Community Architecture

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES EASTERN VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND ALLIED DISCIPLINE TACLOBAN CITY

ARCH 433: PLANNING 2 – FUNDAMENTALS OF URBAN DESIGN AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE

RESEARCH NO. 01

COMMUNITY ARCHITECURE

PRESENTED BY:

FRANCES CLEO A DURAN BS ARCHITECTURE 4A

PRESENTED TO:

ARCHT. DIANNE ANGELYNNE S LIM-SO, uap INSTRUCTOR

16 JULY 2014

Table of Contents

Title Page…………………………………………………..…………………………………i

Table Contents……………………………………………………………………………ii

of

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………1

Research Content

Community ……….…………………………………………………...2

Socio-cultural Basis Design………………………………………….6

Evolution of Architecture………………………………………………8

Architecture

of

Community

Community

Summary Conclusion………………………………………………………………………11

References ………………………………………………………………………………….12

/

INTRODUCTION

Architecture, the art of science of planning, designing, and erecting buildings, has a major role in the shaping of the environment and the society. In the past decades, urban areas have seen the unsightly disintegration of buildings, building complexes, environments and communities into slums and the destruction of homes and environments to give way for what is thought to be „better‟ solution to the occurring problem. The causes of this unfortunate turn of events have been linked to the improper planning and wrong assumptions of the so-called experts/professionals, particularly architects and planners, which is thought to be, in turn, caused by the incoordination with the end users in the building process. In an effort to counteract these fateful events, people learned to assert their rights and voice out their opinions to the people responsible for such outcomes. With the help of the professionals themselves and some political back up as well, the principles and practice of what is now known as „community architecture‟ became prominent in the different parts of the world, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom, who were the frontrunners of such movement. Community Architecture is built upon the principle that involving the people and/or end users in the planning, design, and building process will yield more positive results of the end products. Community Architecture is the architecture that promotes the active involvement of the people in the community in the building projects. The practice Community architecture took many names and forms around the world but with the same goals and objectives. This research contains various information on Community Architecture including the different definitions and descriptions of what community architecture is, the principles behind it, the basis for the design inside the scope of community architecture, and its evolution and history, how it came to be and what struggles it faced to be what it is today.

A.

COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE

Community architecture, despite having taken off some years ago, is a relatively “new” movement and/or branch of architecture. The term community architecture is quite hard to define especially that it is closely associated with many other aspects and branches of architecture. Being that said, there are many definitions and many tried to define and explain what community architecture is, in which all, in a way or another, point to the same direction. In the U.K., Community architecture has recently attracted considerable professional attention. It is a movement that argues for the importance of user involvement in the design, construction and management of the environment. Many theoreticians see the movement as a reaction to the disastrous failures of modern architecture and planning schemes. The important lesson that community architects claim to have learned from these failures is that participation is a better process than anticipation with regard to the users and their environmental needs. 1 Definitions of community architecture are often vaguely delimited, and can encompass other activities such as community planning, community development, community technical aid and community landscaping. There is a lack of definitive proof as to the superiority of community architecture. The concern for the survival and growth of this movement has led some advocates to claim that community architecture is “apolitical.”2 Community Architecture in the UK is said to be an equal of the Community Development in the US as both have the same principles and same goals. Also, experts claim that Richard Hatch‟s (author of the book “The Scope of Social Architecture”) term „social architecture‟ is same as the community architecture of the UK, although the term is not so commonly used in the US. Community architecture is said to be an alternative approach to the conventional architectural practice of non-participation of users. It has developed in

1 2

Neal J. Mongold, Community Architecture : Myth and Reality (1980) Community Architecture : Myth and Reality

many forms around the world with common vision, that is, public participation in in decisions affecting their environments and hence their lives. 3 In 1986, a pamphlet published by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), described the aim of community architecture as “ to improve the quality of environment by involving people in the design and management of the building spaces they inhabit.”4 In another study titled “A Community Architecture Framework for Designing Sustainable Communities,” community architecture is defined as a representation of the relationship of the community stakeholders‟ perspectives to the processes and data that support them. Consequently, a community architect is defined as an architect working in consultation with local inhabitants in designing housing and other amenities. Another definition of community architecture is that it is a scheme, mainly for housing, that involves a study of the prevailing social conditions and consultation with the people who are going to use them.5 The Movement enables the people to work directly with architects in the design and building of their own homes and neighbourhoods. 6 In the book Community Architecture by Knevitt and Wates, community architecture is said to be an umbrella term which also embraces community planning, community design, community development and other forms of community technical aid. Community architecture, according to the book, is sometimes referred to by people as anti-design, which in light is entirely untrue, although it can be said that community architecture is not so focused on the eye-catching designs but is more on functional solutions that benefit the users. It is said that community architecture is very particular with the design process, which from the term itself, heavily involves the community and/or end users, but nevertheless does not compromise the end product but actually enhances it. Good design in community architecture, according to the book, is that which works well/is functional, is of human scale, recognizable and understandable, and nevertheless, looks good. In community architecture, the three virtues of architecture (utilitas, firmitas, venustas) is preserved. In addition, community architecture can also be said as the new “vernacular” architecture because of the heavy involvement of people in the design. 3

Faiza Moatasim, Practice of Community Architecture: A Case Study of Zone of Opportunity Housing Co-operative, Montreal (2005) 4 RIBA, pamphlet entitled Community Architecture: User Participation in the Design of Buildings (London:1986) 5 http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/community_architecture.aspx#2 6 http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/community%20architecture

Community architecture demands a radical change in the relationships between those involved in development. It is a part of a much broad pattern of change that is emerging in post-industrial societies in which traditional cycles of dependence are being replaced by new frameworks of self-reliance.7 Practitioners, advocates, and critics have aptly called community architecture a movement because it represents a tendency toward a theory of architecture. Most proponents claim that the built product of community architecture is often better than the product of conventional architecture. Many critics suspect community architecture to be primarily mythological because of the lack of a clear definition.8 In the end, community architecture is expected to and will hopefully result to more self-sufficient and stable communities with contented and confident members and professionals. To make it clearer of what Community Architecture really is, in the following table, taken from the book Community Architecture: How People are Creating Their Own Environment by Knevitt and Wates, the diffrences between Conventional architecture and Community architecture are presented. Status of user

User/expert relationship

Conventional architecture Users are passive recipients of an environment conceived, executed, managed and evaluated by others: corporate, public or private sector landowners and developers with professional experts. Remote, arm‟s length. Little if any direct contact. Experts – commissioned by landowners and developers – occasionally make superficial attempts to define and consult endusers, but their attitudes are mostly paternalistic and

Community architecture Users are – or are treated as – the clients. They are offered (or take) control of commissioning, designing, developing, managing, and evaluating their environment, and may sometimes be physically involved in construction. Creative alliance and working partnership. Experts are commissioned by, and are accountable to users, or behave as if they are.

7

Charles Knevitt and James Wates, Community Architecture: How People are Creating Their Own Environment (1987)

8

Neal J. Mongold, Community Architecture : Myth and Reality (1980)

Expert‟s role

patronizing Provider, neutral bureaucrat, elitist, „one of them‟, manipulator of people to fit the system, a professional in the institutional sense. Remote and inaccessible.

Scale of project

Generally large and often cumbersome. Determined by pattern of land ownership and the need for efficient mass production and simple management.

Location of project

Fashionable and wealthy existing residential, commercial and industrial areas preferred. Otherwise a greenfield site with infrastructure (roads, power, water supply, and drainage, etc.): i. e. no constraints. Likely to be a single function or two or three complimentary activities (e.g. commercial, housing or industrial) Self-conscious about style; most likely „international‟ or „modern movement‟. Increasingly one of the other fashionable and identifiable styles: postmodern, hi-tech, neovernacular or classical revival. Restrained and sometimes frigid; utilitarian. Tendency towards: mass production, prefabrication, repetition, global supply of materials, machine-friendly

Use of project

Design style

Technology/resources

Enabler, facilitator, and „social entrepreneur‟, educator, „one of us‟, manipulator of the system to fit the people and challenger of the status quo; a professional as a competent and efficient adviser. Locally based and accessible. Generally small, responsive and determined by the nature of the project, the local building industry and the participants. Large sites generally broken down into manageable packages. Anywhere, but most likely to be urban, or periphery of urban areas; area of single or multiple deprivation; derelict or decaying environment.

Likely to be muti-functional

Unselfconscious about style. Any style may be adopted as appropriate. Most likely to be „contextual‟, „regional‟ (place-specific) with concern for identity. Loose and sometimes exuberant; often highly decorative, using local artists. Tendency toward: smallscale production, on-site construction, individuality, local supply of materials,

End product

B.

technology, „clean sweep‟ user-friendly (convivial) and new build, machine technology, re-use, intensive, capital intensive. recycling and conservation, labour and time intensive. Static, slowly deteriorates, Flexible, slowly improving, hard to manage and easy to manage and maintain, high energy maintain, low energy consumption. consumption.

SOCIO-CULTURAL BASIS OF COMMUNITY DESIGN

In the development of any design, the socoi-cultural aspect of each community is an important basis in the planning and designing. In each community, the people‟s social and cultural aspects can vary widely. With the participation of the people in the design process and with the consideration of their socio-cultural characteristics, the end product can be assured to be functional and effective. The community‟s culture can be used as a source of information for the planning, design, and development of projects that would connect to the user‟s characters and tradition. Research findings show that culture-oriented product have meaningful content that reflect the people‟s lifestyle as well as provide them with symbolic personal, cultural and social values that helps facilitate product acceptance.9 This is true because this makes the users feel more at home with their environments. In addition, the fact that the people were involved all throughout the project development gives them a sense of pride and in turn boosts the acceptability

9

Richie Moalosi, The impact of Socio-Cultural Factors Upon Human-centred Design in Botswana (2007)

of the end products instead of being treated coolly by the people, as most conventional architecture end products have experienced. Community architecture has emerged as a powerful force for change in the creation and management of human settlements. Like many of the other new currents which are presently transforming societies all over the globe, its strength lies in being both an activity rooted in rediscovered natural laws and broad political movement cutting across traditional boundaries.10 In England, the failure to consider the end users in the design of community structures and environments proved to be disastrous. The modern environment in Britain, as in many other parts of the world, has become widely recognized as a disaster story characterized by ugliness, squalor, congestion, pollution, wasteland, vandalism, stress and destruction of communities. Development has come to be regarded as a bad thing. Conventional architecture and planning rooted in the parternalistic and centralized creation and management by experts have failed.11This situation proves of how ugly the consequences are when the planning and designing does not consider the people and their social and cultural characteristics. To aid this situation from happening, it is important to consider the end users and their different socio-cultural aspects as early as in the planning stages of each project. Considering what the people want in their community is an important note to take. According to the book by Knevitt and Wates, the people should be given a sense of pride and reinforce their identity with their local community, build social facilities that are needed and looked after, and develop neighbourhoods in ways that will enrich their lives by being responsive to their needs and aspirations. All these considerations and basis for the planning and design increase the chances of the projects success as finished product. Building what the people want is surely a good starter for any project. This approach to design ensures the acceptability of the end product by the users. Along with this, every project to be developed should prove to be a real need of the inhabitants to make sure it becomes functional and well taken care of. Building projects that are not needed by the people will result to such a waste of time, effort, and resources. Building with the people and involving them tremendously in the process will boost their confidence in the end product, assure the functionality of 10

Charles Knevitt and James Wates, Community Architecture: How People are Creating Their Own Environment (1987) 11 Knevitt and Wates, Community Architecture

each project, and reduce the chances of blaming entirely the professionals for whatever problem that may occur in the long run. It may also be important to put in mind that in the designing and planning, with the help and active participation of the people, the economy and the type of environment for where the project is to be built upon to be considered with outmost importance. Community Architecture has provided alternative design basis and development approaches in the form of three priorities. First of these is to save what already exists within a neighbourhood, based on the community‟s wishes. There should be a minimum destruction of community networks, both in rehabilitation or new construction. The second demands that the community members be included in the design process of both the rehabilitation and new construction. It is an established fact that the end-users are most familiar with their needs and requirements, which is also directly related to the success of a project. Based on the same observation, Community Architecture lastly acknowledges the involvement of the community members in the decision-making and management of the community-based projects.12

C.

EVOLUTION OF COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE

Different sources have varying claims as to when community architecture truly did begin. However, it can be noted that most claims sites the latter half of the 20 th century. In the U. K., community architecture „movement‟ started out in the 1970s. Charles Knevitt is accounted to be the person who coined the term in his article in Building Design. However, the activities and principles of community architecture itself have been around for a long time. The concept of user coordination in the planning/design process of building is not entirely new. It had been there for a very long time which can be traced back to the early civilization and may even be earlier. The disappearance of the idea and practice of „community architecture‟ in the past centuries has been accounted to the industrial revolution that happened two centuries back which made the development of urban areas so rapid that the people 12

Faiza Moatasim, Practice of Community Architecture: A Case Study of Zone of Opportunity Housing Cooperative, Montreal (2005)

and their voices were neglected by the responsible people and the regulation and control on building by authorities and the emergence of experts/professionals in the field. Originally, the movement that community architecture is today can also be traced back to the 1930s from the Urban Renewal measures of the government in both the U.K. and North America. In the UK, Urban Renewal can be directly linked to the economic boost that the country observed in the post-war period when the attention turned to the improvement of the living conditions in poor neighbourhoods. The story was the same in the US, where the Slum Clearance Movement gave birth to the Urban Renewal Policies. In Canada during the “dirty thirties” attention also turned towards the deplorable living conditions of the poor. Housing was seen as the ultimate solution in the removal of slums. At the same time, the development of the Modern Movement in Architecture led by architects like Le Corbusier propagated the notion of high-rise buildings employing industrial construction techniques as the future of urban development, resulting in the adoption of high-rise buildings as a suitable form of housing the masses and resulted in demolishing existing slums and replacing them with heavily subsidized high-rise buildings consisting of apartments in US. The anticipation of Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal as solutions to all social and physical problems of the “blighted areas” failed to live up to their claims and expectations. It was assumed that the new high-risers would eliminate the future development of slums and despite their initial costs would pay off in the long run. Neither happened as it soon became apparent to the governments and authorities that it was impossible to demolish and develop all the slums, which were growing faster than ever. In addition to this, the management and maintenance costs of these high-rise buildings was much higher than traditional houses, the lack of which resulted in a new sets of alarming problems with the livability of these buildings. Probably one of the main side effects of the Urban Renewal measures that gave birth to the concept of Community Architecture was the disruption of social networks and communities that existed in the slums prior to their demolition. People were expected to move to new locations and leave behind the social ties that took years to develop in the promise for a better future. The policy makers and authorities made these decisions for them, without taking their consent on the matter.

When all the promises of these so-called developments seemed far from coming true, there started an agitation on part of the, people, fighting to save their homes and neighbourhoods from the fate of destruction. These residents belonging to the bottom of the society with the help of visionaries, theorists and professionals were able to plant the seed of the concept of community participation in the decision-making process. The first significant step as a result of the 1960s debate on community participation in planning and decision-making was the concept of Advocacy Planning in the US. Paul Davidoff, an Urban Planning professor, first introduced this concept in an article published in the November 1965 issue of the Journal of the American Institute of Planners, entitled “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Davidoff presents the idea of pluralism and advocacy in planning as an alternative approach where the preparation of plans no longer remains the duty of city planning agencies but can be developed by other interest groups or individuals with the help of planners. He believes that advocacy and pluralism in planning is a good thing and works in favor of everyone involved, including governments and communities. Paul Davidoff stressed on the urgency of representing low-income families in particular by planners under the banner of Advocacy Planning. He argued that the underprivileged group of the society was in dire need of professional assistance to advocate their rights and protect their interests. This article stirred a new wave of participatory planning in the US, with planners providing their services to poor communities in order to improve their living conditions. The first practical example of the concept of Advocacy Planning was the establishment of Architects Renewal Committee in Harlem or ARCH in October 1964 in New York City. ARCH started its operations in April 1965 and consisted of a team of architects and planners providing their architectural and planning services to the inhabitants of Harlem in New York in order to improve their living conditions. Parallel to the Advocacy Planning movement in the United States, the community groups in the United Kingdom launched community action in the 1960s, 50s and 1970s as a reaction to the government‟s policy of relocation and redevelopment projects, resulting in property speculation. The project that laid the foundation of the “Community Architecture Movement” in Britain was the Black Road Area Improvement Project in Macclesfield, Cheshire, under the leadership of Rod Hackney, the first community architect in Britain. Hackney achieved major feat by attracting the attention of Prince Charles in 1984, which gave the needed boost and Royal patronage to the Community Architecture Movement in Britain. Community Architecture is based on a democratic

system of decision-making that advocates the inclusion of community members in issues concerning their built environment.13 Community Architecture since then has developed in different forms around the world with a common vision. The literature in community participation mostly written in the 1960s and 1970s played a vital role in the development of the concept of Community Architecture. In 2013, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) released a paper titled “Guide to Localism” composed of two parts, Part one being „Neighbourhood Planning and Part two „Getting Community Engagement Right‟. The paper is part of the “Localism Bill” being proposed. This project of RIBA now termed as „Localism‟ is another form of the Community Architecture movement, with the same driving principle of getting the people to join in the designing and development process of their own places. The paper presented three policy proposals which require the designers the “Duty to Consult”, and the community the “Right to Build” and the “Right to Buy”.14 This step by the Institute is proof of how community architecture is starting to be widely accepted by both professionals/experts in the field and the common people/locals. For many years, since the beginning of the movement until now, it has been, and still is, the goal of community architecture to discover how people can be more involved in the shaping of their environment. As we move on into the future, it is the hope of many advocates that community architecture be the answer to a more harmonious living in communities around the world.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION

Community architecture emerged in the 20th century due to the problems faced by the decaying urban environments from the industrial revolution. It came from the efforts of the local people to assert their rights as members of the community. Community architecture has taken many forms and names and may have had little differences as to why and how it was developed but the driving principles are the same. 13

Faiza Moatasim, Practice of Community Architecture: A Case Study of Zone of Opportunity Housing Cooperative, Montreal (2005) 14 RIBA, Guide to Localism - Part 2: Getting Community Engagement Right (2013)

The term community architecture may be a little hard to define or have varying definitions, one reason due to its close association or similarity with other practices of architecture like community planning, community development, etc. Some experts site Community Architecture as a movement, as it is in the U.K. Generally, Community Architecture aims to involve the community members in the execution of projects to increase or ensure success of each endeavour and avoid the same disastrous outcomes of the urban developments and solutions made by experts before without the consent and the neglect of the end users. It is what they saw as the solution to the past failures basically due to the fact that the people themselves are more familiar with what they really need and want in their environment and community, and with their participation, acceptance of the end products is certain and the people are given a sense of pride and confidence in the end products. Community architecture, in a sense, opposes the urban developments that generally neglect the citizens in the community where it is particularly being done. Similar situations are projected even in films. This is proof of how the practice and concept of community architecture is gaining acceptance in both sides of the party. In the U.K., community architecture „movement‟ have gained easier acceptance due to the support of his Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales. This situation shows how political back-up had been useful and how needed it is in the advancement of the practice/movement. In the U.S., some of the efforts for the advancement of community architecture had been unsuccessful and fruitless due to lack of funding and support from the government as well as from the people. In the end, it can therefore be concluded that the success of the community architecture will greatly depend upon the support and commitment of the people, the government, and the professionals.

REFERENCES

Charles Knevitt and Nick Wates: Community Architecture: How People are Creating Their Own Environment (1987)

Faiza Moatasim, Practice of Community Architecture: A Case Study of Zone of Opportunity Housing Co-operative, Montreal (2005) [PDF] Neal J. Mongold, Community Architecture : Myth and Reality (1980) [PDF] RIBA, Guide to Localism - Part 2: Getting Community Engagement Right (2013) [PDF] RIBA, pamphlet, Community Architecture: User Participation in the Design of Buildings (London:1986) Richie Moalosi, The impact of Socio-Cultural Factors Upon Human-centred Design in Botswana (2007) [PDF]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/community_architecture.aspx#2 http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/community%20architecture