Back to Challenges

Challenging conventional assessments: Embracing medium and long-Term, qualitative dimensions in social value and POE of housing schemes

Created on 16-10-2023

Design, planning and building Community participation Policy and financing
Share it

The challenge in the context of housing is the prevalent methodological approach in both SV assessments and Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE). Typically, these assessments revolve around short- and medium-term outcomes and disproportionately rely on quantitative data and financial metrics, omitting valuable qualitative dimensions. This methodological narrowness has significant implications for the social assessment of regeneration projects and housing initiatives.

Despite the apparent recent interest of UK government departments in promoting the adoption of POE in the housing sector, it is surprising and contradictory that, for example, in a recent report commissioned by Homes England (Homes England & AMION, 2023), the government’s housing and regeneration agency, to assess the SV of housing-led regeneration on communities, there is not a single mention of POE as a tool that can contribute to the assessment. Instead, as is the case with mainstream methods to measure SV, hedonic pricing methodologies are the sole approach used to calculate the effects of regeneration. While financial proxies, cost-benefit analysis CBA and key performance indicators (KPIs) can be powerful tools to demonstrate the value created, they cannot be the sole means of assessing and demonstrating outcomes, particularly when it comes to the multifaceted concept of SV. Yet, the influence of a report issued by this government agency is substantial and, above all, an example of how much the social assessment of regeneration is neglected in the public agenda and, as a consequence, has far-reaching consequences for the private sector.

A POE, which directs assessment towards the inhabitant, represents a tool that can significantly enhance the SV landscape. If POE is recognised as a valuable tool to assess SV, it could be included as an integral part of the procurement of any new housing project from its planning stage. If we counterbalance the social side of sustainability with the other two, giving equal heed in the estimation of housing outcomes, we will be making sure that no one is left behind, a must in the levelling up agenda that aims to bridge inequalities in the UK. This can contribute to preventing regeneration projects from advancing at the expense of vulnerable communities. As has been evidenced, housing-led regeneration and major urban renewal projects across Europe, in some cases have disastrous consequences for the livelihood of certain minority groups.

Systems knowledge

Actors

Housing developers

Non-profit and for-profit housing organisations that undertake various tasks, such as the construction and management of housing.

Housing authorities

A government agency, usually at the municipal, county, or state level, provides and oversees various housing-related programmes and services.

Method

Interdisciplinary collaboration

Teams from different disciplines or fields work together to tackle complex problems, find innovative solutions and develop a broader understanding of a particular issue. This approach recognises that many real-world challenges cannot be adequately addressed within the confines of a single discipline or field.

Knowledge co-creation

A collaborative process in which individuals or groups with different backgrounds and expertise come together to generate new knowledge, insights or solutions collectively. This approach recognises that knowledge creation is not limited to experts or academics but can come from exchanging ideas, experiences and perspectives from various sources.

Sustainability assessment systems

Frameworks, tools or methodologies used to assess and measure the sustainability performance of various entities, such as buildings, infrastructure projects, organisations and communities. These systems help assess and quantify environmental, social and economic impacts so that stakeholders can make informed decisions and improve sustainability practises.

Tools

Sustainability assessment systems

Frameworks, tools, or methodologies used to assess and measure the sustainability performance of various entities, such as buildings, infrastructure projects, organisations, and communities. These systems help assess and quantify environmental, social and economic impacts so stakeholders can make informed decisions and improve sustainability practices.

Target knowledge

Topic

Building regulations

A set of government-mandated standards, rules, and requirements that define how building and construction projects should be designed and executed.

Social housing perception

Social housing is a term for housing provided or subsidised by government or non-profit organisations to meet the housing needs of individuals or families with low incomes or special needs. Perceptions of social housing can vary widely among different groups and are influenced by several factors, including cultural, economic and political contexts.

Building sustainability

The practise of designing, constructing and operating buildings in a way that minimises their negative impact on the environment and promotes long-term environmental, social and economic sustainability.

Level

Building

The structure, project or development that is directly impacted by the various building regulations.

Country

The political structure governs a specific geographical area and accommodates a specific population group.

Transformation Knowledge

No references

Related cases

No entries

Related vocabulary

Affordability

Transdisciplinarity

Sustainability

Co-creation

Participatory Approaches

Just Transition

Area: Policy and financing

Housing is usually deemed unaffordable when it consumes more than a set percentage of a household's monthly income. The Eurostat[1] and the OECD[2]  follow this threshold approach and define households overburdened with housing costs as those spending more than 40% of their disposable income on housing. However, this indicator fails to capture financial hardship, particularly among lower-income households. In fact, lower-income households may be spending less than 40% of their income on housing and yet failing to meet adequate consumption levels for other goods. As a response, the residual income approach ascertains housing (un)affordability by defining a minimum level of consumption for a set of goods according to particular household types. The residual income approach builds on consumption data to define the minimum level of income necessary for a household to survive after housing costs. The main shortcoming of this approach is that relies on subjective measures of what constitutes the necessary minimal expenses for a household. These two definitions of affordability navigate two tensions 1) between housing and other types of consumption and 2) between the individual conceptions and what is affordable and what government considers to be affordable (Haffner & Hulse, 2021). More recently, scholars have emphasized the multi-faceted nature of affordability to include commuting and transport costs together with energy costs (Haffner & Boumeester, 2015). Other approaches focus on supply-side measures, for instance on the share of the housing stock that a household can afford (Chung et al., 2018). Evolutions in the measurement of affordability bear witness to the complexity of housing systems. Affordability is not only dependant on housing consumption but also housing supply, particularly in inelastic markets where providers have considerable power. At the same time, displacement pressures and rising energy costs in an older and inefficient stock add pressure on households to access affordable housing. References Chung C., Evangelou N., Geyer J., Quint R., Keith I., Coates D., Daula T., Frumkin S., Leventis A. v, Doerner W. M., Roderer D., & Barba M. (2018). A New Home Affordability Estimate: What Share of Housing Stock Can Families Afford?. FHFA Staff Working Papers 18-04, Federal Housing Finance Agency. Haffner M., & Boumeester, H. (2015). Housing affordability in the Netherlands: the impact of rent and energy costs. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(2), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-014-9409-2 Haffner M., & Hulse K. (2021). A fresh look at contemporary perspectives on urban housing affordability. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 25(S1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1687320   [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/tessi165   [2] https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/624ee022-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/624ee022-en#section-d1e6271  

Created on 15-07-2021

Author: A.Fernandez (ESR12), M.Haffner (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

Transdisciplinarit y is a research methodology crossing several disciplinary boundaries, creating a holistic approach to solve complex problems. A transdisciplinary approach fosters bottom-up collaboration, provides an environment for mutual learning and enhances the knowledge of all participants (Klein et al., 2001 Summary and Synthesis). Transdisciplinarity is a relatively young term, first used just over fifty years ago at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) congress by Jean Piaget. Piaget’s 1972 essay describes it in a looser sense; as “a higher stage succeeding interdisciplinary relationships…without any firm boundaries between disciplines” (Piaget, 1972 p.135). Transdisciplinarity goes beyond interdisciplinarity through a fusion of academic and non-academic knowledge, theory and practice, discipline and profession (Doucet and Janssens, 2011). Stokols (2006) asserts transdisciplinarity is inextricability linked to action research; a term coined by Lewin (1946) as comparative research leading to social action. Lewin sought to empower and enhance the self-esteem of participants, which included residents of minority communities, through horizontal and democratic exchange between the researcher and participants. Familiar devices rooted in action research, such as surveys, questionnaires, and interviews are common in transdisciplinary research (Klein et al., 2001).  A transdisciplinary approach is broad and facilitates the provision of social need; and is therefore a useful tool in combination with community participation. This methodology has been used to address complex global concerns in recent decades, beginning with climate change and extending into many areas including policy and social problems (Bernstein, 2015). Lawrence et al. (2010) stress that in addressing community related issues such as housing, it is crucial a transdisciplinary approach is adopted not only to integrate various expert opinions but to ensure the inclusion of affected communities such as the residents themselves. Affordability and sustainability in housing is a complex social issue, therefore requiring such an approach to foster participation of non-academics to provide socially relevant solutions.     References Bernstein, J. H. (2015) ‘Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues’, Journal of Research Practice, 11(1).   Doucet, I. and Janssens, N. (2011) Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production: Towards Hybrid Modes of Inquiry in Architecture and Urbanism. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0104-5.   Klein, J. T. et al. (2001) Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. doi: 10.1007/978-3-0348-8419-8_2.   Lawrence, R. et al. (2010) ‘Beyond Disciplinary Confinement to Imaginative Transdisciplinarity’, in Tackling Wicked Problems Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination. London: Routledge, pp. 16–30.   Lewin, K. (1946) ‘Action Research and Minority Problems’, The Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), pp. 34–46. doi: 10.1037/10269-013.   Piaget, J. (1972) Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. Available at: https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED061895.   Stokols, D. (2006) ‘Toward a Science of Transdisciplinary Action Research’, American journal of community psychology, 38, pp. 63–77. doi: 10.1007/s10464-006-9060-5.

Created on 21-07-2021

Author: A.Davis (ESR1)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

To establish a definition of sustainability, what is first and foremost needed is to pinpoint the differences between two very similar terms: sustainability and sustainable development. While sustainability is the overall vision, sustainable development underlines the process of achieving it (Diesendorf, 2000). The UN has defined sustainable development as the effort to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). While the 1987 definition is a highly generalised term, it has undoubtedly kickstarted several debates around relevant terminology. However, it still fails to profoundly address the multiplicity of factors and variables that come in play when talking about sustainable development (Mebratu, 1998); what and whose needs? How are these needs shaped and influenced by the nature-culture and local-global spectrums as well as the socio-political realities from which they emerged?   To tackle the first question, “what and whose needs” what is needed is simply to ask; participation and inclusion in decision-making have been identified as inherent values in empowering communities (Jenkins & Forsyth, 2010), while the equitable inclusion of communities in all facets of creation (concept, decision-making, construction) and post-creation (maintenance & management) can enhance “individual and social well-being” (Turner, 2000). Participation can therefore be a key element in “repairing the natural relationship between people and place” (Hamdi, 1995).   When it comes to understanding and situating those needs within the complex realities in which they occur, a crucial asset is empathy. Empathy signifies the ability to shift between perspectives and form emotional bonds while enhancing the cognitive capacity of processing the emotional state of the other. This “can bring significant advances to understanding sustainability challenges” (Brown et al., 2019).   Finally, to provide a more specific term for sustainable development, the 1987 UN term can be rephrased as not only the effort to meet one’s needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same, but also the effort to identify, understand and contextualise those needs, connect and empathise with the people voicing them, and ultimately challenge the status quo, whenever needed ”.     Effrosyni Roussou - DRAFT     Reference List:   Brown, K. et al. (2019) Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability, Global Environmental Change, 56, pp. 11-17   Diesendorf, M. (2000), ‘Sustainability and sustainable development’, in Dunphy, D. Benveniste, J. Griffiths, A. and Sutton, P. (eds.) Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century, Sydney:  Allen & Unwin, pp. 19-37   Hamdi, N. (1995) Housing without Houses: Participation, Flexibility, Enablement Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing   Jenkins, P., Forsyth, L. (eds.). (2010) Architecture, Participation and Society. New York: Routledge   Mebratu, D. (1998) ‘Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(6), pp. 493–520   Turner, J.F.C. (2000) Housing by People: Towards autonomy in building environments. London: Marion Boyars Publishers Ltd   World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Created on 08-09-2021

Author: E.Roussou (ESR9)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

In a broader sense, co-creation means the joint effort of bringing something new to fruition through acts of collective creativity (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) which can be manifested in both tangible (making something together) or intangible (learning something together) outcomes (Puerari et al., 2018). Recently, the concepts of co-creation or co- production have been applied to describe the processes of participation in urban planning and design. Both terms place particular emphasis on the partnerships formed between citizens and the public sector, in which a high level of citizen involvement is pivotal. Participation has been defined through its different levels of citizen involvement, ranging from non-participation to greater degrees of citizen control (Arnstein, 1969) indicating the different levels of influence a participant can have on a participatory process. From the perspective of urban planning, citizen participation is beginning to be described as co-creation when citizens’ roles become more prominent, presenting aspects of self-organisation, increased commitment and a sense of ownership of the process (Puerari et al., 2018). Recent research is exploring new methods of urban planning in which citizens, the municipality and private organisations co-create new planning rules (Bisschops & Beunen, 2019). However, co-creation along with co-production and participation, often used interchangeably, have become popular catchphrases and are considered as processes which are of virtue in themselves. Furthermore, while there is substantial research on these processes, the research conducted on the outcomes of enhanced participation remains rather limited (Voorberg et al., 2015). This highlights the ambiguity in terms of interpretation; is co-creation a methodology, a set of tools to enhance and drive a process, or a goal in itself? (Puerari et al., 2018). There have often been cases where participation, co-creation and co-production have been used decoratively, as a form of justification and validation of decisions already made (Armeni, 2016). In the provision of public spaces, co-creation/co-production may specifically involve housing (Brandsen & Helderman, 2012; Chatterton, 2016) and placemaking: “placemaking in public space implies engaging in the practice of urban planning and design beyond an expert culture. Such collaboration can be described as co-creation.” (Eggertsen Teder, 2019, p.290). As in participation, co-creation requires the sharing of decision-making powers, the creation of  joint knowledge and the assignation of abilities between communities, while urban professionals and local authorities should draw attention to the active involvement of community members. Furthermore, co-creation does not take place in a vacuum, but always occurs within socio- spatial contexts. This points to the objective of co-creation as a tool to influence locally relevant policy through innovation that is “place-based”. To conclude, co-creation can be perceived as a process that is both transdisciplinary in its application, and as a tool for achieving transdisciplinarity on a broader scale through a systematic integration in existing standard practices in urban planning, housing design and architecture. Despite the persisting ambiguity in its definition, co-creation processes can provide more inclusive platforms for revisiting and informing formal and informal knowledge on sustainable and affordable housing.

Created on 16-02-2022

Author: E.Roussou (ESR9), A.Panagidis (ESR8)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, participation is “the act of taking part in an activity or event”. Likewise, it can also mean “the fact of sharing or the act of receiving or having a part of something.” It derives from old French participacion which in turn comes from late Latin participationem, which means “partaking” (Harper, 2000).  References to participation can be found in many fields, including social sciences, economics, politics, and culture. It is often related to the idea of citizenship and its different representations in society. Hence, it could be explained as an umbrella concept, in which several others can be encompassed, including methodologies, philosophical discourses, and tools. Despite the complexity in providing a holistic definition, the intrinsic relation between participation and power is widely recognised. Its ultimate objective is to empower those involved in the process (Nikkhah & Redzuan, 2009). An early application of participatory approaches was the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) which exerted a significant influence in developing new discourses and practices of urban settings (Chambers, 1994; Friedmann, 1994). In the late 1970s increasing attention was paid to the concept by scholars, and several associated principles and terminologies evolved, such as the participation in design and planning with the Scandinavian approach of cooperative design (Bφdker et al., 1995; Gregory, 2003). Participation in design or participatory design is a process and strategy that entails all stakeholders (e.g. partners, citizens, and end-users) partaking in the design process. It is a democratic process for design based on the assumption that users should be involved in the designs they will go on to use (Bannon & Ehn, 2012; Cipan, 2019; Sanoff, 2000, 2006, 2007). Likewise, participatory planning is an alternative paradigm that emerged in response to the rationalistic and centralized – top-down – approaches. Participatory planning aims to integrate the technical expertise with the preferences and knowledge of community members (e.g., citizens, non-governmental organizations, and social movements) directly and centrally in the planning and development processes, producing outcomes that respond to the community's needs (Lane, 2005). Understanding participation through the roles of participants is a vital concept. The work of Sherry Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation has long been the cornerstone to understand participation from the perspective of the redistribution of power between the haves and the have-nots. Her most influential typological categorisation work yet distinguishes eight degrees of participation as seen in Figure 1: manipulation, therapy, placation, consultation, informing, citizen control, delegated power and partnership. Applied to a participatory planning context, this classification refers to the range of influence that participants can have in the decision-making process. In this case, no-participation is defined as designers deciding based upon assumptions of the users’ needs and full-participation refers to users defining the quality criteria themselves (Geddes et al., 2019). A more recent classification framework that also grounds the conceptual approach to the design practice and its complex reality has been developed by Archon Fung (2006) upon three key dimensions: who participates; how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action. This three-dimensional approach which Fung describes as a democracy cube (Figure 2), constitutes a more analytic space where any mechanism of participation can be located. Such frameworks of thinking allow for more creative interpretations of the interrelations between participants, participation tools (including immersive digital tools) and contemporary approaches to policymaking. Aligned with Arnstein’s views when describing the lower rungs of the ladder (i.e., nonparticipation and tokenism), other authors have highlighted the perils of incorporating participatory processes as part of pre-defined agendas, as box-ticking exercises, or for political manipulation. By turning to eye-catching epithets to describe it (Participation: The New Tyranny? by Cooke & Kothari, 2001; or The Nightmare of Participation by Miessen, 2010), these authors attempt to raise awareness on the overuse of the term participation and the possible disempowering effects that can bring upon the participating communities, such as frustration and lack of trust. Examples that must exhort practitioners to reassess their role and focus on eliminating rather than reinforcing inequalities (Cooke & Kothari, 2001).

Created on 17-02-2022

Author: A.Pappa (ESR13), L.Ricaurte (ESR15), M.Alsaeed (ESR5)

Read more ->

Area: Policy and financing

Justice theory is as old as philosophical thought itself, but the contemporary debate often departs from the Rawlsian understanding of justice (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1990). Rawls (1971) argued that societal harmony depends on the extent to which community members believe their political institutions treat them justly. His First Principle of ‘justice as fairness’ relates to equal provision of ‘basic liberties’ to the population. His Second Principle, later referred to as the ‘Difference Principle’, comprises unequal distribution of social and economic goods to the extent that it benefits “the least advantaged” (Rawls, 1971, p. 266).1[1] As this notion added an egalitarian perspective to Rawlsian justice theory, it turned out to be the most controversial element of his work (Estlund, 1996). The idea of a ‘just transition’ was built on these foundations by McCauley and Heffron (2018), who developed an integrated framework overarching the ‘environmental justice’, ‘climate justice’ and ‘energy justice’ scholarships. The term was first used by trade unions warning for mass redundancies in carbon-intensive industries due to climate policies (Hennebert & Bourque, 2011), but has acquired numerous interpretations since. This is because the major transition of the 21st century, the shift towards a low-carbon society, will be accompanied by large disturbances in the existing social order. In this context, a just transition would ensure equity and justice for those whose livelihoods are most affected (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013). A just transition implies that the ‘least advantaged’ in society are seen, heard, and compensated, which corresponds with three key dimensions conceptualised by Schlosberg (2004): distributive, recognitional, and procedural justice. Distributive justice corresponds with Rawls’ Difference Principle and comprehends the just allocation of burdens and benefits among stakeholders, ranging from money to risks to capabilities. Recognitional justice is both a condition of justice, as distributive injustice mainly emanates from lacking recognition of different starting positions, as well as a stand-alone component of justice, which includes culturally or symbolically rooted patterns of inequity in representation, interpretation, and communication (Young, 1990). Fraser (1997) stressed the distinction between three forms: cultural domination, nonrecognition (or ‘invisibility’), and disrespect (or ‘stereotyping’). Procedural justice emphasises the importance of engaging various stakeholders – especially the ‘least advantaged’ – in governance, as diversity of perspectives allows for equitable policymaking. Three elements are at the core of this procedural justice (Gillard, Snell, & Bevan, 2017): easily accessible processes, transparent decision-making with possibilities to contest and complete impartiality. A critique of the just transition discourse is that it preserves an underlying capitalist structure of power imbalance and inequality. Bouzarovski (2022) points to the extensive top- down nature of retrofit programmes such as the Green New Deal, and notes that this may collide with bottom-up forms of housing repair and material intervention. A consensus on the just transition mechanism without debate on its implementation could perpetuate the status quo, and thus neglect ‘diverse knowledges’, ‘plural pathways’ and the ‘inherently political nature of transformations’ (Scoones et al., 2020). However, as Healy and Barry (2017) note, understanding how just transition principles work in practice could benefit the act of ‘equality- proofing’ and ‘democracy-proofing’ decarbonisation decisions. Essentially, an ‘unjust transition’ in the context of affordable and sustainable housing would refer to low-income households in poorly insulated housing without the means or the autonomy to substantially improve energy efficiency. If fossil fuel prices – either by market forces or regulatory incentives – go up, it aggravates their already difficult financial situation and could even lead to severe health problems (Santamouris et al., 2014). At the same time, grants for renovations and home improvements are poorly targeted and often end up in the hands of higher income ‘free-riding’ households, having regressive distributional impacts across Europe (Schleich, 2019). But even when the strive towards a just transition is omnipresent, practice will come with dilemmas. Von Platten, Mangold, and Mjörnell (2020) argue for instance that while prioritising energy efficiency improvements among low-income households is a commendable policy objective, putting them on ‘the frontline’ of retrofit experiments may also burden them with start-up problems and economic risks. These challenges only accentuate that shaping a just transition is not an easy task. Therefore, both researchers and policymakers need to enhance their understanding of the social consequences that the transition towards low-carbon housing encompasses. Walker and Day (2012) applied Schlosberg’s dimensions to this context. They conclude that distributive injustice relates to inequality in terms of income, housing and pricing, recognitional justice to unidentified energy needs and vulnerabilities, and procedural injustice to inadequate access to policymaking. Ensuring that the European Renovation Wave is made into a just transition towards affordable and sustainable housing therefore requires an in-depth study into distributive, recognitional and procedural justice. Only then can those intertwining dimensions be addressed in policies.   [1] To illustrate his thesis, he introduces the ‘veil of ignorance’: what if we may redefine the social scheme, but without knowing our own place? Rawls believes that most people, whether from self-interest or not, would envision a society with political rights for all and limited economic and social inequality.  

Created on 03-06-2022

Author: T.Croon (ESR11)

Read more ->

Related publications

Blogposts

Icon we-shape-our-buildings-and-afterwards-our-buildings-shape-us

'we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us'

Posted on 07-02-2023

An academic secondment developed within the RE-DWELL network represents a remarkable opportunity to expand the boundaries of local academic setups, to foster collaboration and exchange, and ultimately to sow the seeds of transdisciplinary research. In my case, I had the chance to spend these two months at the IUGA, Institut d'urbanisme et de géographie alpine, of Grenoble Alps University. This was not only the perfect excuse for me to finally pick up the diploma of my Master's degree I had done there a few years ago and could not get because of COVID, but also to be once again among geographers and urbanists in this contrasting conurbation, recently awarded green capital of Europe, surrounded by the Alps, traversed by hundreds of kilometres of bike paths and coloured by vivid street art murals.    The time there allowed me to refine but also problematise the conceptual and methodological framework of my research project. Oftentimes this can become one of the most challenging tasks in an investigation, and concepts such as theory, conceptual framework, methodology, etc. can be intimidating and difficult to handle. I decided to use some of the time I spent there and in view of a paper that I had to submit to the RE-DWELL conference, to re-imagine a possible different approach to assessing the social value of housing design through Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE).   In recent decades, architecture geographers have questioned the way buildings and urban spaces are studied. Focusing on their impact on society and on their users, they have used qualitative methods to conduct studies of life and everyday patterns of behaviour within spaces, providing a scholarship and expertise that could be used to better understand the impact of residential architecture through POE. The methodology of researchers such as Jacobs, who see buildings as "occupied performative events" (Jacobs, 2006, p.10), is particularly compelling. They view the process of meaning-making as one that is negotiated through socially mediated practises of everyday life. Accordingly, buildings are not static objects but living entities that are 'made' or 'unmade'. Therefore, a building is understood as such as long as its users and the systems that make it up reaffirm their relationships on a daily basis. Buildings and people are part of an assemblage where time also plays an essential role. In a way, this is not far from what Stewart Brand (1995) wanted to convey with the 'Shearing layers of change'. If buildings are made up of complex systems that are intertwined with their users, the methods needed to study them must be able to capture these intricate relationships, which cannot be explained exclusively from either a social or a technical perspective.   These authors used actor-network theory ANT to formulate their investigations. This methodological approach to the analysis of inhabited spaces allows for a very complex representation of the various relationships that can exist between systems and inhabitants within buildings. The so-called 'building events' are the vehicle used by Jacobs et al. (2010), Lees & Baxter (2011) and Rose et al. (2010) to go about the investigation of the built environment by looking at the feel of buildings, feelings in buildings and feelings about buildings in a very detailed way (Rose et al., 2010), complemented by ethnographic methods and participant observation. These methods enabled them to unpack very revealing accounts of the experiences of housing estate residents, in which architectural features of key spaces within the realm of the housing estate are catalysts for human emotions that transcend the boundaries of physical space. Narratives that provide complementary insights into the territorialisation of feelings and emotions and the impact of places on citizens' quality of life.   The way architects and other professionals involved in design do research on the built environment can benefit enormously by adopting systematic research methods in collaboration with academics. POE can become the backbone of the strategy that allows us to demonstrate the value we co-create and sustain learning loops within the praxis. And as this brief account shows, geographers can open up new avenues of collaboration through research that will hopefully yield a fuller picture of the relationships between people and the places they inhabit.   References. Brand, S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Penguin.   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   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   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

Author: L.Ricaurte (ESR15)

Secondments

Read more ->