The high‑rise housing issue stands in between different approaches, as the simple matter of definition points out quite clearly. The high-rise “label” (here in after, a building with 5 storeys [...]]]> scarica il testo

The high‑rise housing issue stands in between different approaches, as the simple matter of definition points out quite clearly. The high-rise “label” (here in after, a building with 5 storeys upward, plus ground level) is meant to indicate a dwelling type different from the common ones: a highly abstract and impersonal physical environment, or a distinctive pattern of social life, often held together by a prevalent public provision. No one of these definitions is easily tenable with the Italian case.
So, what is meant by high-rise?
High-rise buildings are quite widespread and, although they are far from being the majority of buildings, they are often the dominant feature of urban outskirts in major metropolitan areas. In fact, a massive belt has been built since the post war years around the old industrial cities.
Taken as a way of living, high-rise buildings gained a bad reputation (Coleman 1985) for anonymity, lack of facilities and segregation. But direct links between buildings and people are highly problematic. The problem is than to deal with the urban as well with the dwelling condition. These peripheral areas have played the role of a “learning machine” for, for instance, new immigrants in towns. Many post-war films by “neo-realismo” directors, or even by Pasolini (Fofi 1982) narrate the hard urban apprenticeship of the immigrants from the most deprived rural regions in cities like Rome, Milan and Turin.
Finally, as a form of housing provision, social housing and high-rise do not coincide at all, partly due to the small size of the social housing sector in Italy (actually, about 5% of the overall dwelling stock: Ferracuti and Marcelloni 1982; Padovani 1984 e 1996; Tosi, 1990).

Social practices are open to a twin analytical understanding, according to the double meaning of social links to which they contribute: either they are an expression of the different forms of sociability, and thus they can be presented as [...]]]> International Housing Conference, Housing in Southern Europe, a separate path?, Madrid, 2-4 dec. 1998

Social practices are open to a twin analytical understanding, according to the double meaning of social links to which they contribute: either they are an expression of the different forms of sociability, and thus they can be presented as the manifestation of cultural identities, sometimes then as the residual evidence of pre-modern world; or they are indicators of the integration, or at the opposite of the deterioration, of social links, therefore playing a far deeper structural role.

These are just analytical distinctions, since cultural identity is part of the process of social integration, while being both linked in a circular way. A systematic consideration of housing practices led to underline a few significant features, which will later bee commented on with reference to some examples:

• housing practices can be interpreted only by referring to the extended image of the networks in which they are developed. Family and kinship networks are particularly important, and researchers have shown that this is equally true even in modern and advanced society; however, local or community linkages influence practices as well, where different networks of sociability (¹) frequently overlap and mix up with market and professional relations. This image sheds a light on a highly complex web of inter-relationship which are particularly manifest and have been made apparent in informal processes and smaller communities; yet, it is not exclusively dependent on size and proximity, and can actually be traced down even in more complex living systems;

• exchanges of resources and symbolic exchanges play at least an equally important role, especially in the informal processes intended to home-ownership, where kinship and solidarity are directly involved; however, what does this account really undermine, is the well established image of the household as a individualistic consumer, a “rational” subject of economic choices, integrating different resources in a optimised budget, and maximising individual benefits from a range of interchangeable alternatives.

• housing practices, as part of a non-formal world of exchanges (as those what are usually intended to with reference to the reciprocity domain), have been maintained to be residual in the oversimplified view of the modernisation process; yet the transition to a post industrial society, enhance the possibility to take in account plural configurations of housing rationalities, some of them having been made clear by informal processes. However, at the stand is not only the willingness to recognise equal rights to social practices compared to formal and market processes. More ambitiously it has been stated that ”space practices plot against the determining conditions of social life” (de Certeau 1980), at the very moment that “urban rationality” fails to ensure the threefold promise to unify spare urban and social fabrics in a strategic, abstract and universal body. Thus, practices are not embedded in space, but create their own reference space.

In this paper I limit myself to suggest that late housing practices can be examined from two points of view, while presenting in the next paragraphs some empirical supports with reference to the last years. The first point of view highlights the steady increase of dwelling consumption; and stresses the tendency to “make space” at home for a larger set of relationship, many related with family networks. The second highlights the progressive overlapping of issues concerning the dwelling with issues concerning the surroundings and pinpoints –somehow contradictorily- the “escape attempts” from the same configuration towards an “outer” space, sometimes just a dreamed one, where a different balance is aimed between the dwelling of the family and the frame of social relations.

1. Tenures

Home-ownership rate is high since years (68% in 1997, about 13 million households) and, even quite different among different areas, for instance in cities and in North, tend to homogenise. Ownership is highly correlated with income, which are commonly studied by proxies such as jobs and education. No surprise that the better off tend to be owners at a rate higher than the average (in 1991 19.1% of the entrepreneurs and the professionals rented their homes; the same rate was 15% in 1996).

However, it is interesting to say that ownership rate does not ever show a clear-cut class difference. Even if blue-collar workers are twice as likely to be in the rented sector than entrepreneurs (30.7, almost the same than five years before: 1991, 32,1), they are quite well represented among the owners as well. In fact, owners among blue collars are now 69.3%, with a significant increase compared to the post war period. Still, in 1971 and 1978 industrial blue collar workers were likely to be owner at a rate respectively of 42 and 44%.

The rented stock was more than half of the total after World War II: since then it has been halved, and it is steadily decreasing now, even if at a lower pace. In fact, the rate of rented dwellings has sharply declined during the last quarter of this century and, in particular, during the Eighties. Its size is estimated approximately at 23% of the housing stock, i.e. more or less 4.8 million dwellings. Renting is higher in metropolitan areas (60% in metropolitan cores; 66.7% in metropolitan belts), especially in southern ones.

However, the decline of the rented sector has benefited not only ownership but even alternative forms of tenure, mainly not for profit ones, which now accounts for almost 10% (more than 2 millions households) of the total stock. Such tenure forms were considered residual, but they have recovered since the collapse of renting occurred (life-tenancy 2.2; rent-free 5.8; other 0.9). It is interesting to pinpoint that people in such forms of tenure are rather poor (72% is below the average income: Cnel 1996).

Tab. 1 Rented dwellings in metropolitan areas per macro-regions

Metropolitan areas Total

Core belts

North West 36.5 34.0 26.8

North East 37.9 13.5 19.4

Centre 35.3 15.1 23.7

South 46.7 30.1 22.7

Islands 44.0 21.3 21.9

(Istat 1996)

Tab. 2 Rented sector

Private Building Social

Rental Society rental

North 68.3 8.1 23.6

Centre 59.1 9.7 31.2

South 71.5 3.4 25.1

Cities with > 50.000 inhab. 60.2 8.6 31.2

Other municipalities 75.2 5.2 19.6

Total 67.6 6.9 25.5

Source: Istat, Household Consumption 1995

Tab. 3 Dwelling stock in the Milan area according to tenure

1981 1991

owner-occupied 44,3 62,3

subsidised dw. with right of redemption 2.4 -

private rental 30,3 17,6

building society rental 7,5 5,6

social rental 8,2 8,2

rent-free, life-tenancy, etc. - 2,5

other 7,1 3,8

Total 100,0 00,0

Source: Elaboration on Instat, Censimento 1991e 1981

Rent is negatively correlated with income: the rent paid by the three lower deciles on the income ladder is about 25-35% of the total earnings, against a 10-13% in the three upper deciles (Cnel 1997). Rent is even higher in big cities: in Milan, rent is close to one third of income for at least one out four of the households in the rented sector (Pim 1998).

General cost for a dwelling (average rent or mortgage plus heating) is over 31% of the monthly household budget (²), a rate that reaches its peak for the older single households (>65: 45.5%), that usually live in the inner cities. Dwelling cost is more affordable for the extended families (more than three children: 26.3%) living in the outskirts of metropolitan areas. Moreover, it has been shown that average income of tenant household has diminished from 83% to 79% compared to the owners’ income in the first half of the 90s (Cnel 1997).

And finally, social rented sector is traditionally limited in Italy, even compared to Italian standards. According an estimation based on the income threshold, about 2.7 million households were entitled to a social dwelling, while social rented stock amount to 1.1 million approximately (Aniacap 1993).

The crux in the change in tenure –increase of home-ownership, reduction in the private rental sector- is the tendency toward a rigid market structure, one that seemingly contrasts with the more flexible demand that has grown in the last years. Ownership used in fact to be a far more rigid status than renting, because of higher cost of transactions, taxes, etc. Forcing people to the purchase of a dwelling influences the localisation patterns as well, since it tends to lower the appeal of the urban condition.

2. Mobility

In the 2^nd post war era residential mobility coincided for a long time with migratory movements. At the end of the 70s, however, a dramatic rise in market rent level accompanied by a shortage in most of the metropolitan areas exerted a strong pressure onto households to move. That period coincided in fact with a considerable effort paid mostly by blue- collar families in order to purchase a flat; and a systematic decline in the rented sector, in particular in the percentage of dwellings let by private owner. In fact, the overwhelming privately rented sector still accounts for two thirds of all the rental stock. However, it has been considerably reduced since the war, and mostly in big cities; for instance, in the Milan area it has diminished from 30% of the total dwelling stock to 18% between 1981 and 1991.

A part from this phenomena, residential mobility is usually meant as limited in Italy and however highly dependent from institutional and transactional constraints. Residential mobility in big cities has been estimated at the end of the 80s between 4,6% and 6,6% per year (Bellicini 1988). However, the number of purchase have increased since 1985 by about 20%, yet fluctuating around 500 thousands notwithstanding the strong increase in the households number and in the estimates of the “potential” demand (Censis 1997). The number of lease is instead on the increase (+57%), but it should be reminded the widespread habit of informal and often illegal forms of leasing in the rental sector (Cnel 1997). However, in the 90s the reduction of in costs both of dwellings and mortgages has likely stimulated an increase of mobility.

The last Istat Survey (Istat 1998) estimated that about 900.000 householders in 1996 have moved (4.4%) with a slight increase compared to the previous years: since 1993, 3.9-4,0% of householders moved per year (i.e. 812.000 householders). However, the trend is steady on the increase: the same source estimated that approximately 3% of the overall householders changed homes per year between 1984-88 (Istat 1993). In 1996 householders in the Northern regions and the metropolitan belts were at the origin of a large share of residential movements. Householders in the core of metropolitan areas –which are older and among the better off- were instead less eager to move than the average, even if their mobility appears to be on the increase (1993: 2.7, 1996: 3.7).

Reasons to move are mainly two: de-cohabitation (roughly for one third: getting married or equivalent 27.2%; living alone 6.5%; living with other people 2.7%); and becoming a owner (14.5%), both however slightly declining. Other reasons are getting a larger dwelling (10.3%) (³) and a better accommodation or environment (9%).

The Survey also asked whether people have just considered the option to move in the previous 12 months: the share of a desired move was higher than the actual mobility, about 7.7%, but a decreasing one (it was 8.0% in 1993).

Intentions to move have different justifications than actual decisions: the answers were mainly the search for better living (25.4%) or a larger dwelling (23.7), while de-cohabitation was expected by a narrower group (roughly for one fourth: getting married or equivalent 11.2%; living alone 7.6%; living with other people 4.2%). Answers like getting closer to the job (8.3) or becoming a owner (9.0) have declining shares compared to 1993.

In the long term, intentions to move seem to have changed even more. Expectations to move in a two-year term were significantly high (20%) in 1978, when a severe shortage occurred in urban areas while prices went up causing the worst “housing crisis” since decades. Twenty years ago, however, weddings was the single most answered item (24%), followed by getting closer to jobs (19%), the purchase of a home (14%), and finally the search for a better accommodation (13%).

3. Satisfaction

The area of subjective dissatisfaction with dwelling has consistently reduced, as is possible to show comparing answers given to the Household Consumption survey in different years.

Besides, a national Censis Survey (a private research body) reported in 1997 that dissatisfaction was limited to the 10,8% of the total (while it accounted for a larger share in metropolitan areas: 12,7%). In 1993, the regional Social Survey in the Milan region of Lombardy showed that less than 6% of the answers were negative. The only issue that does not clearly improve is the affordability of rent. Notwithstanding a small variance, findings are quite clearly converging, at least with reference to judgements concerning the dwelling.

That is not the same with dissatisfaction with the surrounding urban environment (19%; 21,3% in big cities: Censis 1997). In fact, a term that frequently crops up in reference to the outskirts environment is “disagio urbano” or ”disagio diffuso” (a term which has not immediate equivalent in English, maybe “widespread housing stress” or “urban environment stress”), that can be equated with the entire area of poor quality housing.

Urban stress derives from different and somehow vague ingredients (Cremaschi 1994b). Traffic congestion is now perceived as a problem by 74% of urban dwellers, as well as poor public transportation (38% of workers spend more than hour in their daily journey to job), crime (63% of urban dwellers has the feeling of being at risk), poor social life, etc. However widespread, urban stress affects more peripheral areas and the urban poors, which are more likely to concentrate there.

However, it is worth stressing that dissatisfaction with dwelling is always less underlined that dissatisfaction with single items, such as heating or dimension which have been not adequate for a large share of the population until few years ago. One reason is possibly the historical housing need and the severe uncertainty about the future that sweeten the present condition.

tab. 4 Causes of Dissatisfaction with dwelling

1978* 1993 1996

Dimension 33 15 14

Inadequacies 25 8 6

Distance from relatives n.a. 19 17

Costs/affordability n.a. 53 54

% of rent higher than 20% of total earnings 27 - 39

* In 1978 questions were not strictly equivalent

Source: Consumption Survey

tab. 5 Causes of Dissatisfaction with neighbourhood

1978* 1993 1996

public transport 40 31 28

crimes 26⁴ 31 29

traffic 34 48 49

* In 1978 questions were not strictly equivalent

+ Estimation on Istat, Survey on Consumption;

tab. 6 Dissatisfaction: 1997, Censis Survey

Small medium large total

Centres cities cities

dwelling 7.7 9.1 12.7 10.8

surroundings 16.0 14.7 21.3 19.0

Tab. 7 Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in 1977 National Survey

People satisfied: dissatisfied:

highly enough rather very

dwelling 16 59 19 6

heating 17 42 27 14

large fair small very small

dimension 7 60 19 14

People satisfied: dissatisfied:

highly enough rather very

neighbourhood 18 62 16 4

building quality 28 39 25 8

streets and pavements 26 43 21 10

public transport 15 45 23 17

tab. 8 Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: 1993, Milan, Irer Survey

highly enough rather very

satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied

Dwelling 47,4 47,1 4,8 0,7

I feel well It happened I will leave

Surroundings (“dwelling environment) 63,3 30,8 5,9

Tab. 9 Dissatisfaction with dwelling and neighbourhood per type of family in the Milan area

Dwelling Surroundings

Occupied Single 2,4 16,2

Workers with partner unemployed 10,0 15,0

One parent Household 7.7 12,5

Double income with children 8.3 8,8

Retired old single 12.5 -

Double income 6.5 6,3

Retired with children - 5,6

Other 4.4 3,2

Total 5.5 5,9

Fonte: Regione Lombardia, Irer: Social Survey 1993

4. Making space: living around a dwelling

The “state of the art” living in Italy tends to be in a flat in a multi-dwelling building (54%). However, single-family house (30%) and two-family house (13.7%) account for a large share of total dwellings. Apparently, the overwhelming preference has been expressed for medium size, multi-dwelling buildings, that are in fact the most widespread urban dwelling typology. In fact, as far as the economic trends promoted urban growth, the desire for a single house was a sort of “wishful thinking”.

Eventual preference for one model or another are highly structured both by structural conditions and economic preference. We should quote at least that historically urban elite have led the country; that most of small urban cities are quite liveable and vibrant; and that building promoters have been ever-practising the art of multi-storey building, with a seemingly rigid brick and stone technology which actually allowed a great flexibility and adaptability. For instance, in Lombardy (the region around Milan characterised by a highly industrialised and a highly urbanised environment) more than 76% of the dwelling stock (Irer 1996) is in multi-dwelling buildings, 40% of them in the top tallest class, while single family or semi-detached houses are rather infrequent (24%). Of course multi-dwelling buildings are mostly in the metropolitan area (more than 90%), whereas single family or semi detached houses are more frequent respectively in small villages or in the metropolitan suburbs (⁵).

However, a growing dissatisfaction with high-rise accommodations is commonly detected. Even the scant housing research devoted to this subject has easily highlighted the fact that the majority of those interviewed preferred anything but high-rise, for reasons like: inadequacy of space, lacking amenities, social isolation, etc. (Censis 1983). The problem of satisfaction or of dissatisfaction seems to be linked to the maintenance of buildings and to technological and social problems rather than to the high rise itself. In particular, high rise estates as part of metropolitan peripheral belts are deeply concerned in the process of downgrading of the environmental quality: nuisance, pollution, traffic congestion, etc. A polarisation process is then taking place, differentiating a few number of “problem areas” from the less dramatic but nevertheless unsatisfactory condition of peripheral estates.

Where strong informal production took place (see the survey for the municipality of Rome: Censis 1989), the preference for the “case di borgata” (i. e. the informal neighbourhood dwelling unit, not necessarily a single family detached house) was clearly declared by 57% of the respondents, the preference being required and expressed, in this case, towards a specific urban environment rather to a dwelling typology.

A survey has tried to compare present and desired dwelling conditions, showing that satisfaction with high-rise was relatively low, and the most desired accommodation was in a small building with 4 or less flats (Censis 1983). Also surveys on the image of the “dream house” reported that some youngsters’ desire was a house with a garden but (… ) located in the middle of the town”. The more realistic ambition of most of the interviewed was a flat “…with a view” (that could be easily imagined either on a beautiful landscape or on the roofs of the historical central district) in a multi-dwelling building in the same neighbourhood where they were used to living (Gazzola, 1990).

Another example can be the double belonging to different world, an experience allowed by second houses. Italy’s 5.2 millions of non-occupied dwellings (⁶) (as much as 5 times the amount registered in 1961) testify that a huge effort has been spent by household in order to duplicate their own model of living. Actually, almost half of the unoccupied stock is utilised as holiday houses or for tourism and summer rent; a further 20% is actually occupied, even if in a non permanent way, by people studying or working in other cities than their usual abode.

That is to invalidate the usual explanation that socio-cultural traditions explain the difference in the dwelling habits, uses and modes of consumption among countries. It has been stated that “the preference for one’s own house can be seen as expressing a more individualistic lifestyle… leading people to separate themselves from their kin as well as from their neighbourhood” (Höllinger and Haller, 1990). However, the same argument could be sustained for high-rise buildings and metropolitan living, depending in part from groups life-styles and in part from the balance between distance, transportation and communication technologies. And in fact, different ways of living seem rather to mix up in distinct urban and non-urban frames. For instance, findings show that actually daily contacts with relatives are easier for single house dwellers (32%) than for the inhabitants of high rise housing (13%). However, dwellers in high rise accommodation live closer to friends (30%) than single-house dwellers (21%), showing (at least) a different distance factor in the two situations (Cremaschi 1997).

tab. 10 Dwellings per type of building

building type N. of buildings N. of dwellings % of dwellings

Total Houses 9.768,730 11,501,384 45.9

Single-family house 7,578,575 7,578,575 30.3

two-family house 1,732,655 3,465,309 13.7

Rural houses 457,500 457,500 1.8

Total Multi-dwelling 1,830,000 13,527,138 54.1

Total 11,598,730 25,028,522 100.0

source: estimation on Istat, 1991

5. Escape attempts: living elsewhere and changing home

As we have said, the point is that dissatisfaction with a dwelling typology is expressed as dissatisfaction with the urban condition. The preference, if any, for a single family house is than actually mixed up with a later negative evaluation of some features of the urban living, basically depending on environmental issues such as traffic or pollution. The choice of a dwelling model tends to enlarge towards the expression of a preference for an entire built environment, or even the refusal of cities tout-court: somehow, is a choice expressed by “foot”, moving outside the metropolitan areas.

This process tends to drain away the more affluent population from towns, often middle aged people. As a consequence, multi-storey buildings largely dominate the townscape; while countryside is often scattered with long arrays of houses.

The recent shift in urban trends, and the metropolitan decline of the ‘80s, has contributed to the sharp change in the forms of housing provision. Thus, a growing number of families have moved outside the metropolitan areas in search of better housing conditions, often promoting and financing their own houses directly; non-urban settlements accounted for 50% of overall housing completions during the 80s, against a rate of 20% in metropolitan areas. Images such as the “widespread city” and the “urbanised countryside” have in fact been introduced in order to describe new social links and a new configuration pattern in some highly industrialised and highly urbanised regions (for instance, in the central and north-eastern regions).

Such images try to conceptualise the difference between the new scattered landscape in the north-eastern regions; the old urban industrial landscape of north-western regions; and the rural and tourist Southern regions. Regional differences are in fact very sharp in Italy: for instance, the rate of single family houses is 30% and the rate of urbanisation is close to 34% in the North-East; is 17% the former and 46% the latter in North West; while single houses accounts up to 40% in the basically rural South. The rate of single double family houses varies as well from 7,7% in cities to 40% in non urban municipalities. High rise distribution highlights an even more polarised view: five main cities (Rome, Milan, Turin, Naples and Palermo) show a rate of high-rise buildings over 30%, mostly in Rome and Milan (where is worth to note that high rise housing built before World War II is respectively 19% and 23%).

Padovani reported for the Milan metropolitan area “a situation of high housing mobility within the metropolitan area” (Padovani 1995), whilst mobility had a dominant regional pattern in the previous decades. This pattern already existed in the 1970s, and was confirmed during the 1980s. It is then possible to state that: “the metropolitan area is attracting population from the more remote regions of the South of Italy and from abroad, and is exporting population to areas close by, especially towards the communes within adjacent provinces” (ibidem). More precisely, the migrants who had moved to Milan after World War II were nearing the retirement age around the 80s; a considerable percentage went back “to the areas they had left some thirty years earlier”. Later, such outflows rapidly came to an end, while intra-metropolitan area movements started to increase. The growth characterised movements either from or towards the core, and even movements within the belt. These latter are considered to be interesting developments within the process of extension of Milan metropolitan area; however, similar trends are recognisable in the Roman areas as well (Cremaschi 1990).

In conclusion, tackling housing practices in perspective, a clear-cut distinction should be made between early and mature modernisation (when industry and city grew-up together and new communities were created in the surroundings of major cities), and post-industrial cities. Contemporary housing renews the variety of “dwelling rationalities” against and over the simplified opposition between individualism and collectivism embodied by the “modernist” architecture (stigmatised as narrower and more single minded than the “modern project” of housing: Tosi 1994a and 1995).

Post-industrial societies bring industry and towns to separate, while concerns with the working and the living become more and more independent. As a consequence, wide ranges of settlements, neither urban nor rural, are introduced. City and neighbourhood -as the spatial equivalent of society and community- tend to be useless concepts, as the standard model for urban and housing policies has changed. They have been substituted by a wider concern with the framing of large “scattered semi urban environment” (Coppo and Cremaschi 1994).

The structural change in metropolitan development trends led to a major shift in housing policy guidelines: the effacement of the neighbourhood concern that was the dominating problem during the fifties and sixties. Neighbourhood and community policies have long since been neglected, but originally they were intended as a programme to promote urban solidarity. A concern with the “locale” dimension in cities had not re-appeared until very recently. And issues related to community problems have begun to be perceived as a consequence of the fall in urban quality, and of the financial crisis of public housing.

A concern with local issues is growing in Italy too. For many years Italian housing policies were characterised by a marked degree of ambiguousness: the major example is the misleading overlap between support for the building industry and social solidarity, which has brought about an incongruent and haphazard social distribution of the benefits and disadvantages, together with many oversights at macro-economic level with regard to redistribution.

Furthermore, the redefinition of the relationship between inner city and suburbs seems give rise to a new element in the discussion: decentralisation entails considering public intervention in a more advanced configuration than in the one represented by the state model. It is reasonable to think that a change is required in the forms of intervention and in the technical tools themselves: one crucial issue is the establishment of new rules of coexistence and convenience for both public and private operators; another point of equal vital importance is the construction of new local agencies able to respond to different reasoning processes.

Bellicini Lorenzo, 1988, L’Italia da recuperare, indagine in sedici grandi città, Credito Fondiario, Roma.

Bellicini Lorenzo, Cremaschi Marco, 1991, “Housing self provision and local economies in Nord-Eastern-Centre and Southern Italy”, ENHR, Housing Self-Provision in Industrialized Countries, Venice.

Censis, 1983, La casa ideale, Gabetti, Milano

Censis, 1989, Il territorio ideale, Comune di Roma-USPR, Roma

Censis 1993, Indagine sulla condizione abitativa in Italia. Analisi della domanda marginale, Cer, Roma.

Censis 1997, “Casa Monitor, Mercato, famiglie e mobilità”, Censis Note e Commenti, n. 12, dic.

Centro Studi Pim 1993, Nuovi problemi e nuova geografia dell’abitare nell’area metropolitana, Pim, Oetamm, Milano.

Cnel 1997, La riforma della politica abitativa, Atti del convegno, Roma, 30 ottobre.

Coleman Alice, 1985, Utopia on Trial, Hilary Shipman, London

Commission of the European Community, 1993, “Quartiers en cris: citizenship laboratories for Europe, Final Report”, Bruxelles

Commissione delle Comunità Europee 1997, La problematica urbana, orientamenti per un dibattito europeo, Comunicazione, Bruxelles.

Coppo Maurizio, Cremaschi Marco, eds., 1994, Strutture territoriali e questione abitativa, Angeli, Milano

Cremaschi Marco, 1990, “L’abusivismo meridionale: realtà e rappresentazione”, Meridiana,

Cremaschi Marco, 1994a, Esperienza comune e progetto urbano, Milano, Angeli

Cremaschi Marco, 1994b, “Disagio abitativo, povertà, esclusione sociale”, in A. Tosi, ed., La casa, il rischio e l’esclusione, Angeli, Milano

Cremaschi Marco, 1994c, “La denazionalizzazione della questione abitativa”, Urbanistica, n. 102.

Cremaschi Marco, 1997, “Casa e relazioni sociali”, in Irer, Milano.

De Certeau Michel 1980, L’invention du quotidien, Gallimard, Paris

Di Cosimo Monica, 1988, “Linee di tendenza in Italia e all’estero”, in L. Padovani, ed., Politica o non politica della casa?, Angeli, Milano

Ece 1996, Strategies to implement Human Settlement Policies on Urban Renewal and Housing Modernisation, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, New York e Ginevra.

Ferracuti Gianni, Marcelloni Maurizio, 1982, La casa, Mercato e programmazione, Einaudi, Torino

Gazzola Antida, 1991, “Spazio pubblico e spazio privato: un’analisi della città pubblica ligure”, Housing, 2

Höllinger Franz, Haller Max, 1990, “Kinship and Social Network in Modern Societies: a Cross-cultural Comparison among Seven Nations”, European Sociological Review, 6, 2, sept.

Irer 1991, Social Survey in Lombardia, Angeli, Milano.

Irer 1997, Indagine sociale Lombarda, Cambiamenti e condizioni di vita delle famiglie lombarde, Guerini, Milano.

Istat 1881… 1991, Censimenti generali della popolazione, Roma.

Istat 1978…1996, I consumi delle famiglie, Roma.

Istat 1981, Statistiche sociali, Roma.

Istat 1985, Indagine sulle strutture e i comportamenti famigliari, Roma.

Istat 1993, Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie 1987-91, Roma.

Istat 1996, Famiglie, abitazioni, servizi di pubblica utilità. Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie 1993-94, Roma.

Istat 1998a, La vita quotidiana, Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie 1996, Roma.

Istat 1998b, Rapporto sul paese, Roma.

McGuire C.C.,1991, International Housing Policies: a comparative analysis, Toronto, Lexington Books.

Negri Nicola and Saraceno Chiara, 1996, Le povertà contro la povertà in Europa, Mulino.

Ocde 1996, Stratégies pour le logement et l’intégration sociale dans les villes, Paris.

Padovani Liliana, 1984, “Italy”, in M. Lynn, Housing in Europe, Croom Helm, London.

Padovani Liliana, 1988, “Housing Provision in Italy: the Family as Emerging Promoter. Difficult Relationships with Public Policies”, Housing between State and Market, Inter-University Centre, Dubrovnik.

Padovani Liliana, 1991, “Conclusive remarks”, Daest-ENHR, Housing Self-Provision in Industrialized Countries, Venice

Padovani Liliana, 1995, “Urban change and housing policies in the Milan metropolitan area”, In L. Padovani ed., Urban change and housing policies, Evidence from four European Countries, Daest, Venezia.

Padovani Liliana, 1996, “Italy”, in P. Balchin, Housing Policy in Europe, Routledge, London.

Pim 1998, Condizione abitativa e problemi emergenti della residenza nella Provincia di Milano, Centro Studi Pim e Provincia di Milano, mimeo.

Pitkin Donald S., 1985, The house that Giacomo built. History of an Italian family, 1898-1978, Cambridge UP, London

Power Anne, 1993, Hovels to High Rise, State Housing in Europe Since 1850, Routledge, London

Seassaro Loredana 1994, “Continuità e discontinuità nelle politiche per la casa: un’interpretazione”, Urbanistica 102

Tosi Antonio, 1990, “Italy”, in Van Vliet W., International Handbook of Housing Policies and Practices, Greenwood, New York

Tosi Antonio 1991 “Casa e relazioni sociali”, in Irer 1991.

Tosi Antonio, 1994a, Abitanti, Mulino, Bologna

Tosi Antonio, 1994b, “Italy”, in Report 1994, Feantsa, European Observatory on Homelessness.

Tosi Antonio, 1995, “Shifting paradigms: the sociology of housing, the sociology of the family, and the crisis of modernity”, in R. Forrest and A. Murie, eds., Housing and Family wealth in a comparative perspective, Routledge, London.

Tosi Antonio, Cremaschi Marco, 1991, “Poverty, Social Marginality and Housing in Italy. Observations on the Construction of Homelessness”, International Institute of Sociology, XXIX International Congress, Rome

Tosi Antonio, Kazepov Yuri, Ranci Costanzo, 1998, “Italy”, in Report 1997, Feantsa, European Observatory on Homelessness, feb.

Nobody seems to doubt that housing is a “mature” issue in Italy. Basic needs are satisfied, as in many other European Countries, a good level of housing provision has been attained, most common housing indicators are doing quite [...]]]> International Housing Conference, Housing in Southern Europe, a separate path?, Madrid, 2-4 dec. 1998

Nobody seems to doubt that housing is a “mature” issue in Italy. Basic needs are satisfied, as in many other European Countries, a good level of housing provision has been attained, most common housing indicators are doing quite well. Actually, “a huge development of the housing stock (…has occurred…) in Italy since the end of the 2^nd World War” (Padovani 1996), one that has obviously changed not only the object, but also the meaning itself of current housing policies.

In fact, many have stressed that massive construction, while resolving mere housing deficit, has created new issues, in particular issues related to the new poverty configuration in western countries, as we see later on, and issues related to the quality of the built environment.

Even from a quantitative point of view, however – traditional policies such as the massive construction experienced in most countries in some “age gold” decades – did not solve housing needs entirely. As far as mass housing is concerned, discussions about convergence matters seem rather useless. Mass housing policy is in fact the local branch of the universal modernisation endeavour, a convergence process in itself.

In order to compare housing policies, is usually taken for granted that the post-war era is the reference period. “Economic and social policies in much of Europe (…) have been formulated and applied within a more stable political environment than hitherto, and conditioned to a greater or lesser extent by the parameters of western liberal democracy” (Balchin 1996). As a consequence, nobody can be surprised if a mixed but assimilable frame sprung out of a few policy choices operated since the War, like housebuilding on a massive scale, a large social rented sector, and (at least partially) the subsidies to home-ownership. All these choices were in fact backed by a general political consensus, which both left and right wing parties basically expressed in favour of the centrality of housing policies.

Actually, during such decades much of Europe experienced as well similar trends in demography, equally rapid changes in geographical hierarchy, and a common tendency towards economic growth (a coincidence, by the way, that is unlikely to happen again in the future). In a word, the “golden” post-war Decades (sic) were reasonably the most radical experiment across the Europe of a “modernist” model resulting from a queer combination of Keynesian public policies and a “Fordist” large enterprise economy.

As is quite clear, the experiment is over, at least since the ‘70s and thanks to a new wave of liberalism, with its legacy of privatisation, deregulation and decentralisation, whose equivalent changes in respect of housing policies are the sales of the public-owned stock, the retrenchment of welfare benefits towards limited social groups, the redirection of subsidies (direct or indirect, such as tax relief) towards dwelling consumption instead of investments (Ghekière 1991; Cremaschi 1994c).

To put it in other way, the post-war era is a profitable field for comparative research for the same reasons that make it a period of convergence for much of Europe: shortly, “the main shifts in housing development in Europe since 1945 follow a clear pattern” (Power 1993). As for the housing policies, and in order to address the question of the convergence among different countries, it is worth tackling the whole issue in a broader perspective, where different models of state and market regulations can be observed.

This caution is particularly needed for countries like Italy, where the modernisation process presented specific characters, such as deep regional economic inequality, massive waves of overseas migration from the poorest Southern regions around the century and towards the North-western regions in post-war years, the importance of sub-cultural networks in differing social identity.

1. A longer view

Modern housing policies span well over a century. First proposal and experimentation date back to the Enlightenment and first Machine Age. However, it is a common habit, as for comparative purposes, to look more carefully to some forty years, approximately since World War II onwards.

This is a sensible choice, since what lies at the very core of any comparative research is the presumption that every different situation can be depicted by a stable and limited set of variables.

With regard to the past century, we can observe at least three main phases of growth (²), corresponding to different combinations of constraints and regulations and sometimes different regimes:

• the early modernisation effort took place around the beginning of the century, coinciding with a liberal regime, and implied a considerable effort to overcome the structural and regulatory differences among former regional states unified in the new Italian state in 1861. Then, between 1881 and 1951, the population in Italy increased by 59% and households by 78%, however less than the increase occurred for available dwellings. Growth was a typical urban phenomenon, in the sense that occurred basically inside or around the XIX century boundaries of cities, rapidly saturating every plot of land available for residential use. Dwellings grew both because of the construction of new buildings and because of the reduction of the non-occupied sector; while the average size of the family was quite high, well above 4 components per households, and the share of single component families was very limited. It is worth stressing that even after the war, the share of the rented sector was quite high.

• After the 2^nd war (not to consider the Fascist regime for the sake of simplicity) the country entered an age of prosperity, known as the “economic boom”. Between 1951 and 1971 population increased again by nearby 11% while households by 35%. Almost the entire demographic growth of the country concentrated in a few major metropolitan areas, which were invested by huge waves of migration (Coppo e Cremaschi 1994). In the meantime non-urban areas reduced their share of the pie (-11%), generating by the way a relevant phenomenon of abandon of dwellings. A severe shortage was than experienced (partially because of war destruction) notwithstanding a massive effort in construction that allowed the number of dwellings to double (a process that took place until the end of the 70s). Despite the fact that the main metropolitan areas collected 46% of all new residential construction (Coppo and Cremaschi 1994), the gap between households and dwellings has been widening for all the period spanning through the three post-war censuses. During the same years, a relevant share of all completions was diverted to non-primary uses; i.e. the number of vacancies steady grew. This was the result of different processes: basically, several middle class households built or bought their own summer houses; many dwellings were kept vacant (or informally rented) to avoid rent control; some houses were (slowly) built in view of the age of retirement in the village or region where people came from. However, the non-occupied sector witnessed a dramatic increase as a consequence of the abandon of rural areas and of the malfunctioning of urban markets; the unoccupied sector grew up to five time its size. And finally, households size begun to diminish while family structure started to change timidly;

• The beginning of the final and present step can be tracked down to the de-industrialisation crisis of the end of 70s, which considerably changed the regional pattern of development, and notably witnessed the rise of the SME model in the so called Third Italy. Since then (and so far), population is steady, having substantially reached its peak in the mid 80s (later small increases are basically due to foreign immigration), while households grew by 32%. Also the rate of increase in dwelling completions reached its peak during the Seventies, and has been slowing down afterwards, as well as the vacancy rate, yet exceedingly redundant according to all estimates. The most important change that took place in this period was the dispersal of growth, which no longer concentrated in major urban areas, but affected mainly cities in the Centre and North Eastern regions which had not been previously interested by economic development. The share of large households on total families was considerably reduced, while single households (most of them old retired people) attained and overcame the rate of 20%, especially in urban areas such as Milan (32%) or Rome (nearby 40% in the central districts).

Tab.1 Housing indicators in Italy

1881 1931 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 1997*

Population 29791 41043 47516 50471 52958 56557 56778 57563

Households 6620 9328 11814 13747 15981 18632 19909 21193

Dwellings 6873 9664 11411 14214 17434 21937 25028 26500

Occupied dw. 6136 9070 10756 13032 15302 17542 19736 21070

Non-occ. 737 594 655 1182 2132 4395 5291 5500

HH. Average size 4.5 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.7

% single 10.3 12.7 17.8 20.6 21.3

% hhs with >5 people 25,6 20.9 14.9 11.3 7.7

Source: on Istat, National Censuses

Note: The overall dwelling figures include second homes and vacant units.

* Estimates

2. Housing and models of modernity

According to these partitions, we can suggest some features of different models of housing policies. What is at the centre is the very nature of the issues addressed by policies implemented in the three stages we depicted: the long early modernisation years, the economic boom age, and the later age after the de-industrialisation years.

For the first 50 years, the housing system worked hard in order to provide new dwellings for a population, which was not only growing fast, but also substantially moving from the mountain hamlets to the coast towns, from towns to big cities and from South to North.

Basically, two features should be reminded of this period: the sharp polarisation between the industrial areas and the rest of Italy; and the role of municipalities and social reformers in inspiring local housing policies.

As for regional inequalities, quite surprising, the ratio between dwellings and population had been lower until World War II in the Centre-North regions, where the migrants in-flows were high; however, figures show that it has steadily improved since then. On the contrary, the availability of dwellings has been severely limited in the rural South for decades, which even a relative decrease shows for a long span, while joining the national trends in the last quarter of the century only. Actually, the age-long shortage has been recalled among the reasons that justify the sometimes exceeding provision of housing in the South, soon after as families’ income rose over the basic need level (Cremaschi 1994).

As for municipal involvement, a national scheme to support low-income housing provision –based on contributions established on wages and public bodies- was not established until the mid 30s, while not attaining its present form until the end of the Sixties.

It should be reminded, however, that the very idea of an ideal dwelling fitting to the poor –the so-called “casa popolare”- was developed at this time. Such elaboration can be hardly reduced to the practice of a minimum housing units for each household (McGuire 1981). In fact, the housing reform movement was not intended only to shelter people, but precisely to let them take abode in a physical place as well as in a social organisation.

Of course, “normalising” assumptions have largely determined the modern housing model, with its functional distinctions within the dwelling and between work-place and living-place; however “the diffusion over time of these models have been slow, and fraught with obstacle. The variance reminds us that modern models have never achieved a complete success” (Tosi 1995).

Albeit a patronising and somehow “disciplinary” ideal was implied, yet housing was intended as an initial step in a broader process, one which would finally end in a full citizenship. Dwelling, living and belonging (to a place, or a community) was firmly maintained as intertwined dimensions of the provision of housing. For instance, eminent urbanists of this period were extremely cautious about the economic rationality of modernist high-rise developments, and the social cost implied by the management of large and complex building. However, functional criticisms mixed confusedly with social prescriptions. Reasons like the following were reminded: a) the need for a high “urban background” of the dwellers of a building requiring technological devices for the circulation of people, the distribution of things, the disposal of waste etc.; b) the inadequacy from the point view of the visual control of children in outdoor space; c) the overall cost of the construction; d) a lower “social hygiene”, supposedly meaning the risk of social mix for moral habits; e) the complexity of the financial scheme involved in the financing of high-rise buildings (³).

tab.2 Households and dwellings per censuses

Index (1881=100)

1881 1931 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 1997*

Population 100 138 159 169 178 190 191 193

Households 100 141 178 208 241 281 301 320

Dwellings 100 141 166 207 254 319 364 387

Occupied dw. 100 148 175 212 249 286 322 343

Non-occ. Dw. 100 81 89 160 289 596 718 746

dw./hh.s 100 104 97 103 109 118 126 125

Source: Istat Censuses and Consumption Survey

+ Estimated

tab. 3 Rate of increase per year

% increase 1951/1881 1981/1951 1997/1981

Population 59 19 2

Households 78 58 14

Dwellings 66 92 21

Occupied dw. 75 63 20

Non-occ. Dw. -11 571 25

% House-sharing 2,8 5,9 0,6

average % increase per year

Population 0,8 0,6 0,1

Households 1,1 1,9 0,9

Dwellings 0,9 3,1 1,3

Occupied dw. 1,1 2,1 1,3

Non-occ. -0,2 19,0 1,6

Source: Instate Censuses and Estimates on the Consumption Survey

tab.3 Dwellings per thousands inhabitants

1881 1931 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991

Centro-North 199 229 243 297 348 401 449

South 285 248 235 256 295 364 427

Italy 231 235 240 282 329 388 441

tab.4 Non-occupied dwellings, % on total

1881 1931 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991

Centro-Nord 6,4 6,1 5,4 8,3 11,8 18,2 18,4

Meridione 16,0 6,2 6,4 8,4 13,1 23,7 26,1

Italy 10,7 6,1 5,7 8,3 12,2 20,0 21,1

tab.5 Housing indicators per macro- regions

Centre-North 1881 1931 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991

Population 18881 26525 30136 31750 34084 36504 36241

Households 3765 6063 7330 9425 11865 14639 16255

Occupied dw. 3524 5691 6935 8644 10460 11971 13256

Non-occ. 241 372 395 781 1405 2668 2999

South

Population 10910 14518 17380 18721 18874 20053 20537

Households 3108 3601 4081 4789 5569 7298 8772

Occupied dw. 2612 3379 3821 4388 4842 5571 6480

Non-occ. 496 222 260 401 727 1727 2292

The early modernisation built environment was not only the result of a national policy effort. Private developers and building companies on the one hand, and the public agencies on the other, were concerned with the provision of low-cost dwellings, almost entirely built in the new industrial cities. Although the common strategy was the production of high-density estates in comparatively cheaper peripheral lands, public and private developers operated according to different ratios, these latter being far eager in applying a normalising view on dwellings and urban developments, a view which would be a prime in the second post war era. In this second phase of the economic boom, mass-housing was at the core of some national programmes, which eventually came together in the Housing Act of 1968. For instance, the “housing for the working class” national post-war policy resulted in a massive construction of multi-dwelling social housing estates in outer and isolated locations. Private developments followed filling the gap, speculating than on lands provided with basic infrastructure and inclosed between the centre and the peripheral ring. During the crucial period of growth (since 1951 to 1964) the number of dwelling completions has been fast growing (Padovani, 1986). Public investment rate was very high in this first period, for Italian standards, although it diminished from 25% in 1951 to 6% in 1961 1965.

As for the last period, public policies re-organisation affected housing sector as well. Since the age of “mass-housing”, social housing continuously declined. In particular, the already limited share of 8% per year in at the beginning of the 80s felt to a scant 2% at the beginning of the 91s not to rise anymore. Public finance support diminished, while local authorities became more and more involved with the new configuration of housing needs and poverty issues. However, public supported housing construction did not completely disappear. While the number of social rented dwelling continues to diminish, a state supported housing programme concentrated on major urban areas, trying to contrast urban decline subsidising the provision of rented dwelling in urban areas. New estates were built not only for low-income people, but also for people unable to find an affordable rented flat or even a rented flat itself. Even then, however, a national policy aimed at supporting the private rented sector in metropolitan areas, leading to the construction of large residential enclaves in the outskirts of major cities. Although a great political tension about the scope and role of public intervention, the conclusion that government commitment to housing “showed little sign of decreasing” (Power 1993) seems tenable at least for the 80s.

A problem arises then about the real function of government intervention, whether “it is directed to sustain social housing (that seems more and more unlikely) or to sustain the market” (Seassaro 1994). The withdrawal from social housing has been at least compensated by the subsidising of private rented, middle class housing. And finally, construction in the 90s is becoming a more and more scattered activity: almost 70% of dwellings are built outside urban areas by now (Cresme 1993).

Besides, we can state that the dwelling model incorporated in mass-housing failed to solve the relationship between individuals and collectivity, amplifying the loss of a common “public space” (Cremaschi 1994a). The problem is the relationship between the spatial organisation of a dwelling system and its social content, that is often incorrectly attributed to the building form (see for instance Coleman 1985) while it heavily affects the organisation of social relations in space and time and even the economy of cities.

tab. 6 Dwellings per age of construction

total stock %

before 1919 4,745,270 19.0

1919-1945 2,633,517 10.5

1946-1960 4,095,790 16.4

1961-1971 6,090,200 24.3

1972-1981 4,940,627 19.7

1982-1991 2,523,118 10.1

Total 25,028,522 100.0

92-97* 1.470.000 5.9

*Estimation on data provided by Istat, Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, and Cresme

source: calculation on Istat, 1991

3. Family networks, informal provision, and sociality

Family promotion is quite common in Italy: that is easily acknowledged with reference to rural areas and, basically, to the remnants of the pre-industrial era. However, the role of the family in industrialised countries tends to be undervalued (Padovani 1988) whereas it represents, in Italy as well as in many western countries, an important agency in the housing market (Padovani 1991).

In several southern European home-ownership constitutes the main way of accommodation for the widest range of income groups, and it is associated with the role of families. Actually, the rate of home-ownership has been higher in Southern Europe among the low income, even before public support.

This can be explained with the role of extended families, which mobilises all available assets to provide members in crucial need with resources intended to provide access to ownership, or even with a ready-made dwelling. The example highlights two important features of family involvement: the inter-generational pact, that transfers resources, good, services and even more (for instance, housing models and localisation choice); and the relations between state and family, one of contrasting as well as making up for welfare inequalities, an issue that will be dealt with in the next paragraph.

As for the transfer of goods and services, usually references are paid to the construction of a single family house in rural areas, where it has been an affordable task for a long time even for a low-income family (provided at least the ownership of a building lot).

Actually, the importance of family networks is underestimated, since it affects not only the informal providing but also accession to ownership in general. Families help accession to ownership either financing the purchase on the market (which account roughly for half the total), or providing a dwelling through inheritance or self-provision (including self-construction).

It order to state that “inter-generational transfers pave the way generously to home ownership” (Tosi 1995) several examples have been advanced: Tosi reported findings by Cuturello and Gotman, who have stated that 28% of the owners have had family backing in their purchase, and that 13% of the semi- and unskilled working class achieved home ownership either through inheritance or donation.

In Italy in 1978 it was estimated that 30% of owner families had received their home through inheritance, an habit not limited to rural areas, being the same percentage 15% in big cities (Istat 1978); a few years later, when a huge pressure was exerted towards an extension of the ownership area, sometimes subsidising the purchase of a newly-built flat, the same index was still at 23% (Istat 1985). However, ownership due to the financial help generated in families is commonly accounted for a substantial percentage of the total: in an area of settled and widespread urbanisation like Lombardy, “21% of owner-families gained their home through inheritance or gift, and 27% received financial assistance from their parents for the purchase or construction of a home (Tosi 1987), trends confirmed some years later (Cremaschi 1997).

However, family promotion is responsible for an important and growing share of total building completions: according to some estimates, this figure has changed from 40% of new dwelling construction in the first half of 80s (Cresme 1993) to 30% in 90s. In the same period, industrial providers, such as building companies and construction firms, hold an approximately stable share of 30%.

Some ethnographic records report in detail the articulated family strategy over time, however this effort does not refer to extended family only. In fact, it has been identified in areas where the modernisation process brought extended families (Pitkin 1985) which were not among the original features of local societies.

In this case, construction was directly promoted by the householder: somehow, he acted as his own “general contractor”, searching for loans, looking for building materials, co-ordinating workers, asking sometimes for planning permits (sometimes ignoring them deliberately, as in the widespread case of illegal construction: Cremaschi 1990), etc. Often he took on part of the job, possibly with friends and relatives; and often built not only his own home, but also a house for every child. In order to accomplishsuch a task, every financial and human resource of the components of the family are involved.

However, it has been stressed that “this recourse to the family network cannot be read simply as a strategy for increasing resources on an economic-rational basis… relationships count as least as much as the nature and level of the resources exchanged” (Tosi 1995). Findings by field researches have suggested that these exchanges are not only generating a real economy, but they develop primary socialities and identity processes.

4. The Italian Social Welfare system

As for the relation with state welfare, the scarce protection should be remembered provided for several social groups. The Italian welfare system is in fact centred on the existence of broad insurance schemes grounded on an employment basis. Workers are in fact fully protected by a scheme covering against the risks of being unable to work due to unemployment, loss of job, sickness, inability, retirement age, etc. (Tosi, Kazepov, Ranci 1998).

As a consequence, if exception is made for the health service, no system of social welfare protection has developed in Italy that is capable of providing cover to all citizens for risks connected with insecure or “irregular” work (Negri and Saraceno 1996).

This state protection model has a clear residual character, as opposed to universal systems of social protection: but such a “conservative” welfare system, considered to be a topical feature of Italy, could be not inadequate in a period of occupational growth, when the non-protected are a small group somehow connected to the ones who benefit from the protection schemes.

For instance, welfare benefits have been often directed towards the aged (protected by inability or retirement schemes), which possibly have already attained their own private homes; surprising as it can be, the “consequences of this biased welfare distribution might not be as severe as it could be expected” (Sapounakis 1997), and can be explained with reference to the role of the family.

Family solidarity has so far compensated for the otherwise unequal welfare distribution; the uneven combination of strong family and social networks, on the one side, and a weak state on the other, has partially absorbed the shock produced by economic change and social transformation.

However, many scholars have expressed concern towards the capability of familial and reciprocal institutions to prevent the effects of social deterioration brought about by the “post-fordist transformation”. Long-term unemployment, protracted dependence of children in terms of income, combined with the effects of demographic change and economic restructuring induce a growth of the risk of poverty non only in Southern cities, but in Northern ones as well (Mingione and Morlicchio 1993).

As a consequence of economic restructuring “the familial and kinship system is overloaded with responsibilities and the risk of individuals being dragged down into poverty depends on its capacity of supporting their conditions of need” (Kazepov 1994); and the risk appears impending as far as cuts in the national social budget are going to add to the “traditional shortcomings of the social policies system” (Tosi 1994b).

5. Policies for the 90s

Typical housing policies have been the construction of new dwelling and the subsidising of ownership for a long time. In the past twenty years housing policies have been changing. In most European countries changes have been fairly similar notwithstanding differences in previous and present political orientations.

There was a general decline in public investment; a shift away from government regulation towards market mechanism, in particular in the control of the rented sector and sometimes (but not always) in the subsidising of housing consumption; often a decentralisation of government control, with direct involvement of (and partially a devolution to) local authorities; and “the (declining) financial support shifted from generic to specific subsidies, targeted to the groups with the weakest socio-economic position” (Boelhouwer and van der Heijden 1994).

However, in Europe and in other western countries housing policies are now facing mostly problems of poverty and exclusion, a widespread problem of affordability, and sometimes a new “shortage” especially for the urban poor. Nowadays, people with housing needs do not form a distinctive social group, one that could be described as large, coherent and widespread, as it was possible with blue-collar households for a long time. Such people belong today to heterogeneous niches, and are characterised by many social and economic disadvantages, and often are gathered in certain urban neighbourhoods. For these people, social problems of exclusion (for instance, because they are immigrants or foreigners) and economic problems (because unemployment, etc.) are mutually reinforcing.

Later estimation of housing needs suggested then different approaches (Irs 1994), stressing that poverty, on the one hand, and housing stress, on the other, are not coincident factors, but combine in producing demand. Besides, housing stress is articulated according to different geo-economic areas, being particularly extended in southern big cities. And finally, process of exclusion from housing interferes with the former more traditional factors, creating a reduced core of people in “extreme need”. A minimum estimated of 900 thousands families (5% of the total), which can be extended to a twice as maximum, were expected in this situation five years ago. Moreover, housing problems and deprivation areas concentrate in major urban areas, especially in a few high-rise estates.

In such a climate, it is quite unlikely that families keep supporting positive efforts to face the poverty risk. A re-establishment of housing policies is then required, as some programmes implemented in Europe have tried to do, drawing on two separate issues: the multiple combinations of poverty and housing processes, on the side of social actions; and the renovation of the built environment, on the other.

Some key-words of such experiences (for instance, a multidimensional concern with the poverty issue, partnerships, participation and empowerment, local community involvement, a close evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention…) suggest that the logic and structure of public policies has changed over the past twenty years. The objective of an integrated approach is to get actors who, until now, have ignored each other, to work together, to modify their ways of thinking and acting and indeed to promote a change in administrative systems in order to make them better fitted to the complexity of the problems faced. Often partnerships are built up with the local residents. Development, change and service delivery in an area are most likely to succeed when those most affected by policies and programmes are effectively involved in the process and share a sense of benefit from its results.

However, as a methodological point, “local” characteristics of the intervention should be stressed in order to achieve greater “multiplier” effect. As has been stated, “neighbourhood is the appropriate place to carry out a dynamic and relevant analysis of the difficulties faced by its inhabitants, and within which all the family, community and institutional networks (…) can be mobilised” (Commission 1993a).

This does not mean of course that all the solution can be found within a territorial framework, but that working within a defined locality fosters partnership and synergy. It is quite commonly recognised that policies can not but fail when addressing only one feature of a global problem or, whilst addressing several issues, failing to control the overlap of contradictory outcomes. “Improvements to the built environment are not only a matter of technique and finance: they require a clear analysis of residents’ expectations and must aim at changing the neighbourhoods’ image in the city. Furthermore, integrating actions in this way enhances synergy and stimulates more impact than when they are implemented piece-meal” (Commission 1993).

Bellicini Lorenzo, 1988, L’Italia da recuperare, indagine in sedici grandi città, Credito Fondiario, Roma.

Bellicini Lorenzo, Cremaschi Marco, 1991, “Housing self provision and local economies in Nord-Eastern-Centre and Southern Italy”, ENHR, Housing Self-Provision in Industrialized Countries, Venice.

Censis, 1983, La casa ideale, Gabetti, Milano

Censis, 1989, Il territorio ideale, Comune di Roma-USPR, Roma

Censis 1993, Indagine sulla condizione abitativa in Italia. Analisi della domanda marginale, Cer, Roma.

Censis 1997, “Casa Monitor, Mercato, famiglie e mobilità”, Censis Note e Commenti, n. 12, dic.

Centro Studi Pim 1993, Nuovi problemi e nuova geografia dell’abitare nell’area metropolitana, Pim, Oetamm, Milano.

Cnel 1997, La riforma della politica abitativa, Atti del convegno, Roma, 30 ottobre.

Coleman Alice, 1985, Utopia on Trial, Hilary Shipman, London

Commission of the European Community, 1993, “Quartiers en cris: citizenship laboratories for Europe, Final Report”, Bruxelles

Commissione delle Comunità Europee 1997, La problematica urbana, orientamenti per un dibattito europeo, Comunicazione, Bruxelles.

Coppo Maurizio, Cremaschi Marco, eds., 1994, Strutture territoriali e questione abitativa, Angeli, Milano

Cremaschi Marco, 1990, “L’abusivismo meridionale: realtà e rappresentazione”, Meridiana,

Cremaschi Marco, 1994a, Esperienza comune e progetto urbano, Milano, Angeli

Cremaschi Marco, 1994b, “Disagio abitativo, povertà, esclusione sociale”, in A. Tosi, ed., La casa, il rischio e l’esclusione, Angeli, Milano

Cremaschi Marco, 1994c, “La denazionalizzazione della questione abitativa”, Urbanistica, n. 102.

Cremaschi Marco, 1997, “Casa e relazioni sociali”, in Irer, Milano.

De Certeu Michel 1980, L’invention du quotidien, Gallimard, Paris

Di Cosimo Monica, 1988, “Linee di tendenza in Italia e all’estero”, in L. Padovani, ed., Politica o non politica della casa?, Angeli, Milano

Ece 1996, Strategies to implement Human Settlement Policies on Urban Renewal and Housing Modernisation, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, New York e Ginevra.

Ferracuti Gianni, Marcelloni Maurizio, 1982, La casa, Mercato e programmazione, Einaudi, Torino

Gazzola Antida, 1991, “Spazio pubblico e spazio privato: un’analisi della città pubblica ligure”, Housing, 2

Höllinger Franz, Haller Max, 1990, “Kinship and Social Network in Modern Societies: a Cross-cultural Comparison among Seven Nations”, European Sociological Review, 6, 2, sept.

Irer 1991, Social Survey in Lombardia, Angeli, Milano.

Irer 1997, Indagine sociale Lombarda, Cambiamenti e condizioni di vita delle famiglie lombarde, Guerini, Milano.

Istat 1881… 1991, Censimenti generali della popolazione, Roma.

Istat 1978…1996, I consumi delle famiglie, Roma.

Istat 1981, Statistiche sociali, Roma.

Istat 1985, Indagine sulle strutture e i comportamenti famigliari, Roma.

Istat 1993, Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie 1987-91, Roma.

Istat 1996, Famiglie, abitazioni, servizi di pubblica utilità. Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie 1993-94, Roma.

Istat 1998a, La vita quotidiana, Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie 1996, Roma.

Istat 1998b, Rapporto sul paese, Roma.

McGuire C.C.,1991, International Housing Policies: a comparative analysis, Toronto, Lexington Books.

Negri Nicola and Saraceno Chiara, 1996, Le povertà contro la povertà in Europa, Mulino.

Ocde 1996, Stratégies pour le logement et l’intégration sociale dans les villes, Paris.

Padovani Liliana, 1984, “Italy”, in M. Lynn, Housing in Europe, Croom Helm, London.

Padovani Liliana, 1988, “Housing Provision in Italy: the Family as Emerging Promoter. Difficult Relationships with Public Policies”, Housing between State and Market, Inter-University Centre, Dubrovnik.

Padovani Liliana, 1991, “Conclusive remarks”, Daest-ENHR, Housing Self-Provision in Industrialized Countries, Venice

Padovani Liliana, 1995, “Urban change and housing policies in the Milan metropolitan area”, In L. Padovani ed., Urban change and housing policies, Evidence from four European Countries, Daest, Venezia.

Padovani Liliana, 1996, “Italy”, in P. Balchin, Housing Policy in Europe, Routledge, London.

Pim 1998, Condizione abitativa e problemi emergenti della residenza nella Provincia di Milano, Centro Studi Pim e Provincia di Milano, mimeo.

Pitkin Donald S., 1985, The house that Giacomo built. History of an Italian family, 1898-1978, Cambridge UP, London

Power Anne, 1993, Hovels to High Rise, State Housing in Europe Since 1850, Routledge, London

Seassaro Loredana 1994, “Continuità e discontinuità nelle politiche per la casa: un’interpretazione”, Urbanistica 102

Tosi Antonio, 1990, “Italy”, in Van Vliet W., International Handbook of Housing Policies and Practices, Greenwood, New York

Tosi Antonio 1991 “Casa e relazioni sociali”, in Irer 1991.

Tosi Antonio, 1994a, Abitanti, Mulino, Bologna

Tosi Antonio, 1994b, “Italy”, in Report 1994, Feantsa, European Observatory on Homelessness.

Tosi Antonio, 1995, “Shifting paradigms: the sociology of housing, the sociology of the family, and the crisis of modernity”, in R. Forrest and A. Murie, eds., Housing and Family wealth in a comparative perspective, Routledge, London.

Tosi Antonio, Cremaschi Marco, 1991, “Poverty, Social Marginality and Housing in Italy. Observations on the Construction of Homelessness”, International Institute of Sociology, XXIX International Congress, Rome

Tosi Antonio, Kazepov Yuri, Ranci Costanzo, 1998, “Italy”, in Report 1997, Feantsa, European Observatory on Homelessness, feb.

The long century

Modern housing policies span well over the short boundaries of the second half of the 20th century, while first experimentation date back to the Enlightenment and interesting achievements were recorded even during the first Machine Age. As for comparative purposes, however, it is a common habit to look to some fifty years, approximately [...]]]>

The long century

Modern housing policies span well over the short boundaries of the second half of the 20th century, while first experimentation date back to the Enlightenment and interesting achievements were recorded even during the first Machine Age. As for comparative purposes, however, it is a common habit to look to some fifty years, approximately since World War II onwards, when the modernist turn in housing was unmatched and most countries adopted the same influential framework of policies. As for Italy, we can observe that the whole history of the unified country (some 140 years since 1861) presents several phases of growth and at least three main models. The first paragraph discusses the twin ideas of the “housing field” and of “housing regimes”. The concept of a recursively changing housing field allows the long historical perspective and helps to understand the re-framing of housing policies. On the other hand, the idea of a housing regime -being a regime a combination of distinctive policy style, market organisation and trends in urbanisation- marks the main factors affecting different periods of economic development and social change. The following paragraphs describe three different housing “regimes” recognized in the Italian housing system, and outline the main structural features of each period paying reference to of a few housing indicators and to a brief summary of housing policies. In conclusion, this paper tries than to develop some arguments for a wider approach, connecting the idea of an evolving trend, which justify a comparative approach of the housing field; and the idea of significant nuances in regimes, not necessarily dependent upon economic cycles, yet differentiating policies, actions, and market development nationally and locally. That is to acknowledge that housing policies change less for strictly functional reasons than for the cultural re-framing of policies. Such approach eventually underlines the role played by households and social practices along and through the elaboration of the “universal” modern housing project.

In questa nota si riassumono alcune considerazioni sulla dimensione territoriale della questione abitativa, più ampiamente esposte negli allegati [...]]]> Sintesi SIU Miitt

In questa nota si riassumono alcune considerazioni sulla dimensione territoriale della questione abitativa, più ampiamente esposte negli allegati (²) che contengono altre informazioni, in parte diverse, ma complementari a quanto segue.

Come è noto, la recente diffusione abitativa al di fuori dei confini delle maggiori aree metropolitane ha portato a combinazioni insediative molto differenti nelle diverse ripartizioni territoriali del paese.

Scopo di questo lavoro è porre a confronto la nuova geografia metropolitana dei sistemi abitativi con le dinamiche ‘disgiunte’ del settore edilizio e delle abitazioni. Le pagine che seguono cercano infatti di descrivere gli scenari abitativi, integrando nella misura del possibile le riflessioni sulla articolazione territoriale, le dinamiche della residenza e la variazione degli occupati.

Le principali osservazioni sono le seguenti:

• forse non è più possibile parlare di un sistema abitativo unitario, per la radicale disgiunzione tra politiche, pratiche d’uso, investimenti finanziari, ambiti che spesso procedono ciascun per conto proprio;

• la dispersione abitativa e l’organizzazione di regione urbane vaste sono i binari su cui si modellano situazioni abitative differenti;

• ne sono esempi la rivalutazione finanziaria degli immobili nelle città centrali, l’intensa espansione delle corone metropolitane, la perdurante scarsità di alloggio sia pur in ambiti territoriali limitati, il declino di vaste aree del sud e di prima industrializzazione;

• le piattaforme territoriali risultano miste, dal punto di vista delle condizioni abitative; in particolare, sono compresenti ambiti urbani e territori produttivi diversi anche per il modo di regolazione dei mercati abitativi, ma interdipendenti per dinamiche più generali; tale situazione differenziata non dispone però di programmi e misure adeguate (del tipo programmi sovracomunali per la casa, come già avviene in altri paesi);

• si aprono allora degli scenari dove la crescita dei territori è limitata dalle diverse situazioni problematiche riscontrate dal punto di vista abitativo (di costo, di surriscaldamento, di scarsità), che introducono anche rigidità sul mercato del lavoro e usurano, nel lungo periodo, il grado di coesione sociale.

Il dimensionamento del piano di Jesi non dipende esclusivamente da un calcolo, ma da una valutazione politica dello scenario evolutivo congruente al comune. Questa scelta si sorregge però su una valutazione attenta dei processi in corso e degli obiettivi da perseguire.

Questa relazione espone [...]]]> Scenari abitativi per Jesi 2005

Il dimensionamento del piano di Jesi non dipende esclusivamente da un calcolo, ma da una valutazione politica dello scenario evolutivo congruente al comune. Questa scelta si sorregge però su una valutazione attenta dei processi in corso e degli obiettivi da perseguire.

Questa relazione espone quindi gli elementi utili a procedere ad una analisi sistematica e rigorosa dei fenomeni osservati, degli indicatori disponibili, degli scenari possibili. L’analisi qui condotta tiene naturalmente conto delle prime elaborazioni del ‘piano idea’, del piano strategico, nonché delle analisi e degli indicazioni raccolte negli incontri preparatori.

Inoltre, in questa riflessione vengono prese in esame le alternative possibili per le politiche pubbliche del comune, con particolare riguardo alla edilizia sociale. Da questo punto di vista, una particolare attenzione andrà posta al comportamento dei soggetti del mercato, della promozione e della produzione edilizia in particolare. Un ruolo significativo va inoltre attribuito agli attori presenti nella mediazione tra domanda e offerta, in particolare a quelli attivi nei confronti della domanda debole. I principali risultati sono i seguenti:

• la consistenza abitativa del comune e dell’area di Jesi è robusta e –sulla carta- più che adeguata ai fabbisogni esistenti e futuri dell’area;

• la spiegazione delle consistenti variazioni edilizie e tensioni abitative si spiega soprattutto per la presente di sub mercati (alta gamma, turismo, investimento…) retti da logiche patrimoniali e finanziarie quasi indipendenti;
• le dinamiche demografiche conducono ad una crescente dispersione abitativa nel bacino comprensoriale, favorite anche dalla ricerca di modelli abitativi suburbani;
• una serie di condizioni normative, fiscali e finanziarie e rende difficile l’affitto o l’uso del patrimonio edilizio;
• la riduzione netta dell’Edilizia residenziale pubblica lascia scoperta la domanda non solvibile che non può comunque trovare accesso al patrimonio disponibile.

Difficilmente in questo contesto un incremento della produzione edilizia può risolvere tutti i problemi legati all’uso, all’accesso, alla mobilità abitativa. D’altra parte, neanche le tradizionali politiche pubbliche della casa, che dipendono da un quadro nazionale piuttosto incerto, sembrano riproponibili nel breve periodo. Sembra, in definitiva, necessario procedere alla sperimentazione di interventi innovativi su diversi aspetti di promozione, mediazione e uso del patrimonio esistente e nuovo.