addition of
double glazed façade, various extensions (boxes, loggias, terraces stairwells and elevators)
and new parapets, can profoundly change the appearance of the block. Yet, a weakness is
that the repetition of the same solution could replicate the problem and a high degree of
differentiation could result in a 'patchwork' at the expense of the appearance.
It needs to be taken strongly into account that radical solutions might not be appreciated by
the residents, thus renovation should be subjected to the preferences of people for building
facades (shaper, materials, colours, etc.).
Strength of improving the building appearance is that high recognizability can improve the
orientation in the neighbourhood as well as sense of identification. The block could function
as a landmark increasing the liveability and attractiveness. When renovation is particularly
recognizable it can be used to sponsor the restructuring of the area. However, any change of
the initial look might be subjected to the approach undertaken by the housing association,
and is subjected to the local building regulations (Welstandsnormen).
Demolition.
Above all the mentioned issues the most relevant weakness in implementing the measures
is: why to go for demolition rather than renovation? For example, if the commercial value of
the land is high and there are no special directions for preservation (like, for example,
‘historical’ value of buildings), it is possible the housing association could decide for
demolition. However, there are no clear relationships between relevant motivations for
demolition (like technical quality, demand, tenure and asset management approach) and the
demolition rate of Dutch housing associations (see Chapter 4, Section. Rather, issues like
corporate objectives, image and management policies seem to be more decisive than
rational asset analyses (van der Flier and Thomsen, 2006). In the same research the authors
mentioned that several involved parties can have a “hidden agenda” for demolition. For
instance the municipality has to pay from its yearly budget the renovation costs of
infrastructural elements, but in a new development the municipality can put all the costs of
the infrastructural elements in the land price.
However, also presence of residents can make the difference between renovation and new
construction (van der Flier & Thomsen, 2005).
10. H