The development of a space-time relationship was a revolution during the Modern Movement. How to incorporate the time variable into architecture became a fundamental matter throughout the twentieth century and had a tremendous influence in the Team 10’s research and practice. Following this concern, Herman Hertzberger aimed to give response to the change and growth of architecture by incorporating spatial polyvalency in his projects. During the same period, John Habraken published “The three R’s for Housing” and “Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing”. He supported the idea that the dwelling should be an act as opposed to a product, and that the architect’s role should be to deliver a system through which the users could accommodate their individual ways of living. In housing, he proposed to differentiate between 2 spheres of control: the support which would represent all the communal decisions about housing, and the infill that would represent the individual decisions. The Diagoon Houses, built between 1967 and 1971, follow this warp and weft idea, where the warp establishes the main order of the fabric in a way it enables the greatest variety with the weft, giving each other a purpose.   Opposed to the standardization of mass-produced housing based on stereotypical patterns of life which cannot accommodate heterogeneous groups, to models in which the form follows the function and the possibility of change is not considered, Hertzberger’s initial argument was that the design of a house should not constrain the way of inhabiting of the user, but it should allow for a set of different possibilities throughout time in an optimal way. He believed that what matters in the form is its intrinsic capability and potential as a vehicle of significance, allowing the user to create its own interpretations of the space.   The experimental carcase houses were delivered as an incomplete house, an unfinished framework in which the users could decide how to divide the space in it, where the sleeping and eating areas will be, and adjust or enlarge the house if the composition of the family changed over time. The Diagoon Houses consist of two intertwined volumes with two cores containing the staircase, toilet, kitchen and bathroom. The fact that the floors in each volume are separated only by half a story creates a spatial articulation between the living units that allows for many optimal solutions. Hertzberger develops the support responding to the collective patterns of life, which are primary necessities to every human being. This enables the living units at each half floor to take on any function, given that the primary needs are covered by the main support. He demonstrates the internal arrangements can be adapted to the inhabitants’ individual interpretations of the space and proves it with some possible distributions. Each living unit can incorporate an internal partition, leaving an interior balcony looking into the central living hall that runs the full height of the house, lighting up the space through a rooflight. The construction system proposed by Herztberger is a combination of in-situ and mass-produced elements, maximising the use of prefabricated concrete blocks for the vertical elements to allow future modifications or additions. The Diagoon facades were designed as a framework that could incorporate easily different prefabricated infill panels that, previously selected to comply with the set regulations, would always result in a consistent façade composition. This allowance for variation at a minimal cost due to the use of prefabricated components and the design of open structures, sets the foundations of the mass customization paradigm.   While the internal interventions allow the users to covert the house to fit their individual needs, the external elements of the facade and garden could as well be adapted but required a mutual decision with the rest of the neighbours, reinforcing the dependency of people on one another and creating sense of community. This case study proves that true value of participation lies in the effects it creates in its participants. The same living spaces when seen from different eyes at different situations, resulted in unique arrangements and acquired different significance. User participation has an emotional involvement of the inhabitant with its surroundings, the more the inhabitant adapts the space to their needs, the more he will be inclined to lavish care and value the things around him. But for this to occur with a fluent communication, there is a need for a common language. In this particular case, the individual identity of each household lied in their unique way of interpreting a specific function, that depended on multiple factors as the place, time or circumstances. Since it would be impossible to tailor everyone’s desires, Herztberger believed that housing should be designed in such way that would create potential for interpretation. User participation has become one of the biggest achievements of social architecture, it is an approach by which many universal norms can be left aside to introduce the diversity of individuals and the aspirations of a plural society.   After inhabiting the house for two decades, the residents of the Diagoon Houses were interviewed and all of them agreed that the house suggested the exploration of different arrangements, experiencing it as “captivating, playful and challenging”1. There was a general approval about the characteristic spatial and visual connection between the living units, although some users had placed internal partitions. Finally, there were divergent opinions with regards to the housing finishing, some thought that the house should be worked and completed, while others believed that it looked better if it was not conventionally perfect. This ability to integrate different possibilities has proven that Hertzberger’s experimental houses was a success, enhancing inclusivity and social cohesion.   The Diagoon Houses highlight that the meaningfulness of architecture should be subject to how it contributes to improve the living conditions and circumstances of the society.   1 Hatch, R. (1984). The Scope of social architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 

Challenge and Context  Over the last decades, international and national environmental policies are targeted to counteract the impact of the emerging climate change, driving many cities around the globe to strategically plan to adapt their urban environment. On a local level, targeted solutions play a catalytic role on the urban microclimate, especially in densely built areas lacking green. Such nature-based solutions as well as comprehensive green and blue infrastructure strategies can counteract the effects of the upward of temperature and provide resilience to cities and inhabitants (Roehr & Laurenz, 2008). However, their implementation and maintenance is confronted with many challenges, such as administrative limitations and lack of awareness or acceptance by the local stakeholders and residents (Hagen et al., 2021; Tötzer et al., 2019).     Working to address this challenge in a holistic manner, the LiLa4Green project, as part of the Smart Cities Initiative, aims to foster the implementation of nature-based solutions in the city of Vienna, by integrating a LL approach that focuses on social innovation and knowledge-sharing. The main goals of the project include the collaborative identification of challenges and potentials, the implementation of co-created solutions in the streetscape and the visualisation of the effects of potential solutions in a creative way to raise awareness and activate participants (Hagen et al., 2021).   The project is funded by the Climate and Energy Fund and is carried out by an interdisciplinary consortium consisting of research, academic and community partners. The project is tested in two residential neighbourhoods, ‘Quellenstraße Ost’ in the 10th district and ‘Kreta’ in the 14th district of Vienna. Both neighbourhoods are characterised by dense urban structure and deficiency in open public and green space, while the local population consists predominantly of young, immigrant groups of low levels of income and education and a high unemployment rate (Hagen et al., 2019).  Methodological Approach  Methodologically, the project is elaborated in two parts. The first refers to a scientific approach conducted by the research consortium. This initiated with the open space and microclimatic analysis of the areas, the results of which were seen in context with the climate of the whole city, concluding to the areas’ characterisation. Focusing on the example of first area, a demarcation as ‘vulnerable with respect to densification’ (Tötzer et al., 2019, p. 3) reflects the high density and bioclimatic stress of the neighbourhood. This analytical process offered valuable insights in identifying priority spots, i.e., small-scale heat islands, and was followed by discussion on greening potentials and recommendations corresponding to the areas’ needs and characteristics.     In parallel, a participatory process was initiated in the focus areas to foster the scientific findings with the experience embedded in the residents and local stakeholders with regards to the most problematic locations in the neighbourhood. At the same time, through the establishment of the LL as an alternative to top-down city planning strategies, the role of the residents and stakeholders was elevated from feedback-providers to co-creators.    Towards this direction, the LL investigated ways to raise public awareness on mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change and ensure a broad acceptance for the green-blue infrastructure among the general public, through designing and testing multiple and diverse smart user participation and visualisation methods. A combination of innovative methods of social science with the latest digital technology was put forward to facilitate the dissemination of information of the diverse functionalities of green and free spaces, testing also new methods of visualisation of the effects, such as Augmented and Virtual Reality, for more informed decisions (www.lila4green.at). Focusing further on the ‘visibility’ and ‘traceability’ (Hagen et al., 2021, p. 393) of the added value of the potential interventions, the monitoring phase included a combination of measurements, simulations and surveys, while in the assessment phase, innovative tools such as crowdsourcing and maps were employed to correlate multiple measurements such as costs and maintenance requirements.   Activities  The innovative methodology was tested in practice in a range of different activities organised by the LL that opened the research to citizens and stakeholders in an interactive format. The participatory process initiated with the LiLa4Green research-team coming together to design the participatory process, select the most suitable methods and strategies (LL) and set the context of the LL-process. The operation of the LL kicked-off with the ‘Start Workshop’, a knowledge-gathering meeting among the research team and the relevant stakeholders (representatives of municipal agencies and local institutions), which focused on the discussion of constrains, potentials within the project area and mutual benefits.   This introductory event was followed by the four cornerstones of the project, namely the ‘Green Workshops’ (GWs) that took place every 6 months and involved the research-team, stakeholders and the citizens. In preparation of each of these four events, a set of activities was organised on site, related to the objectives of the foregoing events, as well as the results of the previous ones. These activities were assembled earlier as a pool of collected and filtered participatory methods that could suit and adapt to each stage. For instance, before the first Green Workshop that focused on ‘sharing information, building mutual understanding and establishing social connections’ (Tötzer et al., 2019, p. 5), the research-team conducted on site activation activities which included the creation of a temporary space for conversations using pictures, signs and questions to approach the people passing by, also engaging them through game-like activities of mapping and voting.  The first workshop started and concluded with the dissemination of the same survey, aiming to record the changes in the perception of participants on the topic and hence the success of the workshop in the transfer of knowledge. The workshop was organised into two parts that differentiated on the flow of knowledge from the research group to the participants and reversely, using posters, a memory set and a flyer as tools for communication.   Taking on the feedback from the first workshop, the second focused on the realisation of the first urban intervention, a parklet, that was developed as a student project at intended design studios at the TU Wien and democratically selected by the participants of the LL. In the second part, a smart interaction tool was set up and tested visualisations of potential greening interventions through an AR technology, enabling user feedback through the tool.  Having built trust between the participants and the research team, the third workshop aimed at the identification of potentials in the open space through gamification. The participants designed adaptation activities to respond to the scientifically identified conditions and further grounded their decisions to real restrictions, such as budget. In the same workshop, participants tested the AR tool that was further developed by the research-team according to the feedback from the second workshop.   Finally, the fourth workshop related to the collective implementation of developed ideas. Due to the pandemic outbreak the workshop was transferred in a digital format and the results were eventually implemented in the summer 2020.   Communication and Sharing Experience  Parallel to the workshops and activities, the consortium gave a great value in the communication and dissemination of LiLa4Green within and outside the focus areas, organising a frequent newsletter and an Explain Video to attract and maintain participants’ motivation, surveys and questionnaires to incorporate the feedback for the next stages, as well as a website to share experiences. Furthermore, the team composed a brochure titled ‘In 5 Schritten Zum Guten Klima MIT LILA4GREEN’ (LiLa4Green, n.d.) to summarise the smart participation methodology in five steps: 1. Prepare the ground & initiate the process, 2. Share knowledge & learn together, 3. Decide & create trust, 4. Designing the future in a playful way, 5. Specify and implement together. Lastly, aiming to open the embedded knowledge and experiences with the scientific community, the research-team is active in conferences, presentations, lectures and journals.  

The neighborhood movement The cooperative housing model in Spain played a particular role during the 1960s-1970s when people in search of affordable housing explored cooperative schemes extensively (Quaderns, 2014). After the economic recession of 2008 and the burst of the real estate bubble, people started questioning many generally accepted notions of identity, collectively and of social and cultural needs (Baraona Pohl, 2017). At that moment, many social movements emerged as a reaction, such as the "Platform for Mortgage Victims" (Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca, known as PAH). An important experiment inspired by these movements was La Borda, located in the neighborhood of Sants, at a plot that forms part of Can Batlló, a former industrial site built in the late nineteenth century. The project occurred as a reaction from a neighborhood movement to a process of urban renewal which the residents felt that was going against their interests and needs, causing distraction and fear of the loss of the local identity. This was the reason the neighborhood movement ‘Recuperem Can Batllo’ took the initiative to occupy the site, demonstrating the importance of the local communities’ opinions in the processes of urban development. The case of La Borda manifests how urban movements can achieve greater control in the process of recuperation and regeneration of an existing urban area to imagine and build spaces that reflect their values and needs (Avilla-Royo et al., 2021). Active participation The project started in 2012 as a result of informal meetings, with an initial core of 15 people, consisting of actors who were already active in the neighborhood, including members of the architectural cooperative "Lacol", members of the labour cooperative "La Ciutat invisible", members of the association "Sostre Civic" and people from different association movements in the area. After a long process of public participation and negotiation with the municipality of Barcelona, an agreement was signed in 2014, and the group opened to new members, arriving from 15 to 45. After another two years of work, the construction started in 2017 and the first residents entered in 2018. The word participation often appears as a buzzword, as it is being co-opted to refer to processes of consultation or manipulation of the participants to legitimise decisions, thus ending up as an empty signifier. By identifying the hierarchies entailed in such processes, we can recognize higher levels of participation, based on horizontality, reciprocity, and mutual respect where participants not only have equal access in forming a decision but are also able to take control and self-manage the whole process. This was the case of La Borda, a project that followed a democratic participation process, self-development, and self-management. Another important element was the transdisciplinary way in which the group collaborated with architects, environmental engineers, local organisations, and professionals from the social economy sector with whom they were sharing the same ideals and values. According to Avilla-Royo et al. (2021) greater involvement and agency of dwellers throughout the lifetime of a project is a key characteristic of the cooperative housing movement in Barcelona. In that way, the group collectively discussed, imagined, and developed the housing environment that best covered their needs in typological, material, economic or managerial terms. The group of forty-five people was divided into different working committees to discuss the diverse topics that were part of the housing scheme: architecture, cohabitation, economic model, legal policies, communication, and internal management. These committees formed the basis for a decision-making assembly. The committees would adapt throughout the process as new needs would arise, for example, the “architectural” committee that was responsible for the building development, was converted into a “maintenance and self-building” committee once the building was inhabited. Apart from the specific committees, the general assembly was also taking place, where all the subgroups will present and discuss their work. All adult members had to be part of one committee and meet every two weeks. The members’ involvement in the co-creation and management of the cooperative significantly reduced the costs and helped in creating the social cohesion needed for such a project to succeed. The legal model The tenure model that is being used is under the term "cession of use" or "grant of use", which refers to the right of the tenants to occupy a housing unit without having ownership of the property. The examples of the Andel model from Denmark (Cooperativa de Cesión de Uso, 2018; Estado de La Vivienda Cooperativa En  Cesión de Uso En Cataluña, 2021)and the FUCVAM model from Uruguay (FUCVAM – Cooperativas de Vivienda Por Ayuda Mutua, n.d.) are the two key references that were studied for the development of a similar model adapted in the Spanish context. At the same time, previous cooperative projects in Catalonia were studied as references, such as Cal Cases (Cal Cases, 2020). The leasehold with Barcelona's City Council leased the plot to the cooperative for 75 years with the obligation of an annual fee. After this period the property will return to the municipality, or a new agreement should be signed. As the project is constructed on public land and is classified as “State-Subsidized Housing” (HPO), all the members had to comply with social housing requirements, such as having a maximum monthly income and not owning property. Also, since it is characterised as HPO there is a celling to the monthly fee to be charged for the use of the housing unit, thus keeping the housing accessible to groups with lower economic power. This makes this scheme a way to provide social housing with the active participation of the community, keeping the property public in the long term. The cooperative model of “cession of use” means that all residents are members of the cooperative, which owns the building. Being members means that they are the ones to make decisions about how it operates, including legal, legislative, and economic issues as well as issues concerning the infrastructure. The fact that the members are not owners offers protection and provides for non-speculative development, as sub-letting or transfer of use is not possible. In the case that someone decides to leave, the apartment returns to the cooperative which then decides on the new resident. This is a model that promotes long-term affordability as it prevents housing from being privatized using a condominium scheme. The building The cooperative group together with architects and the rest of the team, and after a series of workshops and discussions, concluded on the needs of the dwellers and on the distribution of the private and communal spaces. A general strategy was to remove area -and functions- from the private apartments and create bigger community spaces that could be enjoyed by everyone. Thus, out of the 2950 m2 of the total built environment, 280 m2 are devoted to communal spaces (10% of the total built area). They are placed around the central courtyard and include a community kitchen and dining room, a multipurpose room, a laundry room, a co-working space, a guests’ room, shared terraces, a small community garden, storage rooms, and bicycle parking. The private apartments are 28 with three typologies (40,50 and 76 m2), covering the needs of different households, such as single adults, adult cohabitation, families, or single parents with kids. The grid upon which the apartments are based as well as the modular structure offers flexibility for future modification of the size of the apartments. In relation to the structure, the objective was to create an environmentally sustainable solution and minimize the embedded carbon. For that, the foundation was created as close to the surface as possible, using suspended flooring a meter above the ground to aid with the insulation. Also, the structure of cross-laminated timber (CLT) was used after the ground floor, which was made of concrete, and for the next six floors, having the advantage of being lightweight and low-carbon. The CLT was used for both the flooring and the foundation. In relation to the materials, there was an emphasis on the optimization of the building solutions, by using less quantity for the same purpose, using recycled and recyclable materials, and reusing waste (Cooperativa d’habitatges La Borda, 2020)Also, the cooperative used industrialized elements and applied waste management, separation, and monitoring. According to interviews from the architectural cooperative (Lacol arquitectura cooperativa, 2020), an important element for minimizing the construction cost was the substitute of the underground parking, which was mandatory from the local legislation when you exceed a certain number of housing units, with overground parking for bicycles. La Borda was the first development that succeeded not only in being exempted from this legal obligation but also in convincing the municipality of Barcelona to change the legal framework so that new cooperative or social housing developments can obtain an “A” energy ranking without having to construct underground parking. Energy performance In terms of energy consumption, the project aimed in reducing the energy demand by prioritizing passive strategies. This was pursued with the bioclimatic design of the building with the covered courtyard as an element that plays a central role, as it offers cross ventilation during the warm months and acts as a greenhouse during the cold months. Another passive strategy was enhanced insulation which exceeds the proposed regulation level. The climate comfort proposal occurred as a result of surveys with the future tenants. According to the first data that was gathered from the Arkenova monitoring system and with support from the Barcelona energy office, the total average energy consumption of electricity, DHW, and heating per m² of homes in La Borda is 20.25 kWh / m², which is a reduction of 68% compared to a block of similar characteristics in the Mediterranean area, which is 62.61 kWh / m² (Com de Sostenible Realment És La Borda?, 2020). Finally, renewable energy is being used with the recent installation of solar panels. Scalability According to (Cabré & Andrés, 2018), the initiative was a result of three contextual factors. First and foremost, La Borda appeared in response to the housing crisis that was especially acute in Barcelona. Secondly, at that time there was a momentum when social economy was being promoted and a cooperative movement in relation to affordable housing emerged. Finally, the moment coincided with a strong neighbourhood movement related to the urban renewal of the industrial site of Can Batllo. La Borda, being a bottom-up, self-initiated project is not only a housing cooperative case but also an example of social innovation that has multiple objectives apart from the main which is the provision of affordable housing. The novel way that the group invented for addressing the housing crisis in Barcelona, being the first one to use this kind of leasehold in Spain has a particular value of social innovation. The process that was followed was innovative as the group had to co-create the project, including the co-design and self-construction, negotiate with the municipality the cession of land, and develop the financial models for the project. The project is aiming in integrating with the neighbourhood and not creating a niche project, opening possibilities for scaling up and diffusion, as for example with the committee for public sharing that organizes open days and lectures. In the end, by fostering the community’s understanding of housing issues, urban governance, and by seeking sustainable solutions, learning to resolve conflicts, negotiate and self-manage as well as developing mutual support networks and peer learning, these types of projects appear as outcomes but also as drivers of social transformation.

DARE to build is a 5-week (1 week of design – 4 weeks of construction) elective summer course offered at the Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering at Chalmers University of Technology. Through a practice-based approach and a subsequent exposure to real-world problems, DARE to Build aims to prove that “real change can be simultaneously made and learned” (ACE135 (Dare to Build - Architects) Course Syllabus 2021, 2021; ACE160 (Dare to Build - Engineers) Course Syllabus 2021, 2021). The identified challenge that this course aims to tackle is the increasing need for effective multidisciplinary teams in the fields of architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) in order to tackle the ever-growing complexity of real-world problems (Mcglohn et al., 2014), and the subsequent lack of a strong pedagogical framework that responds effectively to this challenge. The two main foci of the DARE to Build pedagogical model are (1) to train students in interdisciplinary communication, to cultivate empathy and appreciation for each field’s contribution, and to sharpen their collaboration skills, (Tran et al., 2012) and (2) to expose students in practice-based, real-world design problems, through a problem-and-project-based learning (PPBL) approach, within a multi-stakeholder learning environment (Wiek et al., 2014). This multi-stakeholder environment consists mainly of the municipality of Gothenburg, through its different branches and services (Stadsbyggnadskontoret, Park och Naturförvaltningen etc.), local/regional housing companies (Familjebostäder, Bostadsbolaget), professionals/collectives operating within the AEC fields (ON/OFF Berlin, COWI etc.), and local residents and their associations (Hyresgästföreningen, Tidsnätverket i Bergsjön etc.) Design & Build through CDIO The design and build studio model that DARE to Build adopts, functions as the connecting element between the two foci; by showcasing that “building, making and designing are intrinsic to each other” (Stonorov et al., 2018, p. 1), students are encouraged to translate theory into practice and reflect on the implications of their design decisions, and subsequently on their role as AEC professionals, in relation to local and global sustainability, from feasibility within a set timeframe to the intangible qualities generated or channelled through specific design decisions in specific contexts. This hands-on learning environment is organised through the CDIO framework (conceive, design, implement, operate), with a heavy focus on the “implement” part. CDIO has been developed over the past years as a reforming tool for engineering education, and is grounded on three main goals: (1) acquire a thorough knowledge of technical fundamentals, (2) sharpen leadership and initiative-taking skills, and (3) become aware of the important role research and technological advancement can play in design decisions (Crawley et al., 2014). Therefore, design and build, combined with CDIO offers a well-rounded experience that aspires to fully equip future professionals for assuming a well-informed and confident role within AEC. Course structure DARE to Build projects are initially developed during the autumn semester as student projects of the “Design and Planning for Social Inclusion” (DPSI) studio. Supported by a strong network of stakeholders, this studio employs co-creation and co-evaluation methodologies to address a set of reality-anchored projects, the ideas for which are co-developed between the studio leaders and the aforementioned stakeholders. Students work closely with the stakeholders throughout the semester and after the completion of the studio, one project is selected to become the DARE to Build project for that year, based on (1) stakeholder interest and funding capacity, (2) pedagogical opportunities and (3) feasibility of construction. During the in-between months, the project is broken down and re-worked, mainly by the teaching staff, with the occasional contribution of the original DPSI student team and professionals with relevant expertise to each project. The purpose of this is to establish a number of parameters and guidelines, in order to facilitate the 1-week design process for the DARE to Build. The course addresses master-level students from 5 different master programmes offered at the Architecture and Civil Engineering Department. During the building phase, this group of students is usually joined by a team of 10-15 local (to the extent that this is possible), summer workers, aged between 16-21 years old, employed by the stakeholders (either by the Municipality of Gothenburg or by a local housing company). The aim of this collaboration is both to have a substantial amount of workforce on site and to create a working environment where students are simultaneously learning and teaching, therefore enhancing their sense of responsibility. DARE to Build has also collaborated -in pre-pandemic times- with RICE University in Texas; 10-15 bachelor level engineering students would join the course as an abroad educational summer experience. The timeline for each year’s DARE to Build project evolution can be schematically represented through CDIO (adapted from the courses’ syllabi): Conceive: Developed through a participatory process within the design studio Design and Planning for Social Inclusion, in the Autumn Design: (1) Teaching staff & co. sets design and material parameters, (2) student participants detail and redesign some elements of the original project, as well as create scheduling schematics, building site logistical plans, budget logs, etc Implement: The actual construction of the building is planned, executed and finished. All necessary building documentation is produced in order to sustain an informed and competent building process Operate: The completed built project is handed over to the stakeholders and local community. All necessary final documentation for the operability of the project is produced and completed (as-built drawings etc). During both the design and construction process, students assume different responsibilities, in the form of different roles, in daily rotation: Project manager, site supervisor, communications officer, and food & fika (=coffee break) gurus. Through detailed documentation, each team passes on to the next day’s team everything relating to the project’s progress, the needs and potential material deficits. Food and collective eating is an important aspect of connecting with each other and an effective team-bonding activity throughout the course.  Learning Outcomes The learning outcomes are divided into three different sets to fit with the overall vision of DARE to Build (adapted from the course syllabi): Knowledge and understanding: identify and explain a project’s life cycle, relate applied architectural design to sustainability, describe different approaches to sustainable design Abilities & Skills: be able to employ co-creation methods, design and assess concrete solutions, visualise and communicate proposals, apply previously gained knowledge to real-world projects, critically review architectural/technical solutions, work in multidisciplinary teams Assessment & Attitude: be able to motivate different proposals on a scientific and value-based argumentation, to combine knowledge from different disciplines, to consider and review conditions for effective teamwork, to further develop critical thinking and reflections on professional role The context of operations: Miljonprogrammet The context in which DARE to Build operates, is the so-called “Million Homes Programme” areas (MHP, in Swedish: Miljonprogrammet) of suburban Gothenburg. The MHP was an ambitious state-subsidised response both to the rapidly growing need for cheap, high-quality housing that defined post-war Swedish urban life, but also to the firm belief that intensified housing production would be relevant and necessary in the future (Baeten et al., 2017; Hall & Vidén, 2005). MHP was a plan to provide one million dwellings within a decade (1965-1974) and subsequently Sweden became the country that provided the highest number of dwellings per capita in the world (KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2017). During the peak years of the Swedish welfare state, as this period is often described, public housing companies, with the help from private contractors built dwellings would target any potential home-seeker, regardless of income or class. Rent subsidies were available based on income and number of children, so that in theory everyone could have access to a modern, full of cutting-edge -at the time- amenities, suburban life and income segregation could be avoided(Places for People - Gothenburg, 1971). The long-term perspective of MHP also meant profound alterations in the urban landscape; inner city homes in poor condition were demolished, entire new satellite districts were constructed from scratch triggering “the largest wave of housing displacement in Sweden’s history, albeit firmly grounded in a social-democratic conviction of social betterment for all” (Baeten et al., 2017, p. 637) . However, as the oil crisis of the late 1970s hit and economic growth was abruptly halted, what used to be attractive, modern areas, were gradually neglected and became on one hand second-class homes, shunned by the majority of (white) Swedish home-seekers, and on the other an affordable option for the rapidly increasing number of immigrants arriving in Sweden between 1980-2000, which resulted in a high level of segregation in Swedish cities (Baeten et al., 2017). Nowadays, the MHP areas are home to multi-cultural, mostly low income, immigrant and refugee communities. The media narratives of the past decades have systematically racialised, stigmatised and demonised the suburbs and portrayed them as cradles of criminal activity and delinquency, laying the ground for an increasingly militirised discourse (Thapar-Björkert et al., 2019). The withdrawal of the welfare state from these areas is manifested through the poor maintenance of the housing stock and the surrounding public places, the diminishing public facilities (healthcare centres, marketplaces, libraries etc), facts that are often individualised and attributed to the “culturally different” inhabitants and the unwillingness of people to work in these areas due to the “highly unsafe” environment. In recent years, the gradual (neo)liberalisation of the Swedish housing regime has provided room for yet another wave of displacement, albeit this time with no social criteria. The public housing companies that own MHP stock have started to market their stock to potential private investors through large scale renovations and paired with law reforms that allow private companies to reject rent control, MHP areas are entering a phase of brutal gentrification (Baeten et al., 2017). Notable DARE to Build projects Gärdsåsmosse uteklassrum: An outdoor classroom in Bergsjön conceptualised through a post-humanist perspective and constructed on the principles of biomimicry, and with the use of almost exclusively natural materials. Visit: https://www.chalmers.se/sv/institutioner/ace/nyheter/Sidor/Nu-kan-undervisningen-dra-at-skogen.aspx https://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/cowi/pressreleases/cowi-hjaelpte-goeteborgs-stad-foervandla-moerk-park-till-en-plats-att-ha-picknick-i-2920358   Parkourius: A parkour playground for the children and teens of the Merkuriusgatan neighbourhood in Bergsjön. A wooden construction that employs child-friendly design. Visit: https://www.sto-stiftung.de/de/content-detail_112001.html https://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/familjebostader-goteborg-se/pressreleases/snart-invigs-bergsjoens-nya-parkourpark-3111682   Conclusions Within such a sensitive and highly complex context, both DARE to Build, and Design & Planning for Social Inclusion aspire to elevate Chalmers University of Technology to an influential local actor and spatial agent within the shifting landscape of the MHP areas, thus highlighting the overall importance of academic institutions having strong, multi-faceted and direct connection with the “real-world”. Even though participation and co-creation methodologies are strong in all Design and Planning for Social Inclusion projects, DARE to Build has still some ground to cover. The critical months that follow after the selection of the project and up to first week of design within DARE to Build, is a time when a project may change direction completely in order to fit the pedagogical and feasibility criteria. This fragmented participation and involvement, especially of those with the least power within the hierarchy of stakeholder, risks resulting in interventions towards which local residents have no sense of ownership or pride, especially in a context where outsider intervention or top-down interventions is met with increased suspicion and distrust. Overall DARE to Build is an important study case in the way in which design and build and context-based education are performed and can inform future similar activities within academia.

Background An aspect that is worth highlighting of Marmalade Lane, the biggest cohousing community in the UK and the first of its kind in Cambridge, is the unusual series of events that led to its realisation. In 2005 the South Cambridgeshire District Council approved the plan for a major urban development in its Northwest urban fringe. The Orchard Park was planned in the area previously known as Arbury Park and envisaged a housing-led mix-use master plan of at least 900 homes, a third of them planned as affordable housing. The 2008 financial crisis had a profound impact on the normal development of the project causing the withdrawal of many developers, with only housing associations and bigger developers continuing afterwards. This delay and unexpected scenario let plots like the K1, where Marmalade Lane was erected, without any foreseeable solution. At this point, the city council opened the possibilities to a more innovative approach and decided to support a Cohousing community to collaboratively produce a brief for a collaborative housing scheme to be tendered by developers. Involvement of users and other stakeholders   The South Cambridgeshire District Council, in collaboration with the K1 Cohousing group, ventured together to develop a design brief for an innovative housing scheme that had sustainability principles at the forefront of the design. Thus, a tender was launched to select an adequate developer to realise the project. In July 2015, the partnership formed between Town and Trivselhus ‘TOWNHUS’ was chosen to be the developer. The design of the scheme was enabled by Mole Architects, a local architecture firm that, as the verb enable indicates, collaborated with the cohousing group in the accomplishment of the brief. The planning application was submitted in December of the same year after several design workshop meetings whereby decisions regarding interior design, energy performance, common spaces and landscape design were shared and discussed. The procurement and development process was eased by the local authority’s commitment to the realisation of the project. The scheme benefited from seed funding provided by the council and a grant from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). The land value was set on full-market price, but its payment was deferred to be paid out of the sales and with the responsibility of the developer of selling the homes to the K1 Cohousing members. Who, in turn, were legally bounded to purchase and received discounts for early buyers. As relevant as underscoring the synergies that made Marmalade Lane’s success story possible, it is important to realise that there were defining facts that might be very difficult to replicate in order to bring about analogue housing projects. Two major aspects are securing access to land and receiving enough support from local authorities in the procurement process. In this case, both were a direct consequence of a global economic crisis and the need of developing a plot that was left behind amidst a major urban development plan. Innovative aspects of the housing design Spatially speaking, the housing complex is organised following the logic of a succession of communal spaces that connect the more public and exposed face of the project to the more private and secluded intended only for residents and guests. This is accomplished by integrating a proposed lane that knits the front and rear façades of some of the homes to the surrounding urban fabric and, therefore, serves as a bridge between the public neighbourhood life and the domestic everyday life. The cars have been purposely removed from the lane and pushed into the background at the perimeter of the plot, favouring the human scale and the idea of the lane as a place for interaction and encounters between residents. A design decision that depicts the community’s alignment with sustainable practices, a manifesto that is seen in other features of the development process and community involvement in local initiatives. The lane is complemented by numerous and diverse places to sit, gather and meet; some of them designed and others that have been added spontaneously by the inhabitants offering a more customisable arrangement that enriches the variety of interactions that can take place. The front and rear gardens of the terraced houses contiguous to the lane were reduced in surface and remained open without physical barriers. A straightforward design decision that emphasises the preponderance of the common space vis-a-vis the private, blurring the limits between both and creating a fluid threshold where most of the activities unfold. The Common House is situated adjacent to the lane and congregates the majority of the in-doors social activities in the scheme, within the building, there are available spaces for residents to run community projects and activities. They can cook in a communal kitchen to share both time and food, or organise cinema night in one of the multi-purpose areas. A double-height lounge and children's playroom incite gathering with the use of an application to organise easily social events amongst the inhabitants. Other practical facilities are available such as a bookable guest bedroom and shared laundry. The architecture of its volume stands out due to its cubic-form shape and different lining material that complements its relevance as the place to convene and marks the transition to the courtyard where complementary outdoor activities are performed. Within the courtyard, children can play without any danger and under direct supervision from adults, but at the same time enjoy the liberty and countless possibilities that such a big and open space grants. Lastly, the housing typologies were designed to recognise multiple ways of life and needs. Consequently, adaptability and flexibility were fundamental targets for the architects who claim that units were able to house 29 different configurations. They are arranged in 42 units comprehending terraced houses and apartments from one to five bedrooms. Residents also had the chance to choose between a range of interior materials and fittings and one of four brick colours for the facade. Construction and energy performance characteristics Sustainability was a prime priority to all the stakeholders involved in the project. Being a core value shared by the cohousing members, energy efficiency was emphasised in the brief and influenced the developer’s selection. The Trivselhus Climate Shield® technology was employed to reduce the project’s embodied and operational carbon emissions. The technique incorporates sourced wood and recyclable materials into a timber-framed design using a closed panel construction method that assures insulation and airtightness to the buildings. Alongside the comparative advantages of reducing operational costs, the technique affords open interior spaces which in turn allow multiple configurations of the internal layout, an aspect that was harnessed by the architectural design. Likewise, it optimises the construction time which was further reduced by using industrialised triple-glazed composite aluminium windows for easy on-site assembly. Furthermore, the mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR) system and the air source heat pumps are used to ensure energy efficiency, air quality and thermal comfort. Overall, with an annual average heat loss expected of 35kWh/m², the complex performs close to the Passivhaus low-energy building standard of 30kWh/m² (Merrick, 2019). Integration with the wider community It is worth analysing the extent to which cohousing communities interact with the neighbours that are not part of the estate. The number of reasons that can provoke unwanted segregation between communities might range from deliberate disinterest, differences between the cohousing group’s ethos and that one of the wider population, and the common facilities making redundant the ones provided by local authorities, just to name a few. According to testimonies of some residents contacted during a visit to the estate, it is of great interest for Marmalade Lane’s community to reach out to the rest of the residents of Orchard Park. Several activities have been carried out to foster integration and the use of public and communal venues managed by the local council. Amongst these initiatives highlights the reactivation of neglected green spaces in the vicinity, through gardening and ‘Do it yourself’ DIY activities to provide places to sit and interact. Nonetheless, some residents manifested that the area’s lack of proper infrastructure to meet and gather has impeded the creation of a strong community. For instance, the community centre run by the council is only open when hired for a specific event and not on a drop-in basis. The lack of a pub or café was also identified as a possible justification for the low integration of the rest of the community. Marmalade Lane residents have been leading a monthly ‘rubbish ramble’ and social events inviting the rest of the Orchard Park community. In the same vein, some positive impact on the wider community has been evidenced by the residents consulted. One of them mentioned the realisation of a pop-up cinema and a barbecue organised by neighbours of the Orchard Park community in an adjacent park. Perhaps after being inspired by the activities held in Marmalade Lane, according to another resident.