SOCIAL

HOUSING

PROFESSOR: ADNAN NOVALIĆ

STUDENT: NAĐA GORANČIĆ
 Social housing in Norway

As described by the Oxford dictionary social housing is, “Housing provided for people on low
incomes or with particular needs by government agencies or non-profit organizations.” But they
haven’t always had social housing. In fact it was only until the industrial revolution that many
European countries started founding public housing programs. In the first part of following
presentation we will see historical evolution of social housing in Norway and its development, and
finish with two examples of modern social architecture. The goal is to analyse improvements of
social housing in Norway and to use all given informations to see the difference in the subject in
Norway and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
 Social housing in Oslo during the
20th century
1900: Towards the end of the 19th centruy and beginning of the 20th, the industrial revolution lead
to the rapid growth of cities. The large influx of people to the city was creating problems of over-
crowding in homes which in turn lead to cramped, unhygenic conditions and the spreading of
diseases as a result. 1

1920: During the 1920’s the living conditions of workers worsened as we can see in the pictures
below. In 1929 the building co-operative Oslo og omegn Bolig- og Sparelag(OOBS) is founded. It’s
owned by its members and the main concern is to supply them with housing. 1
1930: In 1931 the first “Borettslag” with regulated prices, Etterstad 1 Oslo, is built. 1

1940: Norway is invaded and little to no building construction takes place during the years of the
war. Meanwhile, in 1944 Sweden’s Hemmens Forskningsinstitut was conducting studies that
examined how one could live more efficiently in the home. 1

Norway was very inspired by Sweden’s extremely rational approach to make the home more efficient
and made their own survey called the Oslo Bys Vels boligundersøkelse conducted between 1943-
1946. This was a survey that dug deep into the issue of the housing shortage and exposed
overcrowded living conditions the planners knew little about before. 1
In 1946 Husbanken(the house bank) is founded, and inspired by Sweden ,an efficient model for
housing development took shape. The municipality provided land, Husbanken provided loans and
OBOS did the construction. This was a shift from the pre-war focus on the middle class population. 1

1950: After the war several cities had to be rebuilt from scratch, many people had no home and
baby boomers contributed to the already the cramped living conditions. 1

Frode Rinnan was in the 50s the most active and criticized
architect. In the spirit of CIAM and modernism as he was one of
the main figures in shaping the architecture of the social
democracy. He built low, high quality housing, stripped for all
excess details to keep the cost down, preferably in green areas
outside the city center. 1
He built low, high quality housing, stripped for all excess details to keep the cost down, preferably in
green areas outside the city center. Lambertseter was the first satellite town in Oslo and was mainly
built by OBOS. 10 000 inhabitants in 3000 apartments in three and four story narrow buildings with
lawns around. Frode Rinnan, called it “the realized social democracy”. People moved from rundown
worker apartments in the center, to new modern apartments in the suburb. 1

1960: The introduction of pre-fabricated elements allowed buildings to be constructed quicker than
ever before. Housing construction is rationalized further resulting in monotonous buildings with
narrow apartments and bad light conditions. 1
 A famous example of this is the Ammerud apartment complex. In 1969 the Ammerudrapporten was
finalised; a survey made shortly after the Ammerud housing was finished, criticizing the lack of
working places and services making the area a “sleeping town”. 1
1970: Skjettenbyen was a reaction to massive high-rise housing with large vacant green areas and
no room for personal expression. Modularity as a means for diversity, and low buildings with half
private outdoor area. In 1977 the municipality of Oslo starts to sell housing at market price. 1
1980: This decade was most known for getting rid of the price regulations of housing and turning
over to the free market. 1

1990: In the beginning of the 90’s, the country was having a tough time with economy and many
large building projects came to a halt. Between 1990-1999 OBOS only built 2134 homes. However
towards the end of the 90’s building production started to increase again often collaborating with
entrepreneurs. 1

2010: Today OBOS has offices all over the country. Even though their primary ambition is to focus on
providing homes for those with special needs, they have also started producing commercial
SOCIAL HOUSING IN BERGEN BY
The project area is situated in a unique area of Bergen in Norway. Located just outside the historic
city centre on the south side of Store Lungegårdsvannet near the Møllendal River, the site has a long
history as an industrial area, including milling back to the Middle Ages, and storage for the city’s
technical department in recent times. 2
Much of the Møllendal area has for decades been inaccessible and unsuited for public use so making
a fracture between two parts of the town. The project aims to reconnect and to give continuity to a
new territory exploring transitions between land and water; the goal is to create the conditions for
regenerating the area into an attractive and active waterfront neighborhood. 2
It will be linked to the city centre via a continuous park, where a new residential district of Møllendal
emerges with a new role in the cityscape. Looking for new ways of the urban and architectural
design, the project explores the theme of the “adaptable city” meant as need of sustainable
development of the town in a context of economic crisis of the European cities. 2
By taking account of this overall theme, the work shows a self-sufficient residential district which
encourages more self-organization, social relationships and culture of sharing spaces and functions. 2
The designed idea takes inspiration from the local typologies of the oldest part of the city of Bergen,
named Bryggen, Unesco World Heritage. The result is an equilibrate sequence of long housing
blocks, small yards, intimate patios, privates and public spaces. 2
Location: Bergen, Norway
Architects: Rabatanalab
Project Team: Daniele Molinari,
Rocco Salomone,
Hector Montero Docarragal,
Maria Jesus Romero Jimenez,
Margherita Rossi
Collaborators: Ciro Gordon,
Verdiana Spicciarelli
Client: Municipality of Bergen
Area: 80.000 sqm
Year: 2015
Status: Competition entry
Images: Courtesy of Rabatanalab
TRONDHEIM STUDENT HOUSING / MEK
ARCHITECTS
Name: Myspace building
Architects: Murado & Elvira Architects
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Design Team: Clara Murado, Juan Elvira
and Enrique Krahe
Project Year: 2012
Category: Dorm
Pocketworlds: MySpace unifies situations of extreme intimacy with those of extroversion and collaboration.
A room is a powerful mechanism that allows the expansion of the identity, self-recognition and
reaffirmation, interchange and negotiation. One’s own space is a laboratory where to test abilities that
later will be experienced in every act of social interaction. The best room is the one that stages a small
world of our own in its interior: small is fundamental in domestic space; small is empathy in action and a
means for playfulness. 3
Chatrooms: Chats are effective public spaces in the context of global societies, whose community-building
depends growingly on the search of common affinities. These ‘places’ where avatars meet wearing
alternative identities are kind of accelerators of the self. 3
Social Catalyst: In order to achieve a collective-driven atmosphere, students share a flexible lounge and a
self-managed, ‘ultrakitchen’, designed as an experimental space for the use and simultaneous enjoyment
of 116 students , like a 24/24 sort of social sustainability condenser. This way of structuring common
space through collective actions as a means to strengthen the bonds within the newly established
community impell dwellers to come up with rules, responsibilities and unexpected ways of
counterbalancing interests. 3
MySpace residence proposes the compression, transfer and conditioning of the relational capacities of
urban space. Assuming the existing urban conditions, the student housing detaches as much as possible
from the surrounding buildings and shapes its volume in order to extract potential from the views and sun.
Open-air terraces are spread around the building. Through them, students can experience outside
conditions and relate with the city and the far views. 3
In order to stress a local initiative that intends
to promote Trondheim as a wood-friendly city,
and also seeking new challenges about wood
use in large buildings, the entire exterior
volume of the building is cladded with fir
(pine) wooden planks, displaying different
treatments, compositions and layouts. As a
result of a special regulation that considers
Elgesetergate as a road instead a street, no
windows for rooms are allowed to be opened
on that elevation. The front and the rear are
thus conceived as thick containing
membranes, while only corridors and lounge
are able to look over the street. 3
The core of the building
contains a multipurpose lounge
with no hierarchy, or spatial
definition, in which different
ambiances are located. Room
floors surround this lounge.
The general layout is
articulated by stripes
occupying the space as they
approach or distance the
existing limits. Rooms mimic
the building's internal scheme,
structured in functional bands
(storage, prefabricated
bathroom and a bed). Since
the construction started, and
more details about the building
were made public, a vibrant
debate arose among residents-
to be in specialized blogs and
social networks. Architecture
has still a long path to explore
collecting data and seeking
ways of transferring feedback
into the making, just as
information architects or
videogame designers would
Process innovation: Myspace
student’s residence brings to a
conclusion a complex process
conducted by an intensely interacting
set of national (Europan, MEK) and
international agents (Sit, NCC, Link,
Trondheim Komune, Europan Norway,
NTNU, neighbors, other private
developers). All of them have
participated in the development of
the building, in an enriching and
challenging urban negotiation
committed to urban transformation
and therefore a more livable city.
Within this complex process, this
global professional community
benefits from a shared and
increasingly networked context for
the special interests of the local
community. This way, professionals
from diverse cultures and
backgrounds have cooperated,
creating new sources of innovation. 3
Habitational typology innovation:
When it comes to dwelling,
innovation tends to locate in
esthetical, technical and market
values. Teknobyen student
housing understands the
program of necessities as a
powerful design tool and key
factor to improve the way we live
and relate to each other. Thus,
the building assumes a very tight
budget, neglecting the use of
sophisticated material solutions,
and embracing common and
traditional technical solutions
applied in a contemporary way.
The building is technically
unassuming and performatively
ambitious. Instead of an isolated
and self-referential object, the
result is an unpretentious
building that sets a dialogue with
the city and its codes, focusing
on the creation of a collective
shared experience. 3
Social innovation: The building can be looked upon as something that is unfinished, because it calls for permanent
completions by its inhabitants in seek for a more satisfying community life. Students are free to creatively
appropriate the collective space, an architectural environment that has been designed looking for functional
openness. The building contains a domestic parliament of 116 people, where the shared kitchen is the space
where common life is negotiated. Self management is common, and frequently the building is a scenario for new
experiences: late night pancake contests in the kitchen, cooking seminars held by local celebrities, Myspace
building–olympics held in the garage ramp or the winter garden, a very active online social networking in the
internet, etc… Beyond formal pervasiveness or image creation, Teknobyen student housing stresses the
importance of social, financial and environmental innovation by creating an updated and dynamic way of life for
students, a key social ecology for nowadays society, maximizing social bonds within modest yet committed
architecture. 3
LEVEL 1 - ACCESS LEVEL 2 - KITCHEN AND LOUNGE
LEVELS 3 - 4 LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6 ROOF PLAN
 Social housing in Norway
CONCLUSION
Countries like Norway are a very good example when it comes to social housing. These are the countries
that have experienced a problem throughout their history and have a very well developed social housing
development strategy.
By showing the history of this country, we could see that the number of inhabitants within one unit and one
building is decreasing and that more space for the lives of individuals is obtained. Great attention is paid to
the orientation of the facility, and the availability of sufficient light in each individual housing unit that
strives to achieve the maximum amount of functionality. Exploring the examples and politics of the state I
had to observe the aspiration to preserve greenery in the form of parks around the building, common
gardens between two units, numerous terraces and balconies.
Only one flaw is constantly being pulled through all the examples, and it is the use of weaker, cheaper
materials in the construction itself, which loses the quality of the objects, but they find a way to fight it,
claiming that each next social housing facility should be energy efficient enough to reduced the costs of
individuals, the state, and to bring about as much environmental protection as possible.
 Social housing in Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a very complex country with many unresolved political and other issues. In the
historical view, many nations have passed through it and left on its ground various traditions and customs
that have remained in use so that we can say that this country is full of richness of diversity and disorder.
So also in the housing policy itself.
My first idea of the concept of social housing in this country is the period of communist rule (1943-1992),
where the largest number of social housing was created because of the development of Bosnia and
Herzegovina as the working core of the SFRY, which in turn led to settlements and fast building objects with
as many apartments as possible. This construction did not render quality, neither in terms of functionality
nor in terms of material, but it was a good solution for all workers who bought these apartments for free.
 Social housing in Bosnia and
Herzegovina
After the war, many units have been damaged and destroyed and are moving to new ways of solving
housing issues. In the more recent post-war period, social housing is called homes solely for people without
any income, a person who has been damaged in any way by war. The state has gradually begun to build
homes for such persons who were primarily a mounting type with very bad conditions. Such construction
also began to collapse over time, and social housing buildings began to be built with a large number of
compact flats of different sizes, cheap materials, not least on the orientation of the building or on the quality
of life of individuals within it. The environment of the building itself is also disturbed because the amount of
green areas ceases to exist. This period has been going on for a long time, and while our government
donates houses to a few individuals every year, illegal buildings are created that offer neither the quality,
nor the comfort or the comfort of life, but only the cheaper way of finding our own space.
 Correlation between social housing
in
To conclude theNorway
topic, it should be and
noted that Bosnia andspace in Bosnia and Herzegovina is
the quality of architectural

Herzegovina
constantly decreasing in the case of social housing. Looking at the existing construction we can see very
many gray zones without urban solutions, urban furniture, very large buildings and very large number of
flats. Interior spaces are no better than what the exterior offers us because there are a large number of
dysfunctional dwellings with a lack of space and darkness with poor materials.

I believe that the biggest problem is that there is still no good social housing development strategy in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and that it is important to explore other more advanced states, such as Norway, which is
an example of ease of living and the solution of the problems that are represented in our country with its
examples and plans.
 References

1. http://www.roomofpossibilities.com - http://www.roomofpossibilities.com/index.php/2015/11/22/social-
housing-in-oslo/

2. https://aasarchitecture.com - https://aasarchitecture.com/2016/03/social-housing-in-bergen-by-
rabatanalab.html

3. https://www.archdaily.com - https://www.archdaily.com/284331/trondheim-student-housing-mek-
architects