Procesos autogestivos de vivienda. El movimiento de ocupantes e inquilinos

ZAPATA MARÍA CECILIA (ORDEN ALFABÉTICO); RODRÍGUEZ FLORENCIA

Buenos Aires

Simposio; Second ISA Forum of Sociology: ?Social Justice and democratization?. Comité de Investigación 21: Sociología Urbana y desarrollo regional.; 2012

Asociación Internacional de Sociología.

Processes of house building in Buenos Aires 's city The housing issue in Latin America and particularly in Argentina started since the problematization of the urban poverty phenomenon. This issue was approached by the State with a first generation of housing policies based on financing the offer though the construction of social housing. These were built by big construction companies and were given key in hand to the beneficiaries. Nevertheless, the insufficiency of this response given the extent of this problem was demonstrated with empirical proof, which made clear that the building potential of the city 's underprivileged citizens was, on itself, a much bigger contribution than the costly previous solution. Based on the results of the UN-Habitat conference (Vancouver 1976) and the international agencies (UNCHS and World Bank) recommended polices, a second generation of housing policies (also known as ?alternative?) was drafted. These polices aided in replacing irregular settlements with low and mid-complexity constructions, in a small scale, with the participation of the settlement?s inhabitants, and self-managed by them through base organizations or NGOs while maintaining States financing. The processes of state-financed housing production in Ciudad de Buenos Aires have acquired particularities and differences. One of the distinctions is in who?s leading the process. In the case of key in hand housing policies, these are built by the State, whilst in the case of self-managed construction the inhabitants (through co-ops and collective planning) are in charge of planning and building their own homes, actively participating in the process and obtaining interesting results regarding appropriation. The location of the groups (connectivity with the central areas) and its distribution in the urban plot of Ciudad de Buenos Aires (integration of the beneficiaries to the urban fabric in which they are immersed) also signal significant differences, because the scale and typology of the dwellings produced by self-management allow for a localization that avoid the grave social segregating consequences generated by the ?key in hand? housing. In this context we will present the experience of the Programa de Autogestión de la Vivienda (Program for housing self-management) regulated by Law 341. And specifically the case of the Movimiento de Ocupantes e Inquilinos (MOI) cooperatives.