The chapter focuses on one of the greatest changes that has occurred in recent decades within the Italian housing system: the transition from Edilizia Residenziale Pubblica (ERP) [Public Housing] to Edilizia Residenziale Sociale (ERS) [Social Housing] as a welfare response to registered housing needs. Today, the two systems respond to two completely different population targets in terms of income and needs. The ERP, introduced in 1903, remains one of the main instruments for solving housing hardship but is characterized by a series of structural deficits concerning the scarce diffusion rate, its spatialization, the impoverishment and the so-called residualization of the population accessing it, a very low turn-over, and a physical-structural decay phenomena—all of which make the rental stock inflexible and ineffective in terms of its response capacity. ERS, formally introduced in 2008, marks the beginning of so-called public social housing, characterized by (more) affordable rents, but increasingly managed by public-private partnerships or private actors. As evidenced in the second part of this volume, cohousing addresses not only the specific needs of intentional housing communities but also increasingly acts as a new support tool within the broader category of ERS. On one hand, many private cohousing initiatives aim to reach particularly vulnerable groups in the housing market—such as students, the elderly, or young adults. Public cohousing initiatives, on the other hand, are multi-objective experiments designed to address, among other goals, housing insecurity and fit seamlessly into the larger ERS framework.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

From Public Housing to Social Housing

  • Manuela Maggio

摘要

The chapter focuses on one of the greatest changes that has occurred in recent decades within the Italian housing system: the transition from Edilizia Residenziale Pubblica (ERP) [Public Housing] to Edilizia Residenziale Sociale (ERS) [Social Housing] as a welfare response to registered housing needs. Today, the two systems respond to two completely different population targets in terms of income and needs. The ERP, introduced in 1903, remains one of the main instruments for solving housing hardship but is characterized by a series of structural deficits concerning the scarce diffusion rate, its spatialization, the impoverishment and the so-called residualization of the population accessing it, a very low turn-over, and a physical-structural decay phenomena—all of which make the rental stock inflexible and ineffective in terms of its response capacity. ERS, formally introduced in 2008, marks the beginning of so-called public social housing, characterized by (more) affordable rents, but increasingly managed by public-private partnerships or private actors. As evidenced in the second part of this volume, cohousing addresses not only the specific needs of intentional housing communities but also increasingly acts as a new support tool within the broader category of ERS. On one hand, many private cohousing initiatives aim to reach particularly vulnerable groups in the housing market—such as students, the elderly, or young adults. Public cohousing initiatives, on the other hand, are multi-objective experiments designed to address, among other goals, housing insecurity and fit seamlessly into the larger ERS framework.