Superstudio A

Monsters

An Illustrated History of Social Housing

This year, "Superstudio" will study the history of social housing by focusing on 34 case studies spanning from antiquity to today. The aim of this study is not to design social housing, but to understand the ways it was and is produced. We assume that social housing is not simply buildings, but, rather, a system in which political economy, policymaking, planning, typology, and architectural form are intertwined as one project. Although the ambition of Superstudio is to teach students how to situate architecture within the larger context of its production, its method is based on a focus on specific case studies. For this reason, a central topic of the studio is the idea of exemplarity in architecture: the possibility of interpreting a building to define a larger domain. Focusing on examples means starting with a specific case study, then searching for the way its singularity can shed light onto a broader condition, not in spite of, but because of its very singularity. The product of Superstudio will be the analogous map, which is a "drawn essay" complemented by a text and a carefully edited key legend. The objective of the analogous map is to represent each example of social housing within the framework of its historical context.

What is social housing?

The most straightforward definition of social housing is "homes provided by the government for people with low incomes to rent cheaply." To a certain extent, this is the "ideal" definition, because it assumes that social housing is public infrastructure and, as such, it can be freed from market pressure. However, it is important to remark that this definition applies only to public housing produced within the most progressive forms of welfare state. In many other cases, and especially within neoliberalism, social housing refers more broadly to affordable homes provided by public or private organizations to be rented or purchased by low-income households. This definition implies that social housing can also be provided by private parties and that it can be bought and sold as a commodity. Moreover, the term "affordable" is ambiguous because it is relative to the place where social housing is built. For example, in places where real estate is prime--like London, New York, or Zurich--affordable homes are often out of reach for low-income households. These oscillating definitions of what social housing is make the latter term a floating signifier that can shift slightly depending on place and historical circumstances. Moreover, liberal democracies have always been reluctant to provide social housing in the form of homes to be rented cheaply. This is for two reasons: one "pragmatic", and one political. The pragmatic reason is that, compared to the other pillars of social welfare--healthcare, education, and social security--housing is the most capital-intensive pursuit. Not only is construction, but the maintenance of housing is also very expensive. Yet the main reason social housing has always been a taboo in the rationale of liberal democracies is that providing homes below market value is , de facto, an attack on private property. The possibility of cheap housing for rent makes homeownership unnecessary. Providing a large stock of cheap homes means not only withdrawing a large portion of housing from the market, but also undermining the value of for-profit real estate, whose appreciation depends on housing shortage.

But then, why was there a time when liberal democracies committed themselves to the project of social housing? This can be explained by referring to the enormous social pressure that, in the early 20th century, workers' movements put on the state to provide cheap homes on a large scale. While in the 19th century the building of housing for workers was left to private speculators, who built the infamous tenements, at the beginning of the last century it became clear even to conservative policymakers that the market was structurally unable to provide both cheap and decent homes. Workers' pressure on the government had its peak after World Wars, social unrest, and epidemics. In other words, the provision of large-scale social housing was possible only when states found themselves in a situation of a potential revolution. Under political pressure, the state became the "welfare state," and beside providing free healthcare, education, and social security, it also provided an unprecedented quantity of cheap homes. However, this provision was not unconditional. Social housing was never "housing for all." It always targeted a specific group of people who were, in most cases, nuclear families with at least one working breadwinner. Occasionally, there were small provisions for other subjects in need, like single adults and elderly couples, but these were exceptions within a demographic largely made by heteronormative families. Besides this, even within the regime of liberal democracy, social housing was far from being a monolithic entity. Every nation-state would have its own policy in which state intervention was mediated by municipal, non-profit, or for-profit organizations. Every state policy would result in different types of interventions, from peripheral garden suburbs to high-rise superblocks. State policies depended on how strong social pressure there was, which influenced the ruling class' political direction. For this reason, from the point of view of the inhabitants, social housing could be emancipatory, or controlling and even marginalizing. Another important difference across states was their capacity for planning and protecting land use from speculation. Because in liberal states most of the land is private, to build large quantities of cheap housing the public sector must purchase land from private landowners whose goal is to obtain maximum profit from their assets. Whether this land is expropriated or compensated below or at market value depends on the political orientation of the government and its will to fight against or support real estate interests. For example, social housing is often built in unfavorable positions as it exploits the cheapest available plots of land.

Another crucial aspect of social housing was its typological resolution. Because social housing is typically mass-produced on a large scale, its design as a type makes possible the standardization of all its components. Yet, the design of housing as a type is not simply a technical issue; it is also a way to ensure that housing is bespoke to a specific household and the way in which this household dwells. Aspects such as circulation, number of rooms, position of the kitchen, or other services are linked to the way in which those who build social housing govern its subjects. This is why it is of vital importance to understand the class composition of the inhabitants of social housing. For example, in some cases, social housing was built by targeting low-income people but within a perspective that such housing would become a universal model for middle-class households. In other cases, social housing was limited only for those in need, and as such, it was considered an "exception" within a landscape dominated by market housing.

At Superstudio we maintain that social housing is homes to rent or buy cheaply provided by public or private organizations with some form public subsidy. We will attempt to understand the specificity of social housing against its generalization as mere "cheap homes." However, there are some basic aspects that we must keep in mind. First, social housing is always a system, and as such, it is always the product of a policy. Second, social housing always addresses a target group. This group is generally low-income households, but the way this subject is defined and granted access to housing is always related to the reality of class composition within which social housing is produced. Third, social housing is always produced as a type. The typological resolution of social housing takes form at the scale of the settlement and at the scale of the housing unit. The use of these types is not only technical but also political, as it influences the way people live within and outside of their homes.

Towards a periodization of social housing

Despite its diversity, the history of social housing is susceptible to periodization. This periodization is of crucial importance, especially as the background of the selection of the cases we will study. We argue that the history of social housing can be divided into four periods.

Prehistory

This period covers early attempts by large-scale communities like states, empires, and republics to build houses for those in need. Under special circumstances, large numbers of homes in ancient Egypt or in Teotihuacan were planned as coherent compounds. In these attempts, we see emerging aspects of what later we can call mass housing, such as typological standardization and large-scale planning. However, a pivotal period in the prehistory of social housing is the one that goes from the Middle Ages to the 19th century. During this time--which coincides with the rise of capitalism--states and municipalities empowered philanthropic initiatives to build affordable housing, as in the case of Mamluk and Ottoman Cairo or Venice. These initiatives were ambivalent as they were both supportive and controlling their target group. Often these philanthropic projects took the form of prison-like complexes such as the Alberghi dei Poveri or the Poor Houses, or workers' villages such as the company towns built by factory owners to secure homes for their employees. The philanthropic project found its peak in the second half of the 19th century, with the rise of model homes for the laboring classes. The importance of these initiatives was twofold: they provided typological models for what later became social housing, and they identified the "deserving poor" as the ideal tenant or owner of social housing. Deserving poor are those people who were willing to work, support a family, and able to integrate themselves within existing social structures. Here emerged an important aspect of social housing, which is its fundamental relationship with waged work. If the workshop, the factory, or the office is the space of waged production, housing becomes its necessary corollary of a space dedicated to (unwaged) reproduction.

Rise

This period focuses on the "official" beginning of social housing, whose earliest policies date back to the eve and aftermath of the First World War. During this period there were two models for social housing estates: the low-density suburb inspired by the "garden city" and the urban block. What characterized this period was an increasing awareness among both liberal and conservative authorities that social housing was an inevitable measure to contain social unrest. However, in countries in which social democratic politics were hegemonic--such as in Vienna, Holland, and Germany--social housing was also a project of emancipation in which this type of habitation was designed as the social and spatial cornerstone of the modern metropolis.

"Glorious Thirty"

This period is the thirty-something years that go from the aftermath of World War II to the early 1980s. Many countries from Europe to the US to Asia invested in the provision of mass homes as part of their welfare programs. It is important to understand that the welfare state was not a philanthropic act towards the working class, but a truce between workers on the one hand, and capital and the state on the other. Because of the enormous pressure exercised by the workers' movement on both capital and the state, the latter had no choice but to defend workers' demands against capital's interests. Social housing was the most visible manifestation of this truce. This is the period in which, in many countries, social housing reaches an unprecedented scale. A recurring type during this period was the large-scale estate made of towers and slabs. This model, inspired by Le Corbusier's critique of the garden city, was aimed at freeing as much as possible the ground for public amenities while industrializing the production of architecture. It is interesting to note that this period, in which the public sector produced the largest quantity of social housing, is also the most demonized by both the media and the architectural community. Yet, considering the failure of the market to provide decent homes after the demise of the Welfare State, we can finally understand the ideological "false consciousness" behind the critique of large-scale "modernist" social housing estates.

Fall and Resurgence

The fourth period focuses on the aftermath of the "Glorious Thirty," which is the last fifty years. Starting in 1980, the production of social housing declined, and the large stock produced in the previous decades was largely privatized in many countries. The privatization of social housing proved to be a disastrous policy as it de facto transformed into a private asset, something that was publicly funded by taxpayers. In this way, large quantities of housing entered the market in a moment in which, with the crisis of manufacturing, real estate became the protagonist of the neoliberal economy. The consequences of the privatization of social housing have been, in many countries, a social catastrophe as it completely commodifies what is still considered today a "human right." The small quantity of social housing built during this period is mostly affordable housing often built for profit. Typically, in this period, social housing is part of the infamous "inclusionary zoning" policy, within which for-profit real estate is obliged by municipalities to provide a limited number of social housing units in exchange for extra-density bonuses.

Since the 2008 crisis, there has been a resurgence of social housing but without reaching the proportions of the heyday of the welfare state. Yet, during this period there have been attempts to build interesting examples of social housing, most notably by private or semi-public organizations. Some social housing organizations have promoted interesting models that challenge traditional forms of this type. The question that looms large is whether these examples can be scaled up and become more rule than exception. The answer to this question is not technical but entirely political. Only a strong and organized political bloc can put pressure again and demand better housing conditions. Without these political premises, imagining a better future for housing runs the risk of remaining ineffective.

Analogy as Method

As mentioned above, the goal of this Superstudio is not to design but to study the history of social housing. The final product of the studio will be a drawing known as "Analogous Map." This drawing can be understood as a "drawn essay" in which the research content is not written but represented by means of visual elements. These elements work as analogies of the research content. For this reason, in terms of methodology, the focus of the Superstudio is the notion of "analogy." Analogy is the comparison of something to something else for the purpose of explanation. Analogy cannot fully rely on a rational explanation but, rather, works through imagination and by mobilizing one's knowledge and memories. In some respects, analogy is an incomplete explanation or illustration of something, and it is precisely such incompleteness that triggers the imagination. However, within an analogy, imagination does not run wild but is subtly directed and informed so that it might be an intersubjective tool. One that works as long as those who use or interpret such analogies share common references or a common ethos. It is important to emphasize that analogies are not metaphors. Metaphors imply a morphological resemblance between what exists and its representation; analogies, on the contrary, rely on knowledge rather than resemblance. Within this method, the case study is interpreted as an analogy of the larger forces that produce it. For this reason, the analogous map is meant to represent the physical, social, and economic context by using forms and figures taken from the iconographic landscape of the period in which each case study was built. The ambition of this exercise is to bridge imagination and history, invention and erudition. Against the idea that imagination is effective when set free, the brief argues that imagination can only work through rigorous knowledge.

The analogous map

To facilitate the undertaking of this exercise, the Superstudio team has selected thirty-four case studies of social housing from antiquity to today. Each group of students will work on one case study, which will be assigned ex officio via a lottery. The selection criteria are based on architectural relevance and available literature. Although they do not exhaust the rich history of this type, the thirty examples selected offer a concise historical overview. For each case study, we have selected a minimal bibliography that eventually students can (and should) expand. After gathering and reading the bibliography, each group will write a short and concise text that close reads the case study and situates it within its historical context. This text will be the "script" on which to compose the analogous map. Each map--a drawing that measures 80×80 cm--will be first drafted as a collage of images and drawings. The starting point will be a plan and axonometric representation of the assigned case, around which the map will unfold as a sort of "mandala." Within this scheme, every architectural and historical fact will be drawn as figures taken from a rich iconographic repertoire selected and edited by the students. A reference for this kind of composition is the analogous map par excellence: Aldo Rossi's "Analogous City," a visual essay on the city that Rossi and his collaborators composed for the 1976 Venice Biennale. In this famous image, Rossi composed both historical examples and his own architecture in order to stage as one composite vision his own idea of the city. In the same manner, each group of students will visualize their case study as a composition of figures and architectures whose goal is to offer a visual description and explanation of the assigned villa. Once the analogous map is drafted, it will be retraced as a line drawing. This passage is key. By translating the composition into a uniform medium, the analogous map is no longer a collage but one drawing in which multiple scales and images will coalesce as one narrative. By retracing the material collaged in the draft, things can be changed, modified, and even deformed. The surgical precision of line drawing is the adequate technique for this kind of drawing because it will emphasize the detail as the key protagonist of the composition. It should be stressed that, to work, the analogous map should be a very detailed drawing in which the whole is never subsuming the importance of the detail. Despite its unitary form, the analogous map is also a labyrinth, and as such, it becomes the analogy of history itself, in which nuances and contradictions resist any sweeping statement. Finally, the analogous map will be supported by an explanatory legend that will caption every element used.

Teaching Team:

Pier Vittorio Aureli, Romain Barth, Theodora Giovanazzi, Marson Korbi, Constantinos Marcou