Summarizing the findings of the analysis developed in the previous paragraph,
Table 1 reveals some recurring pandemic-related issues that are often overlooked by existing indicators on adequate housing, which can be synthetically gathered within some common specific features with direct socio-spatial implications at the three scales analyzed: (i) the role of open spaces and the relation among indoor and outdoor spaces; (ii) the livability of spaces, in terms of private or common uses; (iii) the level of spatial adaptability, with respect to rigid or adaptable spaces and uses. Accordingly, a set of suggestions of potential spaces for action is identified and visualized, then also redrawn and quantified, without claiming to be an exhaustive framework, but instead as a meaningful selection of aspects to be deepened. Consequently, taking the emerging key factors (
Table 1) as a source to define the context for the empirical research, the spatial analysis starts from the potential for adaptability of spaces to improve existing conditions—and to answer to emergent and unpredictable needs—focusing on the proximity and availability of spaces with a transformative potential inside and outside the buildings. In the analysis of the case study, a graphical method is proposed for highlighting and quantifying the above-mentioned dimensions, ascribed to synthetic labels, such as: (i) indoor/outdoor, (ii) private/common, and (iii) rigid/adaptable (
Table 2). In particular, adaptability is the spatial characteristic we are going to quantitatively assess in the case study; nevertheless, since we consider all three of these factors critical to any analysis, spaces are also visually classified according to the other two features, thus as private or communal, and indoor or outdoor.
Research Outlooks: The Potential for Action
For the purposes of this study, the adaptability of a typical public neighborhood is assumed, as that of the Via Artom, in terms of modifiability and polyvalence of uses [
50] at different scales. Starting from [
59,
60], we consider the capability of arranging different configurations of uses within and between available spaces, and the hypothesis that this depends on the spatial organization of those spaces. In doing so, we consider the inalterability and rigidity of some “permanent” elements in the space that define the frame in which change can occur [
60], such as the kitchens and the bathrooms, since moving them is usually a major operation, both in terms of cost and complexity of the intervention. In addition, another criterion we have taken into account when assessing the rigidity of both indoor and outdoor spaces was whether it housed a nonreplaceable and legally binding function for the analyzed unit—e.g., each flat needs at least one bathroom and one kitchen, and each building needs its own parking spaces. So, in Leupen’s research, the results evidence the relations among certain spatial configurations and the quantity of possible functional arrangements. Similarly, we propose a method in which, considering some spaces as rigid, both indoor or outdoor, and both private or common, adaptability is intended as investing minor resources in the transformation of space at the three different scales (see
Table 3). In this sense, it will be sought to assess and quantify the degree of adaptability—then the transformative potential through the project—that such spaces may have.
On the basis of these considerations, in developing the analysis on the case study, we have adopted some preliminary assumptions, which need to be made explicit in advance. First of all, since assessments of housing adequacy usually refer solely to the residential unit, we took this scale as the starting point of empirical research in our study. Secondly, by investigating the level of potential adaptability of the housing stock—and not yet the possibilities of transformation through actual projects—the arrangement and subdivision of the spaces that were the object of the analysis correspond to the ones existing at the moment the research was conducted (
Figure 2a,b). Thirdly, given the focus on the issue of adaptability in relation to the possibility of having spaces for shared use also, we adopt as the minimum observation unit the two-flats unit located on the same floor of a stairwell (
Figure 2c). Although this condition is not generalizable to every building, it is in fact the typical spatial configuration present in the case study, replicable for any other apartment of the same public housing estate. The aim, in this way, is to make the approach generalizable, while paying particular attention to the specificities of each place. Finally, the point of view adopted for assessing underused spaces is the same at all three scales and always refers to the minimum unit in an additional logic—that is, the two-flats unit (
Figure 2c). Accordingly, the different conditions of use of a private space compared to a common one are described qualitatively with the subdivision of the private/common categories and not through a quantification.
At the first scale (
Figure 3), all rooms are classified according to the previously mentioned categories (see
Table 2). As shown, we exclude corridors and stairwells/elevators from calculation—a further step would be to take into account potential design transformations that modify the distribution system, but this does not reflect the objectives of this paper. The rooms that have been assessed as “rigid” are those with configurations specific to accommodate a particular function—e.g., bathrooms (T) and kitchens (L), as in [
59]. On the contrary, we consider as “adaptable” those spaces that have such dimensions and comfort conditions that they can easily accommodate functions other than the current ones—e.g., living rooms (L) and bedrooms (B).
Starting from the two-flats unit, in developing the graphical analysis and calculations, we assumed one of the rooms—the most convenient in terms of location near the stairwell and characteristics—as a potentially shareable space for the occupants of the two flats—e.g., as a workroom. As shown in
Figure 3, the rate of adaptive spaces in an average public housing project is very significant (see
Table 4). This is also related to the high level of standardization in the design of spaces, which becomes, in the perspective of adaptive reuse, a potential for transformation. Finally, special attention was paid to private open spaces—e.g., balconies. Although small in the case study, the constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic clearly showed the importance of these spaces, which should, therefore, be central to the concept of housing adequacy.
In this research, the two-flats unit is then assumed as reference and, accordingly, the 100% in
Table 4 is the calculation benchmark for the other scales. At the scale of the building, we expanded the spectrum of observation to the entire stairwell—a set of spaces that insist on a single distribution system—and to a portion of open space in front of it (
Figure 4). In fact, although in the case analyzed—as in many other public complexes—the open space is not divided by fences and has a single public owner, we evidenced an area of relevance that mirrors the internal distribution system and that can be seen as a space adaptable primarily in function of the occupants of the correspondent stairwell. This also corresponds to an increasingly widespread trend towards privatization and “residentialization” [
61] in the regeneration of both private and public neighborhoods. Similarly, and in line with the logic used at the previous scale, we assumed ground floor apartments—those of lesser residential value—as adaptable spaces for shared functions. Finally, again, we have subtracted the space allocated to vertical distribution from the calculation (
Figure 4).
In this case, we consider the nine floors of two-flats units on the same stairwell for the purpose of calculation. Assuming this perspective, the share of common adaptable spaces available with respect to the two-flats unit reference grows exponentially (see
Table 5), both indoor (+10.4%) and outdoor (+32.4%). Although the possibilities of using these spaces are bound to a logic of common interest—for a restricted group of inhabitants—their high transformation potential suggests that the economic and social value of the single apartment could benefit from a considerable increase through a comprehensive design intervention.
The last scale of the analysis is that of the residential complex, defined, in the case study, both, morphologically, as a block bounded by roads and, managerially, as a set of buildings attributed to the same managing body—i.e., the above-mentioned Territorial Household Agency ATC (
Figure 5). In this case, we have first subtracted the pertinence area of all the other buildings and stairwells, which, following the logic used in the previous analysis, would be attributed to the corresponding apartments.
Similarly, we have subtracted the space allocated to specific public functions, such as schools. Finally, we have extended the concept of adaptability by considering “rigid” all spaces characterized by spatially and/or normatively binding functional attributions—e.g., parking lots (P), as standards and building-related, are considered as rigidly located. Even in this case, in fact, the transformation process would be very costly, both in economic terms and due to the complexity of the authorization process. It has to be specified that we are aware that, at the scale of the neighborhood, the implications and the complexity of the process in a perspective of adaptive reuse and transformation of space are different from the two previous scales because they involve further reflections on ownership and management aspects. However, in view of the unity of ownership and management responsibility of Via Artom housing estate—of the City of Turin and the ATC, respectively—and considering the propensity on the part of the residents to use the open spaces as an extension of the residential units—although not fenced off and formally public, these spaces are, therefore, used in the same way as a communal garden in a private complex—we assume the hypothesis that the entire neighborhood can be considered a micro-center related to this specific community. This hypothesis might be more difficult to extend to private housing estates, but is still plausible if a demonstrable increase in the quantity and quality of space available for individual owners is assumed as the driving factor for change.
Accordingly, for the purpose of the calculations, we again refer to the perspective of the unit of two apartments adopted so far. In this case, we consider again the nine floors of two-flats units on the same stairwell for the purpose of calculation; moreover, we calculate five stairwells for three of the five buildings, and three stairwells for the other two. In doing so, the two-flats units to be considered for this calculation are 189. Assuming this perspective, the share of common adaptable spaces available outdoors at this scale, with respect to the two-flats unit reference, grows again further (+62.2%), increasing the spectrum of possible transformations and, consequently, the potential for increased value (see
Table 6).