Frontiers of Architectural Research (2017) 6, 401–411

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Frontiers of Architectural Research

http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/frontiers-of-architectural-research/

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Successes and failures of participation-in-design:

Cases from Old Havana, Cuba
Arturo Valladares

School of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Received 18 December 2016; received in revised form 30 May 2017; accepted 2 June 2017

KEYWORDS Abstract
Participation-in- Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba faced a crisis that forced it to change its housing
design; approach. Self-help building programs began to supplant the construction of mass standardized
Community archi- housing estates. The Community Architect Program was developed to provide design advice to
tects; self-help builders, and it expanded exponentially within a decade. By the year 2000, all
Historic districts;
municipalities across Cuba had their own Community Architect Office. While the approach of
Urban regulations;
the Community Architect Program has been hailed a breakthrough in the fields of planning and
Cuba;
Caribbean cities architecture, the particular case of Old Havana suggests that several obstacles prevent
residents from benefiting from its services. The author identifies the strengths and limitations
of the approach by looking at two home renovation projects in Old Havana and the perceptions
of low-income residents on the work done by community architects. This research indicates
that participatory design methods should be complemented by community-based initiatives
that address other aspects of the housing development process, such as access to materials,
construction, and construction management.
& 2017 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on
behalf of KeAi. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The Community Architect Program of Cuba was introduced
as a result of the shift in the balance of global geopolitical
powers. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire in
Eastern Europe was deeply felt in Cuba, and the country
E-mail address: arturo.valladares@mail.mcgill.ca
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University.
found itself without the capacity to import fuel and other
materials needed to mass-produce its built urban environ-
ment. Consequently, the availability of housing throughout
the island diminished (Scarpaci et al., 2002). The response
to the housing crises of the 1990s arose from a partnership
between Cuban civil society and its government (Valladares,
2013). Operated by the NGO Habitat Cuba, the Community
Architect Program began providing design advice to resi-
dents seeking to improve their housing conditions. The case
of the Community Architect Program presents a paradox.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.06.001
2095-2635/& 2017 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
402 A. Valladares

This approach is perhaps the largest effort to facilitate the participation-in-design approaches to housing in the cities
participation of residents in housing design in any country of in the developing world.
the world. Habitat Cuba pioneered a design method through
which residents seeking to build, renovate, or expand their 2. Methodology
homes could engage in a collaborative process. Two decades
after its inception, the Community Architect Program has
This study drew on qualitative research conducted in
grown to employ more than one thousand designers across
Havana, Cuba over 2013 and 2014. Research has revolved
Cuba. Cuban community architects are trained to apply a
around the following questions: What factors explain the
sound methodology that integrates residents into the pro-
success or failure of the program seeking to assist house-
cess of designing homes through the use of a sequence of
holds in designing their homes? To what extent does the
role-playing games (Valladares, 2013). This method was
Community Architect Program allow laypeople to take
developed by the Argentinian architect Rodolfo Livingston.
control over decisions that concern the configuration of
The method is a product of rigorous analysis and address the
their living environments? To what degree are households in
ways in which architects interact with clients. One conclu-
Old Havana satisfied with the services of the community
sion of this analysis was that architectural programs genu-
architects?
inely reflecting the wishes and needs of clients may only be
The objectives of this research were as follows: (a) to
arrived at if clients feel free and encouraged to express
document the interactions between community architects
their ideas concerning the design of their homes. Commu-
and clients during the design period of a home renovation;
nity architects use role-playing and games throughout the
(b) to investigate the degree of satisfaction of households
design process to achieve this goal. The value of games in
with the services of community architects; and (c) to
participatory approaches to design was noted decades ago.
explore the ways in which architects and households
In his seminal work, Sanoff (1977) described role-playing as
involved in a participatory design process to navigate the
a powerful tool that facilitates the engagement of commu-
regulations governing the production of the built environ-
nities in decision-making processes. Hester (1984) discussed
ment in Old Havana.
how role-playing allows people to explore and understand
During fieldwork, data regarding the interventions of
how they feel toward space. Brant, Messeter, and Binder
community architects were collected through in-depth
(2008) recently explored the use of games in producing
interviews with professional designers and residents of Old
design schemes that reflect the wishes and needs of clients.
Havana. Interviewees included the founding director of the
Along these lines, community architects are expected to act
Community Architect Program, the national director of the
as facilitators and shed the authoritarian role that char-
program at the time of the research, three regional
acterized the practice of architecture in the 21st century.
directors, community architects employed throughout
However, the participatory design approach of the Commu-
Havana, three academics employed at different Cuban
nity Architect Program was developed within the highly
universities, and over 60 residents of Old Havana. Interviews
centralized and “undemocratic” decision-making processes
with officials and scholars were arranged using a “snowbal-
that prevailed in Cuba and Old Havana (Lizarralde et al.,
ling” technique. Data collection stopped when the author
2015). High-ranking officials envisioned the redevelopment
reached a saturation point and was no longer receiving
of Old Havana into a major hub for international tourism.
dissimilar answers during the interviews. The Community
Such a vision implies the enactment of stringent urban
Architect Office of Old Havana provided access to docu-
regulation that limits the ability of people with low income
mentation related to home renovation projects along with
to design and build a home that caters specifically to their
the contact information of residents who had participated
needs and possibilities.
in these projects. Two projects were selected and analyzed
While the approach of the Community Architect Program
as case studies. Data regarding the cases, the housing design
has been hailed as a breakthrough in the fields of planning
policy, and the Community Architect Program were col-
and architecture (Valladares, 2013), the extent to which its
lected by using several methods. In addition to in-depth
method works and how the various stakeholders involved
interviews, the author gathered data through observing
perceive its strengths and weaknesses require attention.
office meetings, visually evaluating public, common, and
The particular case of Old Havana suggests that several
private spaces, and analyzing documents and plans. Inter-
obstacles prevent residents from benefiting fully from its
views were semi-structured. The author prepared a list of
services. This research suggests that participatory design
topics for discussion during the interviews and asked ques-
methods need to be complemented by community-based
tions that brought them into the conversations with
initiatives dealing with other aspects of the housing devel-
research participants. The collected data were analyzed
opment process, such as access to materials, construction,
through a comparison of the responses and comments given
and construction management. The success of the partici-
by residents and designers. As such, the author was able to
patory approach to housing designs employed by the com-
understand the views of designers and residents.
munity architects in Old Havana is assessed. The wide
arguments on the need for the participation of its residents
in the design process are discussed. The limitations to 3. Self-Help, community, and progress
housing designs imposed by regulatory frameworks are
examined, and these regulations evaluated as a product of In the past, people built their houses without consulting
the political environment and power-based relations. This professional architects or designers (Carmon, 2002). While
article offers some suggestions on future directions for this situation has changed in the developed world, a large
Successes and failures of participation-in-design Cases from Old Havana, Cuba
portion of the population in developing countries continue
to build their own houses without professional assistance
(Carmon, 2002; Ward, 1982; Cohen, 1983; Skinner and
Rodell, 1983; Laquian, 1983; Perlman, 1987; Patton, 1988;
Zhang, 2000).
In the 20th century, politicians and professionals seeking
to develop modern landscapes believed that mass-produced
housing states could be a viable alternative housing
approach. However, such developments often became failed
environments. Wates and Knevitt (1987) criticized them and
denounced their association with ugliness, squalor, conges-
tion, pollution, and vandalism. They also stressed their
incapability to foster the development of a sense of
community among residents. Moreover, modern mass hous-
ing has been found to structurally neglect the particular
sociocultural dimensions of its geographic setting, thereby
alienating and isolating residents (Hester, 1984; Valladares,
2013; El Masri and Kellett, 2001; Eldemery, 2002). Modern
designs often resulted in the production of vast open spaces
that have been described as wastelands, which are impos-
sible to maintain or manage (Caminos and Goethert, 1978).
Along these lines, generations of researchers have attached
positive attributes to self-help building (Turner, 1977;
Turner and Fichter, 1972; Tipple, 1996). In Latin America
and the Mediterranean basin, entire districts have been
built and upgraded progressively through the efforts of
residents. As a result, these districts have become areas
where people live with high degrees of comfort (Carmon,
2002; Hall, 1989). Some researchers have also argued that
self-help housing can produce environments that efficiently
serve the sociocultural needs of their residents (El-Masri and
Kellett, 2001).
By contrast, developments can support the sociocultural
needs of residents when people are allowed to have a say in
the configuration of their built environments (Gabarin,
2002). Alexander et al. (1977) state that physical structures
must follow the social structure of a community. For
example, in a study on self-help housing in the city of Gaza,
Garabin (2002) finds high degrees of trust among neighbors.
Rapport (1988) indicates that when the configuration of the
built environment is the product of numerous decisions
made by residents over long periods, a cultural landscape to
which all residents belong develops. Carmon (2002) supports
the notion that residents of informal settlements develop
strong bonds with their habitats. Along these lines, bottom-
up approaches that consider the socioeconomic complex-
ities of the habitat are believed to be sustainable and
successful (El-Masri and Kellett, 2001).
Hester (2001) and Sanoff (2010) argue that the advance-
ment of democratic values and decentralization of decision
making in the last decades have led to the wide recognition
that the successful design of housing, neighborhood, and
cities requires engagement and participation of residents.
Researchers, practitioners, and granting agencies have
advocated this participatory turn in which complex deci-
sions related to all dimensions of development (not simply
the physical) are considered (Sarkissian and Hurford, 2010;
Sandercock, 1995: IDNDR, 1996; Cockburn and Barakat,
1991; Aysan and Oliver, 1987; Anderson, 1985; Cuny, 1983;
UNDRO, 1982; Davis, 1981). One key element to the
successful implementation of bottom-up approaches in
housing is the transformation of professional attitudes. In
403
the new participatory approaches, the architect and the
planner are understood to be “facilitators” rather than
experts possessing unquestioned power (El-Masri and Kel-
lett, 2001; Oliver, 1987; Serageldin, 1997). Participatory
approaches succeed at delivering good outcomes because
residents are more aware of their needs than outside
professionals (Sanoff, 2005). Furthermore, participatory
approaches require interdisciplinary work and the blurring
of professional boundaries (Sanoff, 2010). This situation
entails developing processes in which professionals listen to
all the “voices” (Sandercock, 1995). This careful listening
encourages communities to create their own “stories” and
learn from them (Sarkissian and Hofer, 2009; Booher and
Innes, 2002). People relate better to stories than to data.
Stories allow people to share and find common grounds and
develop collective narratives that kindle change (Sarkissian
and Hofer, 2009).
In a seminal research exploring power relations and the
degrees of community participation in urban anti-poverty
projects, Arnstein (1969) proposes her “ladder of citizen
participation.” The ladder of Arnstein was adopted by
Choguill (1996) to describe levels of participation in pro-
jects undertaken in developing countries. Lizarralde and
Massyn (2008) indicate that the ladder of community
participation remains deeply relevant when evaluating
housing projects in the developing world. However, no
agreement has been reached over what specifically distin-
guishes “community participation” (Davidson et al., 2007).
Different degrees of participation persist at different stages
of a project, such as management, design, and construction
(Da Silva, 1980). No universal formula is also available for
determining the needs of a community (Forester, 1999;
Sarkissian and Hurford, 2010). Each participatory process is
different just as the “story” of each community is unique.
Studies attempting to establish a critical view of partici-
patory design approaches have identified some obstacles to
their success, such as the difficulty in maintaining trust
between program beneficiaries and granting agencies
(Lizarralde, 2008), reluctance on the part of governmental
bodies to give power to low-income residents (Ismail, 2011),
and frequent reduction in the participation of residents to
the provision of labor in the form of sweat equity (Davidson
et al., 2007).
In the view of community participation advocates, parti-
cipation is an end in itself; its goal is not simply to increase
project performance, but rather to empower communities
(Choguill, 1996; Carmon, 2002; McEwan, 2002) and expand
democracy (Hester, 2001). Daniere et al. (2002) conclude
that the strengthening of community ties facilitates the
implementation of development projects. The participation
of residents has been proven to be beneficial to projects
seeking to improve the urban habitat as a whole, including
the provision of public services, such as water, electricity,
and sewage (Das and Takahashi, 2009).
When examining the theory of participation, a debate can
be identified. On the one hand, the seminal work of
Habraken (1972) questions the idea that decisions concern-
ing the layout of housing units must rest with the society as
a whole. Rather, he believes that individuals must be
granted the power to decide how their houses will look
like. This notion that the home must reflect the idiosyncrasy
of each family was also supported by Hester (1984). On the
404
other hand, others believe that improvement of housing
conditions requires mobilization of the community (Hamdi,
2010, Choguill, 1996; Carmon, 2002).
While participatory approaches in housing and planning
projects have been advocated (Forester, 1999; Sanoff,
1978), a critical look at these approaches is necessary along
with the further explanation of the factors that explain
either their successes or their failures. For example, Hou
and Kinoshita (2007) question the institutionalization of
participatory processes and argue that these processes are
increasingly becoming bureaucratic and fail to foster real
community empowerment. Having this in mind, the author
questions the capacity of the Community Architect Program
to ignite change and improve the living environments of
low-income residents in Old Havana. The author questions
whether improvements to the habitat can truly be achieved
by working with individuals and families on a case-by-case
basis, as opposed to processes that engage with the com-
munity as a whole.
4. Stories of success
This section presents the data obtained during interviews
with residents and architects in Old Havana. The data
reflect the divergent opinions on the work of community
architects. On the one hand, residents who participated on
renovation projects with community architects expressed
high degrees of satisfaction with the service provided. On
the other hand, low-income residents expressed mistrust
toward architects, who are viewed as authority figures.
Project in Villegas - The first project involved the
reconstruction of a building façade on Villegas Street (see
Figure 1). Over the course of the renovation, the community
architect maintained frequent communication with his
client. Upon its completion, the client was highly satisfied
with the reconstruction. This project offers evidence that
participatory design techniques may lead to the develop-
ment of comfortable homes. Details are described below.
In 2011, a resident decided to approach the Community
Architect Office of Old Havana because he had been having
problems legalizing ownership of his home. He had built an
additional room on the roof of his house and its modern
styling apparently disrupted the harmony of the colonial
style of the surrounding units. As a result, the Commission
of Monuments denied him the stamp required to legalize his
property. As a community architect mentioned,
Figure 1 Façade renovation by residents and community architects.
A. Valladares
It was a project for the remaking of a façade. The style
for the second floor was clashing with the surrounding
environment. It did not respect the style of the neigh-
boring structures. The client came to the Community
Architect Office because he could not legalize the
property. He was having problems with the Monuments
Commission.
The design process started following a home visit from
the community architect. The resident stated that he
recalled the architect conducting an interview with him.
The architect collected information on the wishes and
resources of the resident during the interview. The architect
also measured the building. The first floor of the house was
approximately 120 m2, and the second floor measured
approximately 40 m2. The measurements were used to
produce an initial blueprint. The client stated,
The architect came to the house and did an interview
with me. He wanted to know things like what I wanted to
do with the house and the resources I had for construc-
tion. He also measured the house, and we discussed some
ideas for it.
The architect mentioned that in his experience, people
are already aware of their needs prior to a meeting. He
shares,
In my experience, people already have a pretty good
idea of what they need when they come to talk to us.
They have already seen the requirements to satisfy the
urban regulations. Also, if they come to us, it is because
they want to do something in particular.
In the case of the Villegas project, the client needed to
rebuild the second floor façade in a way that would not
disrupt the harmony with its surroundings. The client also
requested that the second floor be expanded and an extra
room constructed. The resident commented that during the
interview, the architect “cared about his needs.” He added
that the architect guided him by telling him what was
required to receive the approval of the Monuments Commis-
sion. However, the architect did not dictate defined solu-
tions. Rather, his role was to provide guidance and explain
why the Commission was denying the legalization of the
property in a friendly manner. He stated,
The architect was very useful. He was sensitive to my
needs along all the way. He was knowledgeable about my
Successes and failures of participation-in-design Cases from Old Havana, Cuba
needs and told me what had to be done. He was not
authoritarian or anything like that; rather, he explained
to me what was required in a friendly manner.
The architect drafted three distinct blueprints in his
studio. The project task was to elevate the walls of the
house by approximately 4 m, as shown in Figure 1. The walls
included some hollow-imitating windows that would harmo-
nize with the façade of neighboring buildings and provide
natural light for the upper floor.
The author asked the resident the key question of
whether he was presented with choices during the design
process. He confirmed that throughout the process, the
architect was sensitive to what he wanted for the building
and prepared different solutions, thereby giving him
choices. The resident felt that his opinions were always
incorporated in the design process. He mentioned that
owning a computer was essential to the success of the
project. The architect prepared renderings of the different
design proposals, and the resident could choose from the
visualization of these proposals. The resident shared that,
Yes, I was presented with different choices during the
process. The architect prepared different drawings on
the computer, and I could choose the one I liked the best.
He brought 3D pictures on a flash drive, and we uploaded
them onto the computer. It was easy to see what was
being proposed. It was very nice.
After the resident selected a design, the construction was
completed within one year. The elevated economic status of
the resident allowed him to hire professional assistance in
carrying out the renovation. The difference between the
features of the façade installed before and after the project
is difficult to note, and the house is definitely well
integrated into the surrounding built environment. The
Monuments Commission approved the project, and the
resident was able to legalize his ownership over the
property.
Project in Compostela - The second project was located
on the second floor of a building constructed at the end of
the 21st century (see Figure 2). The clients wanted to
expand the surface area of their house and build a room to
rent to tourists. They presented this project to the
Figure 2 Interior balcony-renovation by residents and com-
munity architects.
405
Monuments Commission of Old Havana. However, the pro-
ject was rejected because it violated building regulations.
Their project required the rooms behind the building façade
be renovated. However, the stringent regulations of Old
Havana state that no construction work should be per-
formed directly behind a façade. Following the decision of
the Monuments Commission, the residents requested the
services of the Community Architect Office of Old Havana.
The Community Architect Office assigned the project to
an architect who has been working for the office for only a
few months. He was previously employed at a firm working
on state-commissioned projects. Referring to his new posi-
tion, he averred that,
It is very challenging. Here, at the Community Architect
Office, we interact a lot with clients. It is not a job
where you just go into the studio and design. Here, the
mandate is to design with clients. You have to be very
careful when you communicate with them. You must not
upset them. You have to explain everything very care-
fully and make sure that they understand the urban
regulations that are affecting the project. It is not easy.
The project was complex because, according to urban
regulations, nothing must be built in the rooms directly
behind a façade. To begin, the architect visited the house to
collect preliminary information. He measured the home
dimensions and interviewed the residents. He elicited
information regarding the wishes and needs of the couple
during the interview. The family was anxious to expand their
home and have a room to rent to tourists.
During the interview, the architect stated that although
he had not read Livingston's book, the text through which
community architects receive their training, and otherwise
does not follow all the prescribed steps of the community
architect method scrupulously, it was nonetheless possible
to maintain the spirit of participatory design if one listens
carefully to a client:
I have never read Livingston, I must confess. But that
does not mean that what I do is not participatory design.
The key lies in how you approach clients. How you listen
to their wishes and elicit information from them.
The community architect proposed that the homeowners
build a mezzanine level that could accommodate an addi-
tional room and a toilet. The ceilings in the back rooms of
the house were high, and would allow the construction of a
mezzanine. The lower level of the mezzanine would be used
as a living room and a kitchen (see Figure 2). The architect
shared,
It took me about a month to come up with the proposal. I
designed a mezzanine. The upper level is a room and a
toilet. The lower level is a living room and the kitchen.
One thing I did not like about the project was the lack of
natural light in the room. But there was nothing I could
do to change that. I presented the proposal to the clients
and they agreed with it.
In relation to the communication and the presentation of
the proposal, one of the residents mentioned that she did
not find the plans difficult to understand. She reported that
406
the architect provided a blueprint with a series of numbers
that corresponded to the proposed changes.
He presented us the blueprints. The blueprint had
numbers. Each number was a function. That is how
things were explained to us. It was really easy. He also
handed in a list of the materials that would be required
during the construction. It was great!
When the author asked the resident whether she was
satisfied with her interactions with the community archi-
tect, she responded affirmatively and stated that he had
been very helpful and always seemed very confident in the
success of the project.
The architect helped us a lot. He always seemed to know
what was required. He prepared the proposal within a
reasonable timeframe. He always showed a lot of inter-
est in our opinions and interests and did what we
wanted. I was very satisfied with his work.
The author asked the resident if she believed she was
presented with different choices during the design process,
she answered that the architect explained the challenges
and obstacles involved adequately, and that the choices
provided were within the margins of what could be done.
The resident stated they discussed various alternatives at
the beginning of the project, meaning she could pick the
one she liked best.
Yes, the architect was very careful in explaining to us the
problems that we could encounter and the possible
solutions. Everything was explained in a simple way so
that we could understand what was going on. The
architect definitely presented us with different alter-
natives about what could be done with our house.
The author asked the community architect if he felt that
part of his duties was ensuring that people made informed
design decisions. He responded positively, saying that part
of his job was educating people about what can and cannot
be done. The architect stated no project can ignore urban
regulations. Thus, explaining the regulations to the clients
is necessary. He commented,
Yes, we try really hard to make sure that people under-
stand what is going on and how the different alternatives
in the project might affect them. We explain in detail
what can be and cannot be done. It is part of our job as
community architects to educate people. You have to
guide them through the different stages of the project.
But at the end, I think they end up making more
informed decisions.
The resident commented that during the planning stages,
the guidance of the architect allowed her to make informed
decisions. She mentioned that the key to the success of the
project was the ability of the architect to communicate in
an efficient manner with her and her husband.
The residents continued with the construction them-
selves. They refused to tell me how much they spent on
the construction, because the renovations were performed
gradually. They saved some money, and then continued on a
portion of the construction; the project proceeded through
A. Valladares
this process for six months. The female resident mentioned
they hired specialized labor for the construction.
The residents were satisfied with the service provided by
the community architect. They attributed the eventual
approval or the project to the Monuments Commission with
the help of the architect.
5. Stories of failure: community perceptions
on community architects
The author complemented the analysis of two participatory
design intervention case studies by asking the residents of
Old Havana on their perception on the services provided by
the Community Architect Program.
The majority of the interviewees of the latter study were
low-income residents. A woman operating a cafeteria in the
area introduced me to the interviewees. Respondents
generally had a negative perception of the architects and
their work. When asked how they perceive the community
architects, several residents mentioned they were useless.
Many of their answers reflected the fact that the aid
provided by community architects would not help them
repair or adapt to their dwellings. Low-income residents
expressed negative perception for community architects.
The aforementioned opinions reflect the bureaucratic bar-
riers that inhibit them from reaching out to the architects,
the lack of access to building materials, the unreliability of
the architects, and the limitations of singular approach
were taken to design. The commentaries were numerous
and consistent as exemplified by the stories
recounted below.
A 78-year-old woman living in her own apartment said she
attempted to request the services of the community
architect for repairing her dwelling. She stated that she
paid for her dwelling following many years of hard work as a
seamstress in a workshop in Old Havana. She commented
that the process of attempting to contact a community
architect was complex and confusing. She shared,
I really have not taken care of that. You go one day and
they send you there. Then they send you somewhere else
and then somewhere else. You despair and lose patience.
I think the architects are not helpful for anything.
This resident noted on one occasion that the Cuban
government promised to give her materials to fix the ceiling
of her house. However, she was not given anything in the
end. She and her family were forced to continue repairs
without help.
Another woman complained about the services provided
by community architects not facilitating access to
materials:
Here not a single brick has been given. What you see has
been done with the little money that we earn. All is the
product of my own efforts. They came to measure. They
told us that they were going to give us materials, but
they did not give us anything. They have not helped us
at all.
This resident observed that the services provided by the
community architect are useless. She also stated that she
and her family live in a legal limbo because they lack
Successes and failures of participation-in-design Cases from Old Havana, Cuba
permanent tenure in the building they inhabit. They
expressed confusion in which government agency might be
able to address their situation.
A woman who has resided in Old Havana for the last 14
years reflected upon the difficulties of improving and
adapting to her home. Living in the back of her solar, she
and her husband rebuilt a wooden shack using salvaged
materials. She argued that the process of building this
dwelling was slow. They often had to interrupt the con-
struction because of the lack of funds or time to complete
the construction. She noted that,
A bag of concrete is selling at 100 Cuban pesos. Each
brick costs 10 Cuban pesos. We have spent over 1000
dollars on the whole construction and we are not finished
yet. We had no experience or knowledge about how to
build. We had to learn in the process. No one helped us.
Everything has been done through our own efforts. It has
been a drama.
When I asked her if she required a permit for construc-
tion, she said that she did needed one but the help of a
community architect is required to acquire it. However, she
felt disappointed with the services offered by the commu-
nity architects. She observed,
The problem is that if I go to the Community Architect
Office they say that they are going to come, but then
they do not. How am I supposed to get the permit? Things
do not work the way they are supposed to.
This resident noted that all housing units in her solar had
been declared uninhabitable by the local government. This
designation indicates they will be scheduled for demolition
at some point in the future. As demolition cannot proceed
until all residents of the solar are offered an alternative
housing option. The residents still face uncertainty and lack
of security for their futures. Community architects do not
have the power to help residents that find themselves in
such a legal limbo. For this reason, these residents see no
point in requesting the services of community architects.
Conversely, a janitor working at the Office of the
Historian of Old Havana expressed having an exceptionally
good experience in dealing with a community architect.
Despite his low-income status, he was able to rebuild his
house by replacing wood structure with bricks and concrete.
To make these changes, he requested the help of the
Community Architect Office:
The house was entirely made out of wood. An architect
came and made me a plan; he told me how to do things.
Then, I went to buy materials. I got them for half the
price. The architect helped me with that also. During the
construction some neighbors helped me. We all helped
each other with our houses. That is how I built the toilet,
the room, the stairs, the kitchen, the mezzanine,
everything.
Why this resident managed to adapt his living environ-
ment successfully while others in his income bracket could
not is unclear. His professional proximity to decision-makers
working at the Historian's Office who facilitated the proc-
ess is a possibility. His case is certainly an exception
in the context of Old Havana, given that most residents
407
interviewed expressed frustration toward their homes and
the difficult process of adapting them.
Another resident employed by the company that manages
water distribution in Cuba rebuilt his home by replacing
wood with more durable materials. However, he has a
family, and his home only has one room. I asked him if he
requested help from a community architect. He observed,
The architects come and measure here and there. They
draw a plan of your house. Then they leave and never
come back. They do not help you.
Another Old Havana resident sharing a two-room apart-
ment complained about the conditions in his home. He
shares the house with his niece, mother, uncle, and sister.
They lack privacy and the house is crowded. This resident
mentioned that a community architect visited his house.
Reflecting on the experience, he shared,
The architects come and look around. They tell you that
they are going to fix things but at the end they never
came and nothing was done. They do not give you
anything; you have to buy materials in the market. You
have to pay full price for them. I do not have the money
to buy the materials and my house is in ruins.
While showing me his house, this resident complained
that the roof leaked when it rained. The walls were full of
stains. Furthermore, they lack proper shower and have to
use buckets to bathe.
A middle-aged woman, who has been living in her
apartment in Old Havana for the last 38 years, shared her
experience and opinions on her housing condition. She
showed me a room used by three different families to cook
and bathe. There was a hole in the floor big enough for a
person to fall through, which they covered with a wooden
board. She told me that community architects visited her
building in the past. She had a rather negative view of their
work, saying,
Community architects have been here. They come and
they look around. They measure but then nothing
happens. They do not fix anything. You have to fix things
on your own, with your own means. All is falling apart.
They have declared this building ‘uninhabitable’.
Although this resident has a job, she only makes 400
Cuban pesos per month. She said the money she earns is not
enough and she has no alternative source of income. She
lives in poverty.
The testimonies offered by these residents suggest some-
thing may be missing in the approach taken by the commu-
nity architects. Although assisting residents with the design
of their homes and providing plans and sketches may create
positive outcomes for certain residents, assisting with
design alone is insufficient to solve all the issues that
surround housing. In contrast with other people, the author
surveyed the resident who had received aid with design,
discounted materials, and assistance with construction on
Cuba Street and he appeared to be the only interviewee
that is fully satisfied with the services of community
architects.
These statements represent a small portion of the data
collected in Old Havana. Throughout the research, low-
408
income residents expressed frustration, mistrust, and a lack
of interest in the services provided by community archi-
tects. The results of the survey are in contrast with the
opinions of those residing in houses where the Community
Architect Office of Old Havana suggested for analysis.
6. Participation and human development in
globalizing districts
The governance of cities has been affected profoundly by
three separate but related shifts in the international scene:
globalization, decentralization, and democratization
(Devas, 2004). Despite their socialist development models,
Cuba and Old Havana are no exception to these global
forces. Globalization and the need to capture foreign
currency revenue have shaped the politics of the island
and its vision for the historic district. Despite official claims
asserting a social dimension to the project, the multi-
million dollar redevelopment project of Old Havana has
systematically prioritized economic growth over social
development.
According to Devas (2004), the forces of globalization
may undermine governance as cities compete to offer
better facilities, lower taxes, and easier regulatory regimes
in what has sometimes been described as “the race to the
bottom.” In these cases, decision-makers become more
concerned with the interests of investors than the needs
of citizens. Projects designed to attract capital and foreign
investments usually have deleterious consequences for the
urban poor. These dynamics seem to be present in the case
of Old Havana, where almost all low-income residents hold
a negative opinion for institutions managing the develop-
ment of the built environment, including the Community
Architect Program, which aims to aid residents and enhance
living environments.
The cases of Old Havana and the Community Architect
Program in the historic district raised questions on the
nature of participatory approaches to urban redevelopment
and their links to social development and justice. The
participation of citizens in the decision-making processes
has been promoted globally and identified as a key compo-
nent for projects aiming at improving the quality of life of
residents (Buckley and Kalarickal, 2005). However, partici-
pation is not enough to ensure improvement in the quality
of life of those with the lowest income (Crook and
Manor, 1998).
The case of Old Havana also calls into question the notion
that economic growth translates into a trickle-down of
benefits for lower-income residents (Varis, 2008; Jacques,
2012). The case of Old Havana demonstrates that addressing
inequality requires more than promoting economic growth.
A nuanced approach is necessary to ensure that the
productive assets of the poor are developed and utilized
(Varis, 2008). The aforementioned data illustrate that in Old
Havana, only those with elevated economic resources and
human capital can utilize the services of the community
architects for improving their homes and transforming them
into assets that can generate revenue from increased
tourism in the area.
These stories of failure suggest that scholars who have
argued that participation empowers communities (McEwan,
A. Valladares
2002) and that strong communities better implement urban
projects (Daniere et al., 2002) are correct. Without a strong
community in place, participation-in-design projects that
are the product of the good will of liberal architects and
planners will fail to ignite the kind of collective responses
needed to upgrade the habitat as a whole (Das and
Takahashi, 2009). Thus, it has been argued that one of the
objectives of participatory approaches to housing and anti-
poverty initiatives must be to strengthen communities
(Choguill, 1996; Carmon, 2002; Satterthwaite and Mitlin,
2014). Castells highlights the processes where the State
individualizes its relationships with citizens, weakening
their collective practices to reinforce its own power (Cas-
tells, 1983), which seems to be the case for the Community
Architect Program. Burra et al. (2003) studied the attitudes
of practitioners and politicians with the participation of
citizens. Removing control from citizens is a key part of the
patron-client relationships through which politicians sustain
their careers. Furthermore, community management con-
tradicts the long and dishonorable tradition of contractors,
engineers, and councilors who receive cuts from these kinds
of projects, often through inflated cost estimates. Govern-
ment staff dislikes working with groups difficult to bribe.
Although no evidence of corruption within the redevelop-
ment program of Old Havana exists, the reluctance of
authorities to share their power and include residents in
the decision-making process beyond a few cases in which
individual households successfully participated in redesign-
ing their homes is evident. Simultaneously, the evidence
presented suggests that some of the obstacles in imple-
menting participatory programs identified in the literature
are present in Old Havana. These obstacles include barriers
in the construction of trust between program beneficiaries
and granting agencies (Lizarralde, 2008), reluctance on the
part of governmental bodies to share power with low-
income residents (Ismail, 2011), and frequent reduction of
residents’ participation to the provision of labor in the form
of sweat equity (Davidson et al., 2007).
Successful participation schemes effectively reduce
urban poverty at their center, and wishes to cultivate
experiences, skills, and capabilities individually and collec-
tively (Satterthwaite and Mitlin, 2014). Whitehead and
Gray-Molina (2005) investigated the development of politi-
cal capabilities and organizational resources that may bring
the community together in urban projects. This develop-
ment of political capabilities is absent in Old Havana, where
the local population perceives the institutions supposed to
mediate between residents and the State with mistrust.
7. Low-income residents and urban
regulations
Instead of encouraging amateurs to adopt the approaches of
professionals, self-help and community development is
focused on responding to what the everyday people are
doing (Satterthwaite and Mitlin, 2014). Across the develop-
ing world, liberal architects and planners have sought to
build upon grassroots energy and creativity through partici-
patory design programs. These professionals help to provide
more affordable and less exclusionary housing policies and
programs, including serviced site programs and upgrading
Successes and failures of participation-in-design Cases from Old Havana, Cuba
programs. Change in housing and urban planning practices
depends on the attitudes of professionals and the action of
communities at grassroots level (Hamdi, 2010). However,
the good intentions of community-oriented professionals
may collide with politicians and their visions that emphasize
economic development and growth. These visions often
increase restrictive urban regulations that stress efficiency
over equity (Zhang, 2015). The restrictiveness of urban
regulations and the success of participatory approaches
have an inverse correlation, which is particularly true in
areas identified as priorities for economic development such
as Old Havana. In the face of such restrictiveness, liberal
practitioners must emphasize the importance of informal
participatory processes and the creation of environments
where the community can generate alternative visions for
the habitat by generating “stories” that construct knowl-
edge and mutual learning (Sarkissian and Hofer, 2009;
Forester, 1999; Hou and Kinoshita, 2007; Sandercock,
1995). However, while individual residents may engage in
a case-by-case basis with community architects, in the case
of Cuba, the lack of some basic freedoms prevents them
from sitting at the table and having an influence on the
prescription of urban regulations and create an inclusive
vision for the historic district. Simultaneously, successful
participatory processes require that different elements be
considered at different stages of housing and development
projects, such as management, design, and construction
(Gilbert, 2000; Lizarralde, 2015; Da Silva, 1980). My
research supports this notion, and it has been suggested
that participation is embedded in power-based processes
(Sarkissian and Hofer, 2009). People cannot ignite the
collective processes required for a successful participatory
process in a context where citizens lack basic democratic
warranties, such as the freedom of speech and freedom to
associate. Only those with greater economic means can
benefit successfully from the participatory approach on
housing design within the present political environment of
Old Havana. In a similar case, when looking at the introduc-
tion of participatory processes in China, another country
followed a socialist development model. Zhang (2015)
identified the lack of social organization at the grassroots
level and the conflict between efficiency and equity as
major barriers for the successful implementation of parti-
cipatory approaches. The aforementioned barriers also
appear to be characteristic of the Cuban case.
The few stories of success mentioned above are good
examples of the virtues that researchers and granting
agencies have advocated for a long time. These aforemen-
tioned home renovations were planned in a manner that
allowed households to progress in a step-by-step renovation
process (Alexander and Center of Environmental Structure,
2002; Turner, 1968, 1977; Turner and Fichter, 1972; Tipple,
1996).
In these successful cases, the customized designs pro-
vided by community architects produced housing units that
better fit the socio-cultural needs of residents (Hester,
1984; El-Masri and Kellett, 2001) and allowed them to
utilize their homes as financial assets and raised additional
revenue by renting one or two rooms to tourists.
Regulations with enhanced flexibility are required for
residents with lower incomes to fulfill their housing needs.
Lizarralde (2015) discusses the benefits of urban regulations
409
and building codes that support a variety of standards. The
possible benefits include filling housing gaps, facilitating the
mobility of those with low incomes, augmenting the possi-
bility of progressive adaptation and expansion of housing
units, increasing the diversity of plot sizes and configuration
to attract a variety of households, and decreasing the
stigmatization of certain neighborhoods. Without flexible
urban regulations, economic development may result in the
gentrification and displacement of those with low income.
Elevated standards may also lead to situations where new
housing units witness an uptick in their market value, and
causing more displacement for low-income residents (Lizar-
ralde, 2015). In the context of the top-down approach to
renovation that prevails in Old Havana, the community is
powerless to shape the processes through which the urban
regulations are defined. Following Hamdi (2010), participa-
tory approaches are doomed to fail without collective
action at the grassroots level.
8. Conclusions
When evaluating the degrees of success of the services that
community architects provide to the community, evidence
from Old Havana displays mixed results. Residents with
higher degrees of cultural, financial, and social capital have
been able to use these services to their benefit, whereas the
majority of Old Havana residents, many of whom live in
poverty, do not perceive community architects to be of
much help in improving the quality of their housing units
and their lives in general. As discussed in the current paper,
residents seeking to upgrade their built environment must
navigate through many different aspects that the renova-
tion of a home requires. Design decisions are only one of the
elements integrating the process of building a house. The
other aspects of home renovations include access to mate-
rials, compliance with urban regulations, provision of labor,
and the availability of appropriate financing play a decisive
role in the success of home renovation.
Among these elements, stringent urban regulations
appear as the most prominent barrier that prevents low-
income residents from upgrading their living environments.
Such regulations embody power relations that reflect the
unwillingness of professionals to give the community a place
at the table. In the aforementioned political environment,
the goodwill of community architects is rarely enough to
facilitate processes that may improve housing conditions.
The incapacity of low-income residents to benefit from
the services of the community architects may be a profound
issue in Old Havana. It has also been suggested that the case
of Old Havana is unique. Old Havana has very few detached
single-family homes; instead most of its population reside in
apartment buildings or solares, a form of housing charac-
terized by its poor environmental quality and the small size
of its units. Actions taken by individuals have a limited
impact, because the repair of housing units requires the
coordinated effort of all residents of a building or solar.
Community architects work to provide their services to
individual households, and hence, they have limited choices
in terms of addressing the issues of an entire building. Given
these reasons, low-income residents in Old Havana are
410
excluded from the opportunity to benefit from the services
of community architects.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by a Doctoral Award from
FRQSC (168766). The donor agency neither participated nor
prescribed any guidelines for data collection and analysis or
the preparation of this manuscript. I wish to express my
gratitude to Professor Lisa Bornstein who critically reviewed
this manuscript. Giovanni Paquin, Anastasia Howe Bukowski,
Marisa Duenez, and Brian Melanson assisted in proofreading.
I also wish to express my gratitude to Professors Robert
Mellin and Raphael Fischler. Finally, I would like to acknowl-
edge all the Cuban community architects and scholars who
facilitated access to data and shared their views on the
participatory practice of design in the island.
References
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., 1977. A Pattern
Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Anderson, M., 1985. A reconceptualization of the linkages between
disasters and development in disasters. J. Disaster Stud. Manag.
9, 46–51.
Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A Ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst.
Plan. 35 (4), 216–224.
Aysan, Y., Oliver, P., 1987. Housing and Culture after Earthquakes; A
Guide for Future Policy Making on Housing in Seismic Areas.
Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford.
Booher, E., Innes, 2002. Network power in collaborative planning.
J. Plan. Educ. Res. 21 (3), 221–236.
Caminos, H., Goethert, R., 1978. Urbanization Primer: Project
Assessment, Site Analysis, Design Criteria for Site and Services
or Similar Dwelling Environments in Developing Areas: With a
Documentary Collection of Photographs on Urbanization. MIT
Press, Cambridge.
Carmon, N., 2002. User-controlled housing: desirability and feasi-
bility. Eur. Plan. Stud. 10 (3), 285–303.
Choguill, M.B.G., 1996. A ladder of community participation for
underdeveloped countries. Habitat Int. 20 (3), 431–444.
Cockburn, C., Barakat, S., 1991. Community prosperity through
reconstruction management. Archit. Des., 60–65.
Cohen, M., 1983. The Challenge of Replicability, World Bank Reprint
Series, No. 289.
Cuny, F., 1983. Disasters and Development. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Da Silva, R., 1980. La participation de l0 usager dans le processus de
construction (Unpublished thesis). Universite de Montreal.
Daniere, A., Takahashi, L.M., Naranong, A., 2002. Social capital,
networks, and community environments in Bangkok, Thailand.
Growth Change 33 (4), 453–484.
Das, A.K., Takahashi, L.M., 2009. Evolving institutional arrange-
ments, scaling up, and sustainability emerging issues in partici-
patory slum upgrading in Ahmedabad, India. J. Plan. Educ. Res.
29 (2), 213–232.
Davidson, C.H., Johnson, C., Lizarralde, G., Dikmen, N., Sliwinski,
A., 2007. Truths and myths about community participation in
post-disaster housing projects. Habitat Int. 31, 100–115.
Davis, I., 1981. Disasters and the Small dwelling. Pergamon, Oxford.
Eldemery, I.M., 2002. Towards a participatory loan supported
housing scheme: Helwan New Community, Egypt. Cities 19 (6),
401–408.
A. Valladares
El-Masri, S., Kellett, P., 2001. Post-war reconstruction: participa-
tory approaches to rebuilding the damaged villages of Lebanon:
a case study of al-Burjain. Habitat Int. 25 (4), 535–557.
Forester, J., 1999. The Deliverative Practitioner: Encouraging
Participatory Planning Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Garabin, J., 2002. Socially Sustainable Housing: The Case of the City
of Gaza. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Technion—Israel
Institute of Technology, Haifa.
Habraken, J., 1972. Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing.
Praeger Publishers, New York.
Hamdi, N., 2010. The Placemaker's Guide to Building Community.
Earthscan, London.
Hester, R., 1984. Planning Neighborhood Space with People. Van
Nostrad Reinhold Company, New York.
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), 1996.
Cities at Risk; Making Cities Safety Before Disaster Strikes.
IDNDR, Geneva.
Ismail, A., 2011. The Technical Training Resource Centre (TTRC):
Building Community Architects. Environ. Urban. 23 (1), 183–193.
Zhang, j., 2000. Informal construction in Beijing's old neighbor-
hoods. Cities 14, 85-94.
Laquian, A., 1983. Sites, services and shelter—an evaluation.
Habitat Int. 7 (5/6), 211–225.
Lizarralde, G., Massyn, M., 2008. Unexpected negative outcomes of
community participation in low-cost housing projects in South
Africa. Habitat Int. 32 (1), 1–14.
McEwan, C., 2002. Bringing government to the people: women,
local governance and community participation in South Africa.
Geoforum 34, 469–481.
Oliver, P., 1987. Dwellings: The House Across the World. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
Patton, C., 1988. Spontaneous Shelter: International Perspectives
and Prospects. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Perlman, J., 1987. Misconceptions about the urban poor and the
dynamics of housing policy evolution. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 6 (3),
187–196.
Rapport, A., 1988. Spontaneous Settlements as Vernacular Design.
Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Sandercock, L., 1995. Voices from the Borderlands: a Meditation on
a Metaphor. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 14, 77–88.
Sanoff, H., 1977. Methods of Architectural Programming. Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross, Pennsylvania.
Sanoff, H., 1978. Design Games. William Kaufmann, California.
Sanoff, H., 2005. Community participation in riverfront redevelop-
ment. CoDesign 1 (1), 61–78.
Sanoff, H., 2010. Democratic Design. VDM Verlag, Germany.
Sarkissian, W., Hofer, N., 2009. Kitchen Table Sustainability:
Practical Recipes for Community Engagement with Sustainabil-
ity. Earthscan, London.
Sarkissian, W., Hurford, D., 2010. Creative Community Planning:
Transformative Engagement Methods for Working at the Edge.
Earthscan, London.
Scarpaci, J.L., Segre, R., Coyula, M., 2002. Havana: Two Faces of
the Antillean Metropolis. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Serageldin, I., 1997. The Architecture of Empowerment: People,
Shelter and Livable Cities. Academy Editions, London.
Skinner, R., Rodell, M., 1983. People, Poverty and Shelter: Problems
of Self-Help Housing in the Third World. Methuen, London.
Tipple, A., 1996. Housing extensions as sustainable development.
Habitat Int. 20 (3), 367–376.
Turner, J., 1968. Housing priority, settlement patterns and urban
development in modernizing countries. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 34 (6),
354–363.
Turner, J., 1977. Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building
Environments. Pantheon Books, New York.
Turner, J., Fichter, R., 1972. Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of
the Housing Process. Macmillan, New York.
Successes and failures of participation-in-design Cases from Old Havana, Cuba 411

United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator (UNDRO), 1982. Shelter
after disaster. UNDRO, Geneva.
Valladares, A., 2013. The community architect program: imple-
menting participation-in-design to improve housing conditions in
Cuba. Habitat Int. 38 (1), 18–24.
Ward, P., 1982. Self-Help Housing: A Critique. Mansell, London.
Wates, N., Knevitt, C., 1987. Community Architecture. Penguin
Books, London.
Zhang, Y., 2015. Public Participation Approaches for Urban Planning
in China. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin.