ANA ALMANDOZ: In the Basque Country we are some groups that are promoting the model of housing cooperatives in assignment of use. Abaraska is a group created in San Sebastian that was born informally, with concerns: the access to housing in San Sebastian was increasingly difficult, the rental gave no guarantee to those who did not reach the property, as the rental also underwent great changes due to tourism and other factors. On the other hand, in relation to coexistence, it seemed that a new return occurred, that is, that the model of the organization of life in a couple and around the nuclear family was generalized. We started looking at Barcelona, there was the Laborda project going on and we saw that another model was possible. From an initial informal concern and among few people, we were gathering people from around and maintaining contacts with the Barcelona experience to try to take some steps from there here.

The model is based on collective ownership

MAITE LETURIA: There are differences between the local groups, but the main characteristic of this model is property: instead of being the individual property of the building, it is the property of the cooperative and its neighbors and neighbors we are partners of the cooperative. As in any cooperative, each partner makes an initial contribution and pays a monthly fee. This fee is used to repay the money that has been allocated to the construction or rehabilitation of the building, as well as for the maintenance of the housing and other expenses. This model seeks to avoid speculation about housing, which in theory is a fundamental right in all laws, but in practice it is clear that this is not the case. This model seeks an alternative, moving from individual to collective property, to ensure that housing is not a market product, but a fundamental right.

In the case of Abaraska, we have maintained the model being carried out in Barcelona, that is, we want to build a house on public land, so that it is an example and not an isolated case.

The design according to the desire for coexistence, decided by the group and open to the neighborhood

A. ALMANDOZ: Direct property is collective property. From there, there are other possible breakdowns of each project that are not the direct characteristics of the assignment of use: In the case of the honeycomb, have it on public soil. Or we see that we are interested in working together and taking the opportunity to design from the beginning spaces that facilitate another coexistence model, and with the participation of the teams in the design. In normal dwellings, people are going to live in spaces that are already designed and built. The objective of participatory design is to create the spaces that the Abaraskan group wants.

M. LETURIA: Architecture is working a lot on what the city is, what kind of cities we want: that they are cities that we can walk and that we can share care, that there are spaces for everyone and that we can do care in all areas and between everyone and all and not in a corner of a house. Thus, if care is visibilized so as to be able to do it among all.

The model of assignment of use has a public vocation through the creation of intermediate spaces in which the public space is confused with the private space (home): it is intended that the sense of community that exists in the building passes to the neighborhood level. For this reason, we demand the construction on public land, on the one hand, to be an example rather than an isolated case, to guarantee the right to housing in the face of the incapacity of the administration: official protection housing is not the best way to promote public housing, because they focus on buying, and at a given moment you can buy an official protection housing, but after some time it can greatly improve your economic situation and you should give in to another housing in capacity. Therefore, housing cooperatives in cession of use allow to promote social housing, with hardly any cost to the administration and being promoted by the community. On the other hand, it can promote architectural conservation through the promotion of shared spaces within the community, as well as the creation of intermediate spaces in the neighborhood and in the city and the realization of socioeconomic activities.

A. ALMANDOZ: The architectural model would be the opposite of the current one: instead of moving the enclosures to the street with the lower landscaped plants that are now in vogue, the goal would be to have a connection with the city, to have an exit point and not a gap with the street. In our model it is the opposite, what is sought is to mix as much as possible with the others, to be open to the neighborhood and that the neighborhood also joins the building.

M. LETURIA: At Abaraska we did a fun exercise: as we ask for public land, those of us who live in it should be people who meet the requirements of official protection. To define which common spaces we would like to count, we started to look at the regulations and types of spaces that official housing has. Public housing has a minimum and maximum number of square meters, depending on the number of rooms. Within the framework of this margin, we were analyzing how much we would like to add to our community to create community spaces.

The laws promoted by the administrations are architecturally very rigid, they define very specialized spaces (bedrooms, kitchens or lounges), which does not allow the creation of indefinite spaces. One way would be to promote a less rigid regulation, so that the intermediate or transitional spaces in which the city and the community are grouped are also in our homes, to facilitate care. It has been clearly seen that when we have had to work at home in confinement and care for others, rigidity has made the spaces scarce. The councils have modified the municipal regulations, so that a balcony can now be built in each house and the maximum measures can be put in place. If we think we have shared spaces, instead of being a miserable little balcony, we can have a 20x40 square meter terrace, with good orientation. It is very important to take account of Community considerations when drawing up regulations, as we always fall into individual areas.

A. ALMANDOZ: At Abaraska we have seen the importance of working well the design with the team that is at the base of the housing. Both processes must go parallel, otherwise the design will respond very badly to the needs of the group. We can control the design of the entire building with this model, but when we buy the house conventionally, the building will prioritize the design based on performance. For example, in the housing cooperative it is decided among all if one wants to invest in the implementation of energy saving systems, since this long group will receive these economic benefits.

These kinds of projects cannot be understood without the collaboration of other agents of the environment, who should be of transformative social economy: technical, legal, economic, architectural advices... around these projects is created a universe that moves the economy.

They're already in Barcelona, Denmark, Uruguay, United Kingdom.

M. LETURIA: In Barcelona we have seen that there is a lot of creativity on the part of the legislators and the economists, because the regulations of the Spanish State are not prepared to implement these types of projects. In other words, there are difficulties, but with the clear and formalised objectives it can be done, as they have done in Barcelona, or as they have done in the world.

Because it looks like a new thing, or something one-off, but it's not: housing cooperatives in Denmark have been promoting for over 100 years, and 30 percent of homes are cooperatives there.

In Uruguay they promote a very strong social model, ten years have passed from 100 housing cooperatives to 10,000, so it is clear that what is driven by the administration has a great influence so that, instead of being punctual, it is a strong model that helps many people to create a social housing.

In France they also exist, in Germany they are not precisely cooperatives because this legal nature is not right in their system, but even if they have another legal form, they have the same objectives, that there are no speculations, that they go from being a product to being a right, that they promote the relationship of the community...

In the United Kingdom, in addition to cooperatives, there are second-level cooperatives, that is, cooperatives: their role is to keep the objectives clear, to prevent cooperatives from losing their personality.

There is a gap here: if the regulation guaranteed that the administration can promote this model and put its conditions in place, it would be easier than thinking about where to go, because that too is work and makes the process difficult.

But all over the world there are assignment housing, it's not something new, and bringing here shouldn't be that hard.

A. ALMANDOZ: In Euskal Herria we have several groups, but no one has yet managed to enter the final phase, that is, to begin to live together. The current picture is quite varied: not all groups expect as we do a public land. Other groups are looking for the transfer of use in a private area, so they are not negotiating with the administration. So there are many rural groups, while cities are more likely to get out of the public. Some groups are intergenerational, but many others are not targeted at older people.

The importance of being intergenerational

M. LETURIA: The relationship with age is a consequence of its understanding as an exceptional project. It's like looking for an alternative when you're young or old, not as a public model.

A. ALMANDOZ: This means that it does not take this into account in public policies. The message is, "Now you're young and you don't have money, but then you'll go in and buy a house," or, "Now that you're old and your house is big, go live your age." It should have a comprehensive approach.

M. LETURIA: In the case of the elderly, they put on the table the care model, because they may be people who need similar resources to live together. But the richest thing would be to have a complete, intergenerational model, in which custody is going to be between neighbors and it's going to have a future over time, so that as the old will come, others will come, and not suddenly they all go missing and then the future of this cooperative will be called into question. It should be the most natural and normal thing to understand as a home for all, not as an experiment for a particular time.

Tool for the promotion of the model, Book of Life in the Community

M. LETURIA: As for training, if you go to a city council technician, they also don't know what you're talking about, they don't know where to go. They don't have tools. If the model is to be promoted, political will is needed to equip the technicians with these tools.

A. ALMANDOZ: At Abaraska we realized that we have a double job: on the one hand, to put pressure on the political class, on the administration, etc. so that this model is incorporated into public policies, so that they are not one-off projects. And on the other hand, we have to disseminate and publicize the model to create more projects of this kind, because one of its characteristics is to start from a bottom-up movement, and we want it to remain that way.

M. LETURIA: For the dissemination of the model, which this colloquium serves, and reading the book Living in the Community, the reader will be able to understand in more depth some of the concepts presented here.