The study compares the two major processes of improving housing conditions for moderate- and low-income households in Israel: the institutional solution - relocating eligible households in new public housing; and the spontaneous self-help solution - households who purchase their housing units from a housing management company, improve and enlarge them on their own initiative and with their own resources, with or without the assistance of a publicly subsidised loan. It was found that the self-help improvements produced better housing conditions, better relationships with neighbours and more satisfaction with housing. They increased the individual motivation to work, and also had a positive aggregate impact in preventing neighbourhood decay and encouraging urban renewal. These results were achieved at a low cost to the public treasury as compared to the institutional solution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angel, S.H. et al. (1983). Land for housing the poor. Singapore: Select Books.
2.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, July: 216-224.
3.
Burgess, R. (1982). Self-help housing advocacy: A curious form of radicalism. In Peter M. Ward, (ed.) Self-help housing: a critique. London: Mansell: 56-97.
4.
Burns, L.S. et al. (1970). Housing: symbol and shelter. International housing productivity study, University of California Graduate School of Business Administration.
5.
Burns, L.S. and Shoup, D.C. (1981). Effects of resident control and ownership in self-help housing. Land Economics, Vol. 57, No. 1: 106-114.
Carmon, N. (1985). Social and Physical Outcomes of Project Renewal . Haifa: The Samuel Neaman Institute for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology. (Hebrew and English version in forthcoming book.)
8.
Carmon, N. and Oxman, R. (1981). Self-help housing rehabilitation in distressed neighborhoods in Israel. Research Report. Haifa: The Samuel Neaman Institute for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology (Hebrew).
9.
Carmon, N. and Gavrieli, T. (1982). Self-help versus institutionalized rehabilitations: comparative analysis. Research Report. Haifa: The Samuel Neaman Institute for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology (Hebrew).
10.
Carmon, N. and Hill, M. (1984). Project Renewal: an Israeli experiment in neighborhood rehabilitation. Habitat International, Vol. 8, No. 2: 117-132.
11.
Carmon, N. and Oxman, R. (1986). Responsive public housing: an alternative for low-income families. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 18, No. 2: 258-284.
Citizens' Housing And Planning Association ( 1980). Planning for the future of HUD-owned housing. Boston, Massachusetts.
14.
Dunleavy, P. (1981). The politics of mass housing in Britain, 1945-1975 . Oxford University Press.
15.
Enosh, N. and Shacham, Y. (1980). A model for rehabilitation of deprived neighborhood. Working paper, Jerusalem: Work and Welfare Research Institute, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
16.
Gibson, M.S. and Langstaff, M.J. (1982). An introduction to urban renewal. London: Hutchinson.
17.
Glazer, N. (1982). Towards a self-service society?The Public Interest: 66-90.
18.
Hartman, C. (1971). Relocation: illusory promises and no relief. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 5: 745-817.
19.
Hartman, C. (1980). Displaceent - a not so new problem. Habitat International, Vol. 5, No. 1/2: 193-202.
20.
Herbert, G. (1978). Project for Innovation and Improvement in Housing, Final Report: Some Performance Guidelines for the Design and Evaluation of Environmental Spaces in the Dwelling. Technion. Israel Instute of Technology.
21.
Kolodny, R. (1986). The emergence of self-help as a housing strategy for the urban poor. In: Bratt, Rachel G., Chester Hartman and Ann Meyerson (eds.), Critical perspectives on housing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
22.
Laquian, A.A. (1971). Slums are for people. Honolulu : East-West Center.
Law-Yone, H., Churchman, A. and Alterman, R. (1981). Citizen Participation in Project Renewal. Research Report. Haifa: The Samuel Neaman Institute for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology (Hebrew).
25.
Peattie, L. (1986). Shelter, development and the poor. Working paper . Cambridge MA: Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Mass.Institute of Technology.
26.
Perlman, J. (1976). The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio De Janeiro. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
27.
Spencer, K.M. and Cherry, G.E. (1970). Residential rehabilitation: A review of research . University of Birmingham, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Research Memorandum No. 5.
28.
Sumka, H.J. (1984). Factors influencing the success of low-income cooperatives. Unpublished paper, presented at the annual meeting of the ACSP - Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, New York.
29.
Turner, J.F. and Fichter, R. (eds.) (1973). Freedom to build. New York: MacMillan.
30.
Ward, P.M. (1976). The squater as slum or housing solution: evidence from Mexico City. Land Economics, Vol. 52, Aug.: 330-346.
Warszawski, A., Alweyl, A. and Yishai, E. (1982). Economic comparison of low-rise and high-rise buildings. Research Report. Haifa: Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Building Research Station.
Yuchtman-Yaar, E., Spiro, S. and Ram, J. (1979). Reactions to rehousing: Loss of community or frustrated aspiration?Urban Studies, Vol. 16, February: 113-120.
