Search results

The challenging and reframing of dominant narratives have been recognized as crucial to the regeneration of stigmatized areas. This article builds upon a digital storytelling process in the social estate of Peterbos, Brussels, to investigate how the counterstories of inhabitants challenge the "master narrative." The counterstories foreground the spatial agency of tenants, the (dis)enabling role of space, and the difficult relationship with social housing companies. The article concludes that counterstories not only reveal dominant spatial imaginaries about high-rise estates but also have the potential to foster a more situated and experiential understanding of the relationship between people and space. However, it is important to note that digital storytelling is not a substitute for inclusive planning. Critical engagement with ongoing planning processes remains crucial.

This article brings together various spatial and political theorizations on the commons as a broader project to understand multiple dimensions of the inclusive nature of public housing. By picking up theorizations on the commons, the article feeds the debate on the loss of "publicness" of public housing and removes attention from what is seen as a state related business. Four core-dimensions are identified: ownership, participation, community activity and physical configuration. The article takes a sample of public housing estates in the Brussels capital region as case studies to test the capacity of this framework to detect the degree of "publicness" of various forms of public housing. The preliminary results—based on this limited sample of cases studied through interviews with privileged informers and a literature study—suggest that approaches where individual households are actively involved in the organization of the dwelling environment work best to compensate for the loss of "publicness" that has occurred since the decline of the welfare state. In that respect, these approaches tie in with some early predecessors of "public" housing, mainly cooperatively organized garden city developments. Further in-depth case study research should shed more light on the validity of this hypothesis, as well as on the precise mechanisms and features that determine this regained "publicness".

This article brings together various spatial and political theorizations on the commons as a broader project to understand multiple dimensions of the inclusive nature of public housing. By picking up theorizations on the commons, the article feeds the debate on the loss of "publicness" of public housing and removes attention from what is seen as a state related business. Four core-dimensions are identified: ownership, participation, community activity and physical configuration. The article takes a sample of public housing estates in the Brussels capital region as case studies to test the capacity of this framework to detect the degree of "publicness" of various forms of public housing. The preliminary results-based on this limited sample of cases studied through interviews with privileged informers and a literature study-suggest that approaches where individual households are actively involved in the organization of the dwelling environment work best to compensate for the loss of "publicness" that has occurred since the decline of the welfare state. In that respect, these approaches tie in with some early predecessors of "public" housing, mainly cooperatively organized garden city developments. Further in-depth case study research should shed more light on the validity of this hypothesis, as well as on the precise mechanisms and features that determine this regained "publicness".

Introduction: Framing living labs in large-scale social housing estates in Europe -- Part 1: A critical overview on urban living labs in large-scale social housing estates -- Beyond a buzzword: Situated participation through socially oriented urban living labs -- Governing with urban labs -- Urban living labs: Insights for institutionally promoted urban policies -- Part 2: Positioning research(ers) in large-scale social estates -- Beyond the presence: Dwelling with people and with their places -- 1,460 days of love and hate: An ethnographic account of a layered job -- The inside and outside of high-rise social housing: The broken institution -- From a community of practice to a community of planning: The case of the Sansheroes network in the San Siro neighbourhood in Milan -- Part 3: Approaching space in large–scale social housing estates -- Marginalization through mobility and porosity - How social housing dwellers see and live the city -- Peterbos: Living in the park, inhabiting the city -- Participation and the architect: Creative partnership or communication breakdown?- Confusing the spatial with the social: Can ethnography offer a way out?.

This open access book provides an integrated overview of the challenges and resources of large-scale social housing estates in Europe and outlines possible interdisciplinary approaches and tools to promote their regeneration. It especially focuses on the tool of urban living labs, as promising in promoting new and more effective local governance and in including the different actors into the planning process. The book combines theory and practice, since it is the result of action-research conducted in different social housing estates all over Europe. Building on the results of the SoHoLab project (2017–2020), the book benefits from a multidisciplinary perspective, since the researchers involved belong to the fields of anthropology, urban planning, architecture, urban sociology. The project combined theoretical reflections with the installation and/or the consolidation of Urban Living Labs, run by universities, in large social housing estates in three European cities: Brussels, Milan and Paris.