Metodología lean manufacturing

It is commonly said that “home is where the heart is”. If residents do not have any pride in their houses, or do not take ownership of their houses, how can they call it home? How can we move away from creating houses and instead creating homes for people in our country?

Figure 2.7: Home is where the heart is. Image from: Adamsdaughter, 2012.

Internationally and even locally, there has been a migration away from merely providing houses and meeting backlogs (Cocking, 2012), -although those goals are really important too, given the alarming and increasing backlog of housing- towards providing more

include “community development goals, environmental goals, urban transportation and other forms of infrastructure (schools, hospitals, child care, etc.)” where the focus on “community participation” has been emphasized (Smit, 2006: 5-6). This has also been echoed by the large-scale housing developers, who are “increasingly recognizing the necessity of constructing projects alongside broader community infrastructure such as schools, shopping centers, hospitals and public transport” (Cocking, 2012).

Development (such as in the housing sector) should always happen holistically with the aim of addressing poverty through locating developments in close proximity to both social and economic opportunities (Cocking, 2012; Smit, 2006: 5-9); it should include “capacity building, skills development, access to credit, job creation, health, education, community safety, etc.”

(Smit, 2006: 5-6).

Smit, referring to the creation of communities, says that

“building and strengthening livelihoods and social cohesion are essential.

Upgrading projects are therefore preferable to relocation projects, and effective capacity building and community participation is essential, even if it slows down delivery” (Smit, 2006: 9).

This is also agreed with by Mammon et al. (2008: 12):

“Public facilities, public spaces and institutions, which form the backbone of any public spatial network, provide venues to address critical issues such as health, education and social development collectively. Public facilities and institutions are venues for people to congregate, discuss, perform, protest and interact outside of the confines of their private domains. These are also important spaces for recreation and relaxation, especially given the nature of the majority of the lower income areas, where positive urban space is at a premium.”

In a study conducted by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation for Knight Soul of the Community 2010, titled Why People Love Where They Live and Why It Matters: A National Perspective (2010), 43,000 individuals from various neighbourhoods across the United States of America were interviewed to determine what people deemed necessary within an area or environment to enable them to form an attachment to that environment, and thereby to create a community. In contrast to South Africa, where the emphasis is on job creation and economics, this study indicated that “jobs, the economy, and safety — are not among the top drivers” for creating a community (John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, 2010: 4).

“Rather, people consistently give higher ratings for elements that relate directly to their daily quality of life: an area’s physical beauty, opportunities for socializing, and a community’s openness to all people” (John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, 2010: 4).

Their study goes further to illustrate that there is an emotional connection between the environment and the attachment that a person has towards the area in which they live. By creating an emotional link between the environment and the person, a stronger sense of community is manifested; residents would want to live in such an area, creating ownership and therefore creating pride within a community.

“Community attachment is an emotional connection to a place that transcends satisfaction, loyalty, and even passion. A community’s most attached residents have strong pride in it, a positive outlook on the community’s future, and a sense that it is the perfect place for them.” (John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, 2010: 5)

Their study, which looked at individuals across the United States indicated that the factors that influence people’s connection to their communities seldom vary even in different neighbourhoods. After conducting the study for a number of years consecutively, it emerged that the same three items arose repeatedly:

 Social Offerings — Places for people to meet each other and the feeling that people in the community care about each other;

 Openness — How welcoming the community is to different types of people, including families with young children, minorities, and talented college graduates;

 Aesthetics — The physical beauty of the community, including the availability of parks and green spaces.

(John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, 2010:10)

The Table below serves to list the perceptions of residents during the study, as referred to in this section, to determine the main items/factors that create an attachment to an area/environment. Each column represents what the residents understood of what Social offerings, Openness and Aesthetics is inclusive of. Text highlighted in bold text indicates what the residents found most important of all of the qualities within their community.

Table 4: Lists the aspects that people from the community classified as determining factors to create

“Education: Education tends to be one of the higher rated key attachment drivers”

“Geography: Residents who live within the city limits of their communities tend to have similar attachment to those who live outside the city.”

“Age: Attachment tends to increase with age. Residents aged 65 and older have the highest attachment scores, on average.”

“Community Tenure: Residents who have lived in communities studied by the Knight Foundation for three to five years tend to be the most attached.

Conversely, the newest arrivals tend to be the least attached.”

“Income: Attachment tends to increase with income.”

(John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, 2010: 12-16)

Although items such as the location of housing, security and economic activity are still essential within a community, it emerged from the study discussed above that these items only became relevant once residents felt that they were living in a “social”, “open” and

“aesthetic” environment.

As seen throughout South African legislation and previous research on housing developments, there is an emphasis on building shelter and housing, rather than homes and communities. Although there is a movement away from just meeting backlog numbers within the housing context and instead creating sustainable areas or “Human Settlements” (South Africa, 2004), there is still no framework to enable people to create communities that they are proud of, that residents take ownership of and to which people have a sense of attachment.

Since the end of Apartheid, local

“polices have acknowledged that physical development needs to be focused on the making of more integrated living environments and goals broadened to include the delivery of community facilities, public amenities, sports and recreational opportunities and other elements considered to be essential urban services” (Mammon et al, 2008:12-13).

However, this has not been the outcome, as these related infrastructural commodities have been provided only sporadically and intermittently, rather than as part of a coherent plan or vision (ibid).

It is my argument/contention that the emphasis needs to shift from the creation of housing to the creation of communities. As Mammon et al. (2008: 12) have argued, the public spaces and the areas around the housing developments are “the primary, and arguably the most important, form of social infrastructure.” It is thus important for South African designers and architects to design homes for and with people as opposed to housing the poor. A more holistic approach needs to be taken with UD and PD, which South African designers need to contextualise. Mammon et al. (2008: 28) explained that successful design best achieved when local, contextual design limitations and opportunities, which are presented by the communities, are adhered to. This therefore allows for the utilisation of both UD and PD, which applied to a specific situation, based on specific people, offers the solution. And so again, the spectrum of application of UD supersedes that of just facilitating access and through the use of PD integrates social, cultural and economic opportunities for people with diverse abilities. (Preiser & Ostroff, 2001: Chapter 5.4)

As a result of the adoption of terminology such as Participatory Processes without the comprehensive understanding of the required outcomes of such processes (and those of Participatory Design), programmes such as the People’s Housing Process (PHP) was initiated and roll-out in South Africa. The following sections deals with both the pros and cons of this housing delivery scheme/programme.