The dweller interference in the decision-making process and a contextual reinterpretation of support and infill from adapted dwellings in Brazil. Open Building Conference 2015 | ETH Zurich | Switzerland

1.
1
FROM
AUTOCONSTRUCTION
TO
OPEN
BUILDING:
the
dweller
interference
in
the
decision-­‐making
process
and
a
contextual
reinterpretation
of
support
and
infill
from
adapted
dwellings
in
Brazil
Rosamônica
da
Fonseca
Lamounier
1
and
Denise
Morado
Nascimento
2
1
Architecture
School,
Federal
University
of
Minas
Gerais,
Brazil,
rosamonicafl@gmail.com
2
Architecture
School,
Federal
University
of
Minas
Gerais,
Brazil,
dmorado@gmail.com
PAPER
ABSTRACT:
This
article
discusses
the
research
regarding
the
implementation
feasibility
of
the
Open
Building
methodology
in
Brazil.
It
is
believed
that
the
knowledge
and
the
predominating
practice
of
autoconstructors
in
the
Brazilian
housing
production,
motivated
by
the
housing
needs
present
in
the
various
forms
of
space
appropriation,
is
useful
to
reconfigure
and
improve
the
designed
space
production
in
their
agents,
proceedings
and
processes.
In
this
sense,
the
text
proposes
a
contextual
reinterpretation
of
the
support
and
infill
approach,
from
field
research
with
autoconstructors
dwellers.
This
field
research
has
contemplated
several
universes
of
this
production
encompassing
different:
(1)
architectural
typology
(single-­‐family
housing,
townhouses,
row
homes,
two-­‐story
houses,
vertical
buildings);
(2)
producing
agents
and
managers
(state,
business,
outsourced,
auto-­‐organised,
autoconstructors,
having
or
not
project);
(3)
construction
processes
(self-­‐supporting/closed,
structured/open);
(4)
locations
(pericentral,
peripheral,
slums,
occupations,
rural
settlements);
at
different
scales
and
intervention
levels
–
from
layout
to
expansion
or
new
constructions.
However,
all
of
these
contexts
have
in
common,
dwellings,
which,
over
time,
underwent
modifications
by
the
dwellers
themselves,
not
anchored
on
precepts,
such
as
those
of
movement.
The
spaces
understanding
will
attempt
to
identify
the
inter-­‐scale
relation
and
the
limits
between
the
so-­‐called
‘support
and
infill’,
present
in
the
interior
space,
up
to
the
building
scale
(room-­‐dwelling-­‐block),
according
to
the
Open
Building
environmental
levels.
The
mapping
of
these
attributes
and
the
recognition
of
the
dwellers
insertion
in
the
making-­‐decision
process,
along
with
reflections
on
other
issues
(capitalist
mode
of
production,
agents
involved,
current
housing
policy),
developed
in
other
works,
will
contribute
to
evidence
another
logic
of
design
practice
which
applies
the
principles
of
Open
Building.
This
paper
presents
results
and
analyses
of
a
field
research
stage,
which
focused
on
housing
developments
with
modified
dwellings,
having
a
preliminary
project,
but
with
different
characteristics
in
terms
of
typology,
location,
policies,
management
and
constructive
systems.
KEYWORDS:
residential
open
building;
appropriation;
support
and
infill;
autoconstruction;
autonomy
AUTHOR
BIOGRAPHY:
Rosamônica
da
Fonseca
Lamounier
is
Architect,
master
and
Professor
at
the
Methodist
University
Center
Izabela
Hendrix
and
at
the
University
of
Itaúna,
PhD
Student
at
the
School
of
Architecture
(Universidade
Federal
de
Minas
Gerais)
member
of
the
research
group
PRAXIS
(www.arq.ufmg.br/praxis).
Denise
Morado
Nascimento
is
Architect,
PhD
and
Professor
at
the
School
of
Architecture
(Universidade
Federal
de
Minas
Gerais),
leader
of
the
research
group
PRAXIS
(www.arq.ufmg.br/praxis)
researcher
at
CNPq.

2.
2
1
Introduction:
the
housing
provision
through
autoconstruction
The
verification
of
the
applicability
of
the
Open
Building
movement
principles,
derived
from
J.
N.
Habraken’s
Theory
of
Supports,
to
the
production
of
social
housing
in
Brazil
demands
a
very
broad
and
complex
investigation.
Such
an
analysis
must
include
aspects
relating
to
housing
production
conditions:
techniques
and
technology
available
in
Brazilian
civil
construction
(materials,
systems,
processes,
labour,
specialised
or
otherwise);
legislative
policies
(legal-­‐political)
and
normatives;
market-­‐based
economic
policies,
financial
capital,
current
scenario
of
neoliberal
policies;
professionals
and
academics
who
deal
with
the
teaching,
research
and
practice
of
architecture
in
Brazil;
cultural;
and
finally
social
aspects,
which
includes
Brazilian
society
with
its
power
of
social
mobilisation,
especially
of
autoconstruction
dwellers.
In
other
words,
the
analysis
of
the
housing
field1
,
consisting
of
agents,
institutions,
mechanisms
and
relationships,
in
the
light
of
an
appropriate
theoretical
framework.
This
text
will
specifically
address,
within
the
aforementioned
aspects,
the
consideration
and
condition
of
dwellers,
among
the
agents,
of
the
applicability
of
the
movement’s
presuppositions.
According
to
the
Brasil
(2009,
p.139
e
163),
around
70%
of
Brazilian
houses
are
autoconstructed.
This
means
that
the
vast
majority
of
housing
in
Brazil
is
either
built
by
the
residents
themselves,
with
or
without
the
help
of
family,
friends
or
neighbours,
or
is
produced/
managed
by
the
same
(autoproduction),
the
latter
involving
the
direct
hiring
of
civil
construction
labour
(masons,
labourers
and
independent
contractors).
In
both
cases,
the
process
occurs
using
the
residents’
own
resources
and
without
technical
assistance
from
architects
or
engineers.
Besides
this
prevailing
reality
of
autoconstruction
from
the
onset
of
work,
there
is
a
portion
of
houses,
which
are
designed
and
constructed
with
the
participation
of
professionals,
and/
or
construction
companies,
and
others
produced
by
the
State
which
undergo
modifications
over
time,
to
a
greater
or
lesser
degree.
A
sizeable
number
of
such
modifications
(renovations,
spatial
rearticulations
or
expansions)
are
also
performed
and
/
or
managed
by
the
residents
themselves,
without
professional
assistance,
composing
what
we
call
autoconstruction.
In
other
words,
autoconstruction
is
present
at
different
levels
of
intervention
–
from
a
low
level
of
the
rearrangement
of
internal
space
or
the
changing
of
a
domestic
unit’s
finishing,
through
renovations
including
expansions,
up
to
total
self-­‐construction
which
starts
with
the
choice
of
land.
Geographically,
there
are
autoconstructive
spaces
in
rural
areas
and
suburbs,
but
also
in
pericentral
regions
and
in
slums
and
occupations
(spontaneous
or
organised,
in
the
suburbs
or
the
centre),
constituting
an
action
present
in
different
social
classes.
This
article
aims
to
establish
connections
between
the
practice
of
autoconstruction
in
Brazil
and
the
principles
of
Open
Building.
To
illustrate
this
operation,
this
paper
will
later
present
partial
results
from
one
of
stages
of
the
field
research
of
a
Doctoral
Thesis
in
progress,
which
included
autoconstructed
and/
or
auto-­‐produced
changes
in
housing
developments
previously
produced
under
the
current
housing
program
Minha
Casa,
Minha
Vida
(PMCMV
–
My
House,
My
Life
Program)2
.
Such
autoconstructive
actions
in
space
differ
from
private
production
(business-­‐based
production
performed
by
construction
companies)
and
public
production
(performed
by
the
State),
which
together
constitute
the
minority
of
Brazilian
housing
production.
The
numerical
disproportion
of
these
two
types
of
production
(public
and
private)
towards
autoconstruction,
is
even
more
accentuated
when
it
comes
to
housing
for
lower
income
classes,
which
is
the
object
of
this
study
(MC,
2009,
p.14
and
163).
1
Concept
coined
by
Pierre
Bourdieu
(2004,
p.20)
and
in
the
context
of
this
work
would
mean
the
universe
in
which
the
actors
live
and
institutions,
that
produce,
reproduce
or
disseminate
housing
production
in
Brazil
via
instruments
(laws,
booklets,
manuals)
and
its
own
specific
mechanisms
(capitalist
production),
with
a
marked
degree
of
autonomy.
2
The
PMCMV
is
currently
the
only
public
program
for
existing
housing
in
the
country,
since
2009,
and
has
delegated
and
designates
construction
companies,
responsibility
and
resources
for
this
production.
An
extensive
Evaluative
Study
about
the
program
in
the
metropolitan
area
of
Belo
Horizonte
(RMBH)
was
carried
out
by
the
group
PRAXIS
and
coordinated
by
Prof.
Denise
Morado
Nascimento.
It
is
available
at
www.arq.ufmg.br/praxis.
This
study
includes
analysis
of
different
spatial
appropriations
and
changes
made
by
residents
in
housing
units.
Regarding
this,
we
also
presented
a
paper
in
the
last
Open
Building
meeting:
Open
Building
in
Brazil:
is
it
possible?
(http://www.uia2014durban.org).

3.
3
The
Brazilian
literature,
which
addresses
low-­‐income
autoconstruction,
approaches
the
phenomenon
in
terms
of
the
physical,
functional,
urban,
economic,
cultural
and
social
aspects.
This
article
approaches
the
fact
from
the
aspect
of
the
political
action
of
the
dweller,
in
relation
to
their
involvement
in
the
decision-­‐making
process
for
the
production
of
their
house.
2
The
debate
concerning
autoconstruction
On
the
international
scene
John
Turner
developed
important
work
in
favor
of
autonomy
in
the
production
of
home
ownership
(Freedom
to
Building
1972,
Housing
by
People,
1976),
in
addition
to
taking
ideas
for
housing
policies
that
value
the
autoconstruction
to
various
countries
(including
Brazil).
In
Brazil,
several
authors3
have
debated
the
issue.
Sérgio
Ferro
(1969,
p.61-­‐67)
describes
the
autoconstruction
process
in
terms
of
product,
use,
as
well
as
the
socioeconomic
status
of
the
autoconstructor.
The
materials
and
techniques
recurrently
employed
are
usually
handmade
in
nature,
predominantly
the
“pile
of
bricks”
and
the
prefabricated
slab,
creating
a
product,
which
combines
"very
low
organic
composition
of
capital
and
a
lot
of
labour
force”.
In
the
autoconstructed
space,
the
use
value
overrides
the
exchange
value,
dictating
their
production,
being
for
direct
and
immediate
use,
unmediated,
without
fetish
or
superfluity.
On
the
other
hand,
Ferro
(2006,
p.230)
states
that
the
autoconstruction
ends
up
being
a
consequence,
at
the
same
time
justified
by
low
wages
(that
does
not
include
housing
costs)
of
a
contingent
of
well,
fed
workforce,
thus
contrarily
encouraging
capitalist
production.
Francisco
Oliveira
(2006,
p.67-­‐85)
addresses
the
issue
of
autoconstruction
under
self-­‐managed
joint-­‐efforts.
He
criticises
the
institutionalisation
of
autoconstruction
through
self-­‐
management
as
it
depends
on
unemployed
workers
and
does
not
contribute
to
the
formation
of
a
real
estate
market.
For
the
sociologist,
capitalist
accumulation
is
also
based
on
autoconstruction,
and
the
industrialisation
in
civil
construction
in
Brazil
is
not
achieved,
not
due
to
technological
impossibility,
but
because
the
labour
cost
in
the
conventional
way
of
producing
space
is
very
low.
On
the
other
hand,
the
architect
João
Marcos
Lopes
(2006,
p.219-­‐227)
maintains
that
"the
worker
that
auto-­‐constructs
is
the
owner
of
a
property
willing
to
accept,
if
necessary,
in
mercantile
circulation".
For
him
the
house,
even
autoconstructed
is,
paradoxically,
use
value
and
exchange
value.
For
this
author,
poor
housing
and
how
to
produce
it
are
not
the
same.
Nabil
Bonduki
(1998,
p.276)
calls
the
phenomenon
"auto-­‐development"
because
it
is
based
on
the
trinomial
of
peripheral
housing
development,
home
ownership
and
autoconstruction.
Historically,
in
Brazil
the
autoconstructor
has
consolidated
their
position
beyond
the
slums,
in
poor
and
remote
lots,
with
dense
and
disorderly
growth,
without
any
urban
and
transport
infrastructure,
as
a
cheap
solution
for
home
ownership,
emphasising
its
impact
on
the
Brazilian
cities
as
we
seen
today.
In
contrast,
Bonduki
states
that
autoconstruction
best
meets
the
housing
needs
of
families
and
therefore
is
the
preferred
mode
for
lower
income
families.
Morado
Nascimento
(2011,
p.223)
warns
that
"there
is
no
denying
the
ability
of
poor
households,
historically
neglected
by
formal
housing
construction,
to
develop
ways
to
overcome
their
demands
through
their
own
resources
(of
any
nature).
The
autoconstruction
in
slums
and
peripheral
lots
has
existed
in
Brazil
since
the
1940s
and
1970s,
respectively."
The
dweller
"acquires
or
occupies
the
land;
draws,
without
technical
support,
a
construction
scheme;
enables
the
obtaining
of
materials;
manages
free
and/
or
informally
paid
labour;
and
then
raises
the
house"
-­‐
a
non-­‐capitalist
domestic
production
(Bonduki,
1998,
p.281).
We
can
only
reveal
here
the
attributes
that
lie
at
the
heart
of
autoconstruction
and
that
converge
with
the
intentions
of
this
study.
It
seems
to
us
that
it
is
exactly
autonomy
-­‐
freedom,
independence
to
produce
for
oneself
-­‐
as
opposed
to
heteronomy
-­‐
dependence,
submission,
subordination
to
that
produced
by
others
–
which
is
the
benefit
of
autoconstruction.
While
it
is
precarious,
without
prevalence
of
exchange
value,
constituting
a
value
of
social
use,
the
decisions
concerning
the
space
itself
are
taken
without
outside
interference.
In
surveys4
of
autoconstructors
in
peripheral
lots
and
occupations
in
the
city
of
Belo
Horizonte,
we
found
the
3
In
addition
to
the
authors
mentioned
in
the
text,
there
are
others
who
discuss
the
subject:
Carlos
Alberto
Cerqueira
Lemos;
Maria
Ruth
Amaral
Sampaio;
Raquel
Rolnik;
Lúcio
Kowarick;
Flávio
Villaça;
Gabriel
Bolaffi;
Luís
César
Queiroz
Ribeiro;
Sérgio
Azevedo;
Adauto
Cardoso;
Rosa
Lima;
Pedro
Arantes,
among
others.
4
Surveys
performed
by
the
PRAXIS
research
group,
of
UFMG’s
School
of
Architecture,
coordinated
by
Prof.
Dr.

4.
4
dweller’s
power
to
choose
to
acquire
or
occupy
land
and
autonomously
build
their
house,
without
State
intervention,
as
a
refusal
of
public
housing
policy
procedures.
Morado
Nascimento
(2011,
p.225),
claims
autoconstruction
to
be
"a
conscious
choice
of
families,
understood
as
an
agile
counterpoint
to
State
welfarism,
to
insecurities
of
rent
and
to
financial
market
regulations,
as
well
as
instruments
of
social
pressure
in
winning
other
rights,
such
as
urban
services,
education,
transportation,
etc."
In
addition,
"there
is,
undeniably,
clear
thinking
and
judgment
on
the
part
of
autoconstructors
in
the
selection
and
evaluation
of
options
that
can
meet,
with
flexibility,
their
individual
needs
and
aspirations,
in
relation
to
construction,
financing,
ownership
or
management."
In
other
words,
autoconstruction
is
the
ability
per
se
of
the
dwellers
to
decide
on
the
space
itself,
exactly
because
it
is
linked
to
how
people's
daily
lives
are
constructed.
It
is
with
this
autonomy,
with
this
autoconstructor’s
power
in
the
decision-­‐making
power
process
in
the
production
of
their
own
space,
that
in
the
following
sections
we
wish
to
establish
connections
with
the
Open
Building
principles,
towards
a
counterpoint
way
of
producing
social
housing.
3.
The
principles
of
Open
Building
in
the
context
of
this
paper
The
five
principles
posed
by
the
Open
Building
movement
are
extremely
relevant
in
the
context
of
this
work.
However,
when
considering
autoconstruction
in
Brazil
as
a
starting
point
for
this
discussion,
two
assumptions
should
be
highlighted.
The
first,
identified
and
discussed
in
examples
to
be
presented
in
the
following
sections,
is
the
need
for
different
levels
of
intervention
in
the
constructed
space,
represented
by
“support”
and
“infill”.
Inevitably,
this
distinction
is
tied
to
the
need
for
a
constructive
system
whose
interface
between
components
allows
for
the
substitution
by
another
component
/
system
of
the
same
function,
with
minimum
disruption.
The
second,
which
is
perhaps
more
important
in
the
context
of
the
discussion
in
this
article,
but
is
also
directly
linked
to
the
first,
is
the
presupposition
that
dwellers
are
important
agents
who
intervene
in
the
policy
and
professional
decision
making
process
of
the
housing
production.
If
what
is
being
investigated
is
the
possibility
of
the
application
of
these
principles
in
the
production
of
social
housing
in
Brazil,
in
terms
of
the
autoconstruction
context,
then
the
following
question
arises.
Can
the
practice
of
autoconstructors
contribute
to
the
implementation
of
the
Open
Building
principles
in
what
refers
to
the
interference
of
the
dwellers
in
the
decision-­‐making
process?
Or,
posed
in
a
different
way,
is
the
autoconstructors
practice
and
their
knowledge
relevant
to
the
production
implementation
via
Open
Building,
our
country,
considering
involved
in
this
practice
the
political,
social,
economic
and
cultural
aspects?
As
discussed
in
the
first
paragraph
of
this
article,
the
feasibility
of
applying
the
Open
Building
principles
in
the
housing
production
in
Brazil
should
also
be
analysed
from
the
perspective
of
other
agents
of
production.
However,
at
this
moment,
the
connection
to
such
principles
that
seeks
to
establish
is
the
relationship
with
the
dweller
agent.
In
December
2014
the
PRAXIS
research
group
held
workshops
with
autoconstructors,
proposing
a
rapid
design
exercise
with
the
application
of
the
Open
Building
premises.
Although
the
whole
process
was
too
detailed
to
describe
here,
it
is
worth
mentioning
that
the
groups/
families
did
not
have
difficulties
in
performing
the
exercise,
explaining,
ultimately,
the
discovery
of
another
way
to
produce
housing
that
very
much
converges
with
the
everyday
reality
of
autoconstruction.
Such
evaluations
became
indicators
to
what
we
want
to
demonstrate
here.
It
is
also
worth
noting
that
the
organization
in
the
project
intervention
levels
proposed
by
Open
Building
(Fig.
1),
defined
the
limit
of
what
is
‘support/
influence’
and
what
is
‘infill/
control’,
bound
to
an
inter-­‐scale
relationship,
and
guided
us
in
how
to
organize
and
analyse
the
universes
of
the
empirical
research.
This
organization
came
from
the
scale
‘room-­‐dwelling-­‐block’,
from
the
identified
degrees
of
intervention
and,
consequently,
from
the
limits
between
what
is
predetermined
(support),
and
what
is
open
(infill).
Denise
Morado
Nascimento.
Further
information:
www.arq.ufmg.br/praxis

5.
5
Fig.
1
–
a
diagram
of
the
principle
of
environmental
levels
Source:
http://open-­‐building.org/ob/concepts.html,
accessed
in
4/30/2015
4.
The
empirical
approach:
data,
results
and
discussion
To
reveal
the
decision-­‐making
processes
of
autoconstructors,
as
well
to
map
out
support-­‐infill
in
the
spaces,
we
visited
and
interviewed
dwellers
of
18
modified
houses
over
time,
set
in
occupied
housing
for
at
least
12
years
and
produced
by
the
municipal
government.
From
a
list
of
more
than
100
housing
development
advised
and
carried
out
by
the
Urbanisation
Company
of
Belo
Horizonte
(URBEL)5
,
we
selected
6
developments
of
public
production
considered
to
have
different:
[1]
locations
in
the
city
(Map
1)
[2]
adopted
architectural
typologies,
[3]
construction
systems
and
[4]
types
of
producer
/
works
manager
(Table
1,
Fig.
2).
Of
the
houses
visited,
we
chose
three
to
conduct
the
discussion
(Tables
2,
3
and
4;
Fig.
3-­‐8.).
As
it
is
qualitative
research,
a
case
study
with
multiple
cases,
sampling
is
configured
as
that
which
Gaston
Bachelard
calls
-­‐
and
Pierre
Bourdieu
expands
–
of
a
"particular
case
of
the
possible."
In
other
words,
"one
figure
in
a
universe
of
possible
configurations”,
whose
analysis
objectives
"takes
the
invariant,
the
structure,
in
the
observed
variation"
(Bourdieu
1996,
p.15).
The
research
was
guided
by
an
open,
semi-­‐structured
interview
guide 6
(which
provided
long
conversations
5
A
public
company
of
the
Local
Council
of
Belo
Horizonte,
Minas
Gerais,
responsible
for
the
implementation
of
the
Municipal
Social
Housing
Policy
in
the
city.
Since
1993,
the
company
has
implemented
various
local
programs,
such
as
those
exemplified
in
Table
1,
in
order
to
promote
the
municipal
supply
of
housing.
Some
regarded
this
as
'participatory',
but
it
is
nothing
like
the
principles
of
Open
Building.
Currently
the
production
is
restricted
to
the
national
program
My
House,
My
Life.
6
Basically
the
initial
questions
directed
to
the
dweller
were:
1) What
were
the
housing
needs
or
desires
that
led
to
modification
of
the
space?
What,
why
and
when
was
it?
2) Was
there
any
design,
drawing
or
sketch?
How
did
the
process
of
thinking
change?
3) What
was
the
decision-­‐making
process
like?
Who
made
the
decisions?
Were
the
decisions
individual,
family
or
collective
in
nature?
Was
a
negotiation
with
the
neighbourhood
necessary?
4) How
did
you
construct
it?
Was
there
any
hiring
of
professionals,
businesses
or
labour?
Who
did

6.
6
with
the
dwellers,
and
thus
are
rich
narratives),
as
well
as
pictures,
movies
and
direct
observation.
In
addition
to
recording
socioeconomic
characteristics
of
dwellers
and
technical
variables,
materials
and
programmatic
of
the
dwelling
(Tables
2,
3
and
4;
Fig.
3-­‐8),
it
mattered
that
we
know
what,
where,
why,
how
and
when
the
changes
were
made.
This
information
about
the
practice
and
decision-­‐making
in
autoconstruction,
associated
with
the
identification
of
'support'
and
'infill'
characteristics,
in
action,
allowed
us
investigating
practice
and
theory
simultaneously.
During
the
visits
that
were
carried
out,
it
was
possible
to
note
that,
either
people
relinquish
and
fit
the
space
available
to
them
(adhesion)
or
appropriate
more
radically,
impressing
changes
on
what
is
imposed
(adaptation
or
subversion).
In
the
latter
case,
the
changes
can
be
from
a
new
internal
rearrangement
of
the
layout
or
connection
between
the
spaces
(Dwelling
8/
a
Flat),
to
expansions
and
renovations
that
mischaracterise
the
building
completely,
placing
itself
as
a
controversy
to
the
initially
designed
space
(Fig.
9).
This
level
of
cohesion
with
the
space
is
either
a
feature
of
own
family
or
of
the
dweller,
or
is
clearly
associated
with
the
building
system
used
in
the
works
and/
or
primarily
the
architectural
typology
adopted
in
design.
The
facades
of
the
visited
developments
denote
this
argument.
The
verticalised
typologies
of
buildings
2,
4
and
5,
and
also
the
houses
of
development
1
(this
does
not
show
retreat
on
the
frontal
clearance
as
the
houses
of
developments
3
and
6),
maintain
in
a
sense,
their
preserved
facades.
Developments
3
and
6,
which
have
houses
that
have
a
retreat
on
the
frontal
clearance,
already
present
very
diverse
facades
and
additions.
In
this
case
we
could
say
that
the
facade
has
become
an
'infill'
element
in
the
building,
since
it
was
changed
individually
and
according
to
the
control
of
each
dweller,
despite
being
predicted
to
be
'support'
in
the
original
design.
(Fig.
10)
In
the
case
illustrated
above,
either
is
the
area
of
the
frontal
retreat
which
enables
expansion,
which
is
also
a
recurrent
feature
in
private
areas
(open
and
uncovered
areas)
in
the
back
of
the
houses
in
development
1
(Fig.
11),
especially
those
that
have
the
third
room
at
the
back;
or
is
it
the
"two-­‐story
house"
type
which
is
more
individualised
in
character,
as
shown
in
the
changing
of
iron
frames
for
aluminum
ones,
toughened
glass,
window
arches,
etc.,
of
development
3
(Fig.
12).
The
lack
of
ability
to
have
a
parking
space
adjacent
to
the
house
in
the
case
of
“two-­‐story
house”
caused
several
families
to
adapt
parking
garages,
in
the
interstitial
areas
of
the
dwellings
(Fig.
13).
execute?
What
were
the
techniques
and
methods
employed?
5) What
were
the
major
difficulties
faced
in
this
process?
And
what
was
easy?
6) What
features
of
the
original
building
hindered
or
facilitated
the
renovation/
expansion?

7.
7
Map
1
–
location
of
the
housing
developments
visited
in
the
Belo
Horizonte
city
map.
The
others
points
indicate
others
housing
developments
Source:
URBEL,
worked
out
by
authors,
2015

8.
8
Fig.
2
–
dwelling
location
in
the
housing
development
Source:
Google
Earth,
work
out
by
authors,
2015
The
example
of
Dwelling
4
shows
the
dweller’s
power
of
decision.
Although
the
building
system
was
freestanding,
this
was
no
obstacle
to
make
significant
changes
with
the
joining
of
the
two
houses
(Fig.
4).
That
is,
in
certain
cases
the
modifications
occur,
whether
the
space
facilitates
this
or
not.
The
choice
of
the
house
to
be
exchanged,
adjacent
to
the
house
of
his
future
wife
was
contingent
on
the
position
of
the
bathroom,
but
the
structural
reinforcements
for
the
broken
masonry
had
to
be
performed,
in
this
case
with
a
metal
frame.
We
can
infer
that
if
the
project
and
the
original
construction
had
observed
principles
such
as
Open
Building,
then
all
modifications
would
have
been
made
easier
and
less
onerous.
The
procedure
with
the
stairs
was
the
least
disruptive
to
the
existing
system
because
it
was
the
"most
industrialised"
component,
albeit
affecting
openings
and
closings
on
the
wall
in
question.
The
need
to
install
new
bathrooms
upstairs
has
already
generated
major
adjustments,
especially
in
terms
of
electrical
and
hydraulic
installations.

9.
9

10.
10
Fig.
3a
–
diagram
with
dwelling
4
modifications
Source:
PRAXIS/
EA-­‐UFMG,
worked
out
by
authors,
2015

11.
11
Fig.
3b
–
diagram
with
dwelling
4
modifications
Source:
PRAXIS/
EA-­‐UFMG,
worked
out
by
authors,
2015

12.
12
Fig.
4
–
pictures
of
the
dwelling
4
Source:
PRAXIS/
EAUFMG,
2015

13.
13

14.
14
Fig.
5
–
diagram
with
dwelling
8
modifications
Source:
PRAXIS/
EA-­‐UFMG,
worked
out
by
authors,
2015

15.
15
Fig.
6
–
pictures
of
the
dwelling
8
Source:
PRAXIS/
EAUFMG,
2015

16.
16

17.
17
Fig.
7
–
diagram
with
dwelling
16
modifications
Source:
PRAXIS/
EA-­‐UFMG,
worked
out
by
authors,
2015

18.
18
Fig.
8
–
pictures
of
the
dwelling
16
Source:
PRAXIS/
EAUFMG,
2015

19.
19
Fig.
9
–
extreme
modifications
in
the
dwelling
12
Source:
PRAXIS/
EAUFMG,
2015

20.
20
Fig.
10
–
facades
as
infill
and
as
support
Source:
PRAXIS/
EA-­‐UFMG
and
URBEL,
2015

21.
21
Fig.
11
-­‐
recurrence
covered
private
areas/
backyard
Source:
PRAXIS/
EA-­‐UFMG,
2015
This
and
other
visits
have
also
shown
that
in
autoconstruction,
with
all
the
damage
that
the
rigid
articulation
of
its
components
brings7
,
the
final
finishing
required
by
the
repeatedly
adopted
techniques,
are
left
for
the
future
ending
up
in
most
cases
not
being
performed,
for
financial
reasons
and
because
a
new
demand
arises
("a
roof
showing
signs
of
mold,
darkens,
allows
dripping;
a
ceiling
to
install,
uncoated
floor
and
walls,
no
guardrails
on
the
stairs",
Resident
Dwelling
4,
2015)
(Fig.
4).
The
rigidity
of
the
solutions
(support,
but
also
infill)
clearly
appears
in
the
opening
between
the
lower
floor
rooms,
which
firstly
required
an
improvised
closing
for
installation
of
the
blacksmiths,
and
will
soon
be
removed
to
once
again
join
the
rooms
(Fig.
4).
In
this
case,
the
industrialised
building
system
has
at
least
two
advantages:
it
unburdens
the
autoconstructor
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
labour
that
he
applied
and
enables
open
architecture.
Dwelling
8
(a
flat)
demonstrates
that
although
the
structural
system
will
be
self-­‐supporting,
the
adopted
type
also
interferes
with
the
desired
degree
of
modifications,
in
this
case,
expansion.
On
the
other
hand,
the
same
system
has
brought
freedom
(allied
to
the
sense
of
ownership)
to
perform
changes.
The
neighbourhood
also
sought
to
solve
a
deficiency
in
housing
units
(the
size
of
the
laundry
area)
making
use
of
a
common
area
on
the
ground
floor
for
drying
clothes.
The
residents
of
Dwelling
16
narrated
the
whole
story
of
the
self-­‐management
process
that
development
6
7
As
masonry
is
the
prevalent
sealing
and
sometimes
also
structure
technique,
and
as
there
is
a
wide
diversity
of
bricks
on
the
market
(red
brick,
concrete
block,
ceramic
brick,
plaster),
often
the
supplements
are
taken
for
components
with
totally
different
features
and
functions,
a
concept
that
differs
from
one
of
the
principles
of
Open
Building.
This
practice
is
intensified
by
the
viability
of
manufacturing,
as
seen
in
the
example
of
House
4
whose
owner
is
a
blacksmith.

22.
22
required,
and
this
process
ended
up
having
repercussions
on
the
changes
that
have
been
happening
over
time.
Both
by
the
adopted
typology,
but
surely
also
by
the
type
of
works
management,
it
is
becoming
an
embedded
practice
among
the
autoconstructors.
Fig.
12
–
exchange
of
frames
Source:
PRAXIS/
EA-­‐UFMG,
2015
Fig.
13
–
vehicles
garage
in
the
common
spaces
Source:
PRAXIS/
EA-­‐UFMG,
2015
Taking
as
its
starting
point
the
conclusions
of
previous
research
undertaken
by
the
PRAXIS
research
group,
move
us
on
to
the
conclusions
of
this
empirical
research,
which
permits
the
establishment
of
connections
with
Open
Building
(Table
5).
Conceptually,
there
are
many
convergences
of
productive
processes
of
autoconstruction
with
the
principles
of
Open
Building.
The
issue
of
constructive
systems
(techniques,
components
and
materials),
both
as
support
or
as
infill,
appears
as
rigidity
in
autoconstruction,
hindering
the
connection
between
the
components,
causing
them
to
diverge
from
the
practice
of
Open
Building.
In
the
cases
analysed,
this
becomes
quite
evident,
since
changes
are
manifested
from
spaces
also
made
of
constructive
systems
that
have
a
rigid
connection
between
their
components.
Table
6
shows
which
would
be
support
and
infill
both
in
designed
space
(original
project),
and
in
autoconstructed
space.
Whenever
there
is
disagreement/
divergence
between
the
original
design
and
autoconstruction
with
respect
to
support
and
infill
moments,
this
indicates
conflict
and
a
rethinking
of
the
project
towards
more
open
architecture.
Dwelling
4
and
16
showed
this
divergence
repeatedly,
indicating
directions
taken
from
the
autoconstructor
action.
On
the
other
hand,
the
rigid
typology
and
the
minimum
degree
of
Dwelling
8
intervention
did
not
mean
that
the
case
converges
with
the
principles
of
Open
Building.
Either
way,
the
analysis
presented
here
allows
us
to
uncover
connections
between
autoconstruction
and
Open
Building.
5.
Conclusion
It
seems
the
joining
or
convergence
of
the
principles
of
Open
Building
with
the
autonomy
of
the
dweller
in
an
act
of
auto-­‐construct
can
point
a
path
that
re-­‐qualifies
political
relations
between
the
process
agents
and
the
way
of
thinking
about
the
architectural
object
the
'dwelling'.
In
this
process,
autoconstruction
could
be

23.
23
understood
as
a
stage,
the
moment
of
infill
in
Habraken’s
Theory
of
Supports.
The
application
of
the
principles
1
TABLE&5&–&CONNECTIONS&BETWEEN&AUTO0CONSTRUCTION&AND&OPEN&BUILDING&
PRODUCTIVE&PROCESSES&OF&AUTO0CONSTRUCTION! OPEN&BUILDING&PRINCIPLES!
CONVERGENCE&IN&CONNECTIONS! DIVERGENCE&IN&CONNECTIONS&
No&previous&project&and&at&best&an&outline&
or&a&schematic&plan&
! The! Existence! of! different! levels! of! intervention! in!
the! constructed! environment,! represented! by!
"support"!(collective!decision)!and!"infill"!(individual!
decision)!both!in!urban!and!architectural!design!
!
The!idea!of!"support",!understood!as!a!flexible!urban!
structure,!open!to!dweller!intervention,!seems!to!be!
a! good! proposal! for! new! housing! policies! and!
productions!
!
Open! building! presupposes! agreement! and!
negotiation!
The&uniqueness&of&the&narratives&associated&
with&the&daily&reality&of&each&family&
promotes&a&natural&and&coherent&auto0
production&with&the&necessary&adaptations&
and&permanent&functionality&
!
The&typology&of&the&existing&space&can&facilitate&or&hinder&future&modifications&
In&some&cases,&negotiating&modifications&
with&the&neighbourhood&is&necessary,&which&
in&general&is&quite&peaceful&
!
The&construction&site&is&permanent& ! The!interface!between!constructive!system!
components!must!allow!the!replacement!by!another!
system!of!the!same!function!with!minimal!
disturbance!to!existing!systems!
!
The!constructed!environment!is!constantly!changing!
and!such!changes!must!be!recognised!and!studied!
The&structure&is&built&in&order&to&
accommodate&future&expansions&
!
Attention&is&given&to&expansion&at&the&
expense&of&performing&final&finishes&to&the&
constructed&part&
!
The&change&of&housing,&over&time,&is&a&
prerequisite&for&growth&and&the&
consolidation&of&families&in&place&
!
It&recurs&the&need&to&accommodate&mixed&
use&
!
& The!constructive!system!adopted!
hinders!the!changes!by!
presenting!rigid!links!between!
the!components:!
[1]!the!sealings!are!built!with!
ceramic!or!concrete!bricks,!
plastered,!painted!and!with!metal!
or!wood!frames!
[2]!the!plumbing!and!electrical!
installations!are!in!PVC!and!
embedded!in!the!masonry!
The&construction&equipment&is&all&domestic& ! The!users!and!residents!can!make!project!and!works!
decisions!Either&the&dweller&is&a&civil&construction&
worker,&or&has&already&had&experience&in&the&
sector&
!
The&labour&is&always&from&the&family&and,&
when&necessary&directly&contracted&
!
Auto0production&reflects&the&ability&of&users&
to&decide&on&the&space,&far&beyond&the&mere&
fulfillment&of&their&desires&and&needs&
!
Decision0making&process&is&restricted&to&the&
family&circle.&The&woman&is&an&important&
figure&in&the&decision0making&process&on&the&
new&family&configuration,&whereas&the&
technical&decisions&on&how&to&do&things&
normally&comes&from&the&male&figure&
!
Auto0production&is&a&conscious&choice&made&
by&auto0producers&in&opposition&at&be&
subjected&to&state&imposition&via&
standardised&space&
!
Family,&friends&and&neighbours&share&values&
such&as&cooperation,&solidarity,&complicity&
and&security&
! The!project!is!a!process!with!multiple!participants!
and!different!types!of!professionals,!unlimited!and!
open!to!new!
!
Open!Building!presupposes!a!Shared!Design!Process!
Source:!worked!out!by!the!authors,!2015

24.
24
represents
another
logic
of
design
practice,
associated
with
public
policies
that
guarantee
the
right
to
housing
as
envisaged
in
our
Federal
Constitution,
comprehending
the
urgency
of
agreement
among
who
decides
what
and
when.
In
each
case
it
must
be
clear
which
decisions
should
be
shared
with
whom,
and
which
decisions
should
be
individual.
As
stated
by
Kendall
(2015),
neither
prison
nor
anarchy,
because
neither
extreme
is
desirable.
We
hope,
with
the
next
surveys
and
investigations,
to
further
this
convergence,
so
that
autoconstruction
becomes
part
of
a
scenario,
where,
as
Villaça
(1986,
p.60)
states,
the
autoconstructor
builds
their
house
"neither
at
the
sacrifice
of
free-­‐time"
and
nor
by
opposition
from
the
State,
"but
by
a
process
that
will
effectively
be
determined
and
controlled
by
users,
a
process
that
will
be
won
by
political
practice
and
not
by
the
convincement
of
the
managing
class
of
what
is
right".
Acknowledgements
The
authors
are
grateful
for
the
institutional
and
financial
support
provided
by
NPGAU/UFMG,
CAPES
and
CNPq.
References
BONDUKI,
Nabil.
Origens
da
habitação
social
no
Brasil.
2º
ed.
São
Paulo:
Estação
Liberdade:
FAPESP,
1998.
BOURDIEU,
Pierre.
Os
usos
sociais
da
ciência:
por
uma
sociologia
clínica
do
campo
científico.
São
Paulo:
Editora
UNESP,
2004
BOURDIEU,
Pierre.
Razões
Práticas:
sobre
a
Teoria
da
Ação.
Campinas/
SP:
Papirus,
1996
BRASIL.
Ministério
das
Cidades.
Curso
a
Distância:
Planos
Locais
de
Habitação
de
Interesse
Social.
Brasília:
Ministério
das
Cidades,
2009.
Disponível
em
www.capacidades.gov.br.
Acessado
em
20
de
abril
de
2015.
FERRO,
Sérgio
(1969).
“A
produção
da
casa
no
Brasil”
In:
FERRO,
Sérgio.
Arquitetura
e
Trabalho
Livre.
São
Paulo:
CosacNaify,
2006,
p.61-­‐101
FERRO,
Sérgio
(2006).
Notas
sobre
o
‘vício
da
virtude’.
CEBRAP,
76,
novembro
de
2006,
p.229-­‐234
HABRAKEN,
J.
N..
Supports:
an
Alternate
to
Mass
Housing.
Reprint
from
1972
English
Edition.
The
Urban
International
Press,
U.K.,
2011
KENDALL,
Steven.
OPEN
BUILDING
INTENSIVE
WITH
PROF.
KENDALL:
HOW
TO
DESIGN
OPEN
BUILDINGS
–
BRIEF.
Johannesburg:
UJ-­‐UNIT2,
2015.
Available
in:
http://uj-­‐unit2.co.za/open-­‐building-­‐intensive-­‐with-­‐prof-­‐
kendall-­‐how-­‐to-­‐design-­‐open-­‐buildings-­‐studio-­‐at-­‐denver-­‐and-­‐mtech2-­‐site-­‐applications
(Accessed
in
04/30/2015
LOPES,
João
Marcos.
O
anão
caolho.
Novos
Estudos,
CEBRAP,
76,
novembro
de
2006,
p.219-­‐227
MARICATO,
Ermínia.
A
produção
capitalista
da
casa
(e
da
cidade)
no
Brasil
industrial.
São
Paulo:
Editora
Alfa-­‐
ômega,
1982

25.
25
MORADO
NASCIMENTO,
Denise.
A
autoconstrução
na
produção
do
espaço
urbano.
In:
MENDONÇA
Jupira
Gomes
de;
COSTA,
Heloísa
Soares
de
Moura
(org.)
Estado
e
capital
imobiliário:
convergências
atuais
na
produção
do
espaço
urbano
brasileiro.
Belo
Horizonte:
Ed.
C/Arte,
2011.
p.217-­‐230
MORADO
NASCIMENTO,
Denise.
N.
J.
Habraken
explains
the
potential
of
the
Open
Building
approach
in
architectural
practice.
Entrevista,
São
Paulo,
13.052,
Vitruvius
e
Open
House
International,
Dez
2012,
v.37,
n.4.
UK
MORADO
NASCIMENTO,
Denise.
Os
processos
produtivos
da
autoprodução
habitacional
em
Belo
Horizonte.
In:
CTHAB,
Universidade
Federal
de
Santa
Catarina,
Novembro
2009
OLIVEIRA,
Francisco.
O
vício
da
virtude:
autoconstrução
e
acumulação
capitalista
no
Brasil.
São
Paulo:
CEBRAP,
Novos
Estudos,
74,
março
de
2006,
p.67-­‐85
PREFEITURA
MUNICIPAL
DE
BELO
HORIZONTE,
URBEL.
Apresentação
e
discussão
sobre
a
elaboração
de
projetos
de
conjuntos
habitacionais
produzidos
pela
URBEL.
Belo
Horizonte:
PBH,
1998.
PREFEITURA
MUNICIPAL
DE
BELO
HORIZONTE,
URBEL.
Varied
designs,
maps
and
tables
in
digital
mídia.
VILLAÇA,
Flávio.
O
que
todo
cidadão
precisa
saber
sobre
habitação.
São
Paulo:
Editora
Global,
1986
TURNER,
John.
Freedom
to
Build:
Dweller
Control
of
the
Housing
Process
(New
York:
Macmillan,
1972).
TURNER,
John.
Housing
by
people:
towards
Autonomy
in
Building
Environments.
London:
Marion
Boyars,
1991.