The Collective Dwelling of Cooperative Promotion in Caselas

Abstract

To solve the present housing crisis, the Support for Access to Housing Program, in the context of PRR, mainly focuses on social housing to be built or on housing of social interest to be regenerated. To approach this problem, a research question was raised: “What is the significance of the existing cooperative housing in solving the current housing crisis?” To analyze this issue, a multiple case study was adopted, comparing a collective dwelling of cooperative promotion at controlled costs in Caselas (1980s–1990s) with Expo Urbe (2000–2007) in Parque das Nações, a symbol of the new sustainable cooperative housing, which targets a population with a higher standard of living and thus is excluded from the PRR plan. These cases revealed the discrepancy created by the Cooperative Code of 1998 and its consequences for the urban regeneration of this heritage. They show that Caselas, built in a residential urban neighborhood, is strongly attached to a community, provides good social inclusion for vulnerable groups at more affordable prices, and it is eligible for urban regeneration and reuse (for renting or buying). However, the reuse of Caselcoop’s edifices cannot compromise their cultural and residential values or threaten the individual integrity.

1. Introduction

In 2015, the National Housing Strategy considered that Portugal no longer presented a housing deficit, but difficulties. However, currently, we are facing a new housing crisis. To solve it, the Support for Access to Housing Program, integrated in the Recuperation and Resilience Plan, PRR (Investment RE-C02-i01), must mainly focus on social housing to be built or on the regeneration of housing of social interest [1].

Housing is a fundamental component of the Welfare State. However, it has been neglected by the Portuguese housing social policies over the years. Due to the lack of clear answers as well as to market failures, Portuguese housing shortages have accumulated and increased with the 2008 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. It is urgent to deal with this need and to ensure a fundamental right, the Right to Housing.

Public housing is only 2% of the housing stock; thus, it is insufficient for the needs of the more disfavored people or those at risk of social exclusion.

We face the following challenges, among others:

(a)

Many families live in precarious and inadequate accommodations. As registered by the Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation, IHRU, and by the municipalities, they are around 26,000;

(b)

The need for urgent and temporary housing affects vulnerable groups, namely those who are homeless, refugees, immigrants in overcrowded houses, nomadic families, asylum seekers, victims of domestic violence, victims of human trafficking, people undergoing deinstitutionalization, and families affected by unpredictable events such as natural catastrophes, pandemics, or fires;

(c)

Temporary lodging needs for public employees and other state employees and public institutes for whom the housing market is inaccessible, compromising the allocation of human resources for the functioning of fundamental public services;

(d)

In the case of affordable rentals, regarding middle-class families, there is a mismatch between their income and the existing housing supply;

(e)

The liberalization of the rental market in 2012 and the increasing impact of tourism on the housing sector resulted in a rise of the housing prices;

(f)

Around 26% of Portuguese families who rent housing are overburdened with housing costs;

(g)

The conditions of attending higher education need a profound reform of the student housing system.

The Portuguese housing sector aims to revitalize and redirect the housing policy, ensuring the right to a dwelling for all by strengthening the public housing stock and regenerating the precarious housing for low-income families to ensure widespread access to adequate housing conditions.

The Portuguese housing sector intends to increase the supply of social housing at affordable prices, create a national public response to the necessities of temporary and urgent lodging, promote affordable rentals, and increase the supply of affordable student accommodation. Investments for the housing sector include the construction of new housing and the rehabilitation of existing ones [2].

Given this context, we raised the following research question: “What is the significance of the existing cooperative housing in solving the current housing crisis?” To answer this question, in this study, we compared two case studies presenting opposite characteristics despite both being collective dwellings of cooperative promotion, i.e., residential cooperative buildings built from scratch by property developers and delivered to the dwellers when they were ready (turn-key project). These two collective dwellings of cooperative promotion stood out by their quality and their architectonic and urbanistic layout: Caselas, in Lisbon, near Monsanto Park in Belém, built at controlled costs and designed by Justino Morais for a low-income population, and Expo Urbe, in Parque da Nações, conceived by Tomás Taveira and constructed for a wealthier population.

The reason to choose Expo Urbe as a comparative study lies in its added value for the cooperative sector based on its technological innovation, the establishment of new models at the building scale and the city scale, and the reinvention of the urban image of the Portuguese collective dwelling of cooperative promotion. The investment prior to the construction of Expo Urbe was enormous, as part of the newly urban regenerated river front area as a result of the Expo ’98 World Exhibition. Consequently, Expo Urbe is immersed in great symbolism and prestige.

Due to its legal and financial framework, Caselcoop’s buildings are fitted to serve the present housing crisis. The urban design of Caselcoop’s edifices foster social networks, being a more inclusive urban tissue for vulnerable populations—i.e., women, children, persons with disabilities, and older people—than Expo Urbe, located in Avenida D. João II. Expo Urbe is located in a main avenue, presenting an urban design of a cosmopolitan city center, although it has in its surroundings gardens and urban parks: the Waves’ Garden, the Tagides Walkway, Doves Head Park, all Alameda dos Oceanos, and the Hanging Gardens in Rua Passeio do Báltico.

Caselcoop’s buildings, recognized as housing of social interest, present a quality that constitute a pattern for new social housing to be built in the scope of the Recuperation and Resilience Plan, PRR. In addition, its dwellings can be reused, rented, or sold and adapted to accommodate different generations or new families who want to live there.

This social housing contrasts with Expo Urbe (2000–2007) of Tomás Taveira’s architectural office, in Parque das Nações, Lisbon, which is not recognized as social housing and presents more generous architectural programs, since it is focused on a wealthier population.

However, in the context of the Program of Support to Access to Housing integrated in the Recuperation and Resilience Plan (Investment RE-C02-i01), the main focus is on social housing, in which the cooperative housing of social interest has a role to play. Caselas, cooperative housing supported by FENACHE, symbolizes a recognized housing of social interest built for the greatest number, that is, for the low-income population. Its future reuse contributes to ensuring equal opportunities to all, namely, the right to a dwelling.

The relevance of this paper lies in the comparative analysis of these two distinct collective dwellings of cooperative promotion, which allows us to analyze the significance of cooperative housing in the current context, a subject that has not yet been approached, as far as we know.

This study is structured as follows: In the current section, the object of analysis and the relevance of the paper are presented and the main conclusions briefly highlighted. In Section 2, the international context of cooperative housing is briefly presented as well as the context of the cooperative housing in the period of 1984–2015. In Section 3, the methodology is detailed. Section 4 presents the Portuguese supply and demand scenario of the housing sector. In Section 5, family types and the real estate market are addressed. In Section 6, the Caselas collective dwelling of cooperative promotion is presented. Section 7 is devoted to the Expo Urbe collective dwelling of cooperative promotion. In Section 8, the results of the cases under study are analyzed and discussed. Section 9 presents the strengths and limitations of the present study. Section 10 is devoted to possible future research. In Section 11, the main ideas and contributions of the paper are presented.

This research contributes to raising awareness of the controlled costs cooperative heritage of the 1980s and 1990s, which can be regenerated, rented, or bought, alongside the new social housing to combat the housing crisis, ensuring the right to housing for all at affordable prices. This recent heritage plays an important role as a built resource to be reused for the management of an efficient and sustainable city.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The International Context of Cooperative Housing

A housing cooperative is a model of business in which the cooperative is mutually owned by its members, complying with the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) statement that operates on its principles and values. There are distinct cooperative models around the world. Nevertheless, what distinguishes housing cooperatives from other housing providers is that they are jointly owned and democratically regulated by their members (“one person, one vote”). The housing cooperatives frequently manage to provide a lower housing cost for a similar home than the real estate market. The reason rests on their primary goal: to provide good quality and affordable housing in the interests of their members instead of maximizing the profit for the developers or shareholders. Simultaneously, the real estate owned by housing cooperatives or associations is less speculative and represents long-term investments. These aspects contribute to the relatively low prices of cooperative housing and rents. Hence, cooperative housing plays an important role in the maintenance of a more varied and balanced housing market, in real estate price stability, and in affordability [3].

There are diverse models of house cooperatives throughout the world. As a common denominator, we may call out the focus on housing affordability and the emphasis on community and collaboration. Below, existing housing cooperative models are mentioned:

(a)

Non-profit rental cooperatives are a form of dwelling in which dwellers collectively own and manage their living surroundings. They are characterized by focusing on affordability and community. This model prevails in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.

(b)

Ownership cooperative housing, frequently designated as equity cooperative housing, is a model where the dwellers collective own and manage their houses. Each resident is simultaneously a shareholder and a member in the cooperative corporation who has the right to dwell a specific housing unit. However, the residents do not own their homes directly, and the shared value can be appreciated over time as in homeownership. Ownership remains collective. The cooperative housing model is widely used in Norway, Sweden, and the United States.

(c)

A limited equity housing cooperative is a model conceived to maintain houses at affordable prices for current and future dwellers. It is designed to limit the value of the share, thus guaranteeing an affordable house over time, despite the increasing price of the property value. This cooperative housing model is common is the United States.

(d)

Mutual Aid cooperatives constitute a collective housing model deep-rooted in solidarity, self-help, and democratic participation. This model, originally from Uruguay, spread out through South and Central America, presenting an alternative to the traditional housing systems and focusing on the house as a human right. These can be seen in Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, and El Salvador.

(e)

Mutual homeownership societies are cooperatives conceived to guarantee permanent affordability of the houses for the dwellers. In contrast to traditional market housing, these cooperatives keep an affordable housing price by collectively managing the property. A successful example of this model is the British Low-impact Living community in Leeds.

To contextualize the Portuguese cooperative housing in Europe, in the next subsections we will focus on two countries that express the distinct realities of the European continent, the Nordic region, represented by Sweden, and the Southern region, represented by Spain. The Portuguese cooperative housing model presents some similarities with those of its neighbor country. As in Spain, the Portuguese cooperative houses are subsidized in part by the state, and they can be sold and rented.

2.1.1. Sweden Urban Planning, Social Housing Policies, and Cooperative Housing Models

In Sweden, cooperative housing, also known as tenant ownership, was an answer to the existing housing deficits and real estate speculation. In 1923, the organization of tenants founded the HSB Risforbund to promote and support the development of cooperative housing. Tenant ownership, using the mother–daughter model, was very successful. This model was used to build a great number of cooperative associations. After the Second World War, tenant ownership organizations were crucial to the development of the housing market. In 1945, Riskbyggen was funded by construction workers. At the same time, the Swedish government decided to provide the same subsidies, no matter the housing tenure: rental, cooperative housing, or private ownership. Mechanisms to prevent real estate speculation were created, and direct subsidies for cooperative housing were made available to any citizen. These were abolished in 1990, and the financing system was reorganized.

Since then, the trend to provide less social housing in favor of a more market-driven national housing policy has continued. The goal is no longer to provide good and affordable housing to all the households, but to have well-functioning housing markets in the long term. The consumers, therefore, have an adequate supply of housing according to their needs. Since the 1970s, the cooperative shares have been sold with an internal stabilization mechanism. However, despite the new market rules, the housing cooperatives in Sweden remain the most reliable long-term price tenure and are known for their housing quality and maintenance. These aspects make them cheaper than private ownership housing.

According to recent surveys, 80% of the Swedish municipalities declared a lack of rented housing/social housing. A third of them reported a lack of cooperatives as a housing alternative. Additionally, almost half of the municipalities referred to a general lack of dwellings and over a half of the population of the Swedish municipalities reported a general lack of housing. The individuals included in the vulnerable groups are young people, families with many children, and elderly people. In Stockholm, social housing was sold and turned into cooperatives. In the rest of Sweden, the stock of social housing continues to decrease: the landing lack of housing is used to obtain attractive land plots for building projects.

Currently, there is no governmental financial assistance for the cooperative housing in Sweden. Depending on the project, the member/tenant-owners finance the development cost, between 75 and 80% of the total, and the rest of the financing is supported by cooperative organizations through loans by banks and private investors. Usually, tenant-owners can get a loan of 85% of the down payment demanded [4].

2.1.2. Spain Urban Planning, Social Housing Policies, and Cooperative Housing Models

In 1864, the writer Fernando Garrido Tortosa was the first to write about cooperation and cooperatives in the Spanish territory. In 1865, consumer cooperatives were established in Catalonia, the most industrialized Spanish region, followed by the Agriculture Credit cooperatives in Murcia in 1891. Housing cooperatives appeared in 1911, regulated by law associations, and from 1920 onwards by the low-cost and affordable housing law. After 1920, several neighborhoods of single-family houses were constructed, particularly in the urban areas around the capital and the large cities.

The Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) resulted in a reduction in the number of the cooperatives that had existed in 1924 by more than half. This was followed by a 36-year period of dictatorship dominated by state institutions with minimum intervention of their members. The first specific cooperative law in Spain, the Cooperative Act of 1942, led to the creation of the National Cooperative Housing Union in 1957. In 1959, the growth of housing cooperatives was subsidized by the Economic Stabilization Plan. Subsidized housing was supported by the Spanish State, which aimed at stimulating the construction sector and giving assistance to home buyers and private developers.

The owner occupancy was the Spanish population’s preferred tenure and was promoted by state direct financial and fiscal measures. The rapid growth of the population in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in the industrialization of the big cities and in a housing deficit. There was a boom in the housing cooperative sector focused on the construction of subsidized housing, with an extra of 300,000 units, sold at cost price. In 1993, all subsidized owner occupancies constructed prior to 1978 were deregulated and freed from 20–50-year protection agreements.

The housing boom in the 1990s, caused by commercial real estate speculation, resulted in difficulties in the housing cooperative sector. However, the Cooperative Act of 1999 enabled cooperatives to act more efficiently and profitably on the market.

Currently, the housing production is mostly focused on owner occupancy for medium- and low-income dwellers. There is a strong involvement of private developers. The housing development is based on a complex system of subsidized loans and diverse subsidies and grants to buyers and developers. The preferred tenure in Spain is housing ownership, representing 82% of the housing market.

In 2009, the property market crashed. The prices dropped and, as a consequence, a negative impact on the subsidized housing occurred. The difference between the prices of the subsidized housing and private housing was reduced. As result, it became less attractive to buy subsidized housing. The Housing Plan (2009–2012), which was not fully implemented, tried to revitalize and regenerate the existent housing stock.

Currently, the Spanish housing cooperative models present two forms of subsidized housing—the Official Protection Housing (Viviendas de Proteccion Official) and the Housing with a Limited Price (Vivienda a Precio Tasado)—the free housing for sale at a cost price and the rental housing. The general characteristics applied to these categories are the following: The dwellings are occupied by cooperative members who became owners, with the exception of the rented homes. The cooperatives’ decisions are taken in a general assembly, and an individual or collective management is carried out to meet the technical and administrative goals [5].

2.2. Cooperative Housing in Portugal 1984–2015

The Portuguese cooperative movement appeared in the middle of the 19th century, almost simultaneously with the English, French, and German cooperative movements. In the late 19th century, a new rental market appeared, the Ilhas, in Porto and the Patios and Vilas, in Lisbon, precarious dwellings built inside the quarter spare land. Exceptionally, social quarters and quarters for workers were built. Only in 1918 did the government start to support the social housing [6].

During the First Republic (1910–1926) and the Military Dictatorship (1926–1932), the Portuguese economy was dominated by free enterprise liberal principles and the interests of property owners. Housing was not a priority for the government. As a result of the lack of improvement in the living conditions of the Portuguese population, slum neighborhoods emerged near Portuguese cities. However, during the Estado Novo period (1933–1974), the Portuguese state played a more protectionist role. A new social housing program for low-income populations was set, regulated by new legislation and focusing on single-family homes. Collective dwelling was considered at the time to be against the social order. Nevertheless, cooperative housing was tolerated, although not supported, by the Portuguese state due to the egalitarian and democratic philosophy that characterized it [7].

The Portuguese cooperative movement had several phases. The first phase occurred in the First Republic (1910–1926). The second one comprised the Estado Novo (1926–1974). The third phase was marked by SAAL (Service of Local Ambulatory Assistance) operations (1974–1976), which included the participation of the population. The fourth phase corresponded to the period of the Economic Housing Cooperatives, CHEs (1974–1986), which ended with the membership of Portugal in the European Economic Community in 1986 and was marked by a breakdown of the cooperative processes, given the profile of the buyers. This cooperative housing was supported by the National Federation of Housing Cooperatives, FENACHE, founded in 1980. The fifth phase began in 1982. At that time the Construction and Housing Cooperatives (CHCs) appeared, closely connected to the Cooperative Code DL nº 454/80, which, according to Paiva (1995), was marked by the liberator spirit of complementary legislation. These cooperatives resorted to banking or to self-financing. Their members mainly belonged to the urban middle class connected to the services, therefore distinct from the popular and worker classes that had marked the pattern of dwellers of the Portuguese cooperative housing since 1978. Thus, the imagination of the popular and revolutionary movement dilutes in the social tissue, in a country which wants to become European [8].

When the Portuguese Revolution of 1974 occurred, almost one quarter of the Portuguese population lived in overcrowded houses. The emerging democratic state considered that it was important to solve the situation and recognized the need for an urgent intervention. Thus, two regulations were produced: the DL 730-74, which defined the co-operative regime, the Economic Cooperative Housing, and the DL 734-A74, which defined the assistance of the state to the cooperative housing, namely by tax exemption, advantageous financial support, and land availability.

In April 1976, the Portuguese Republic recognized the right to proper housing. It was a fundamental attitude for a country whose housing deficit surpassed 50,000 dwellings. The formation of cooperatives also emerged as a fundamental right.

In the early 1980s, in the context of a liberalized economy and the restrictions imposed by the International Monetary Fund, IMF, the financial assistance was suspended and the House Investment Fund, FFH (Fundo de Fomento à Habitação), a state fund created to support Portuguese social housing, was canceled. Thus, a new institute was created in 1984 to support subsidized housing, the National Housing Institute, INH (Instituto Nacional da Habitação). In contrast with its predecessor, the subsidized construction costs were short-term. The buyers could get loans from three to four banks authorized by the state. The National Housing Institute supported the cooperatives in several aspects: research, legislation, supervision of solutions financially supported by the state, and professional qualifications of technicians and property developers. The first decade of the INH was considered the strongest of the Institute for housing cooperatives. The diversity of housing programs that existed, namely in Lisbon, allowed for a variety of typologies and promotions. In 1998, as result of the Cooperative Code of that year, the cooperative housing promotion invested in housing for more solvent socioeconomic classes to the detriment of those with more economic difficulties. This resulted in the devaluation and under-support of the promotion of housing at controlled cost (HCC). The cooperative promotion that took place moved towards families that were able to invest in their own dwellings. Architectonic models inherited from the past were combined with architectural designs made possible by the financial capacity. Elements of precedent models, such as exterior galleries, were combined with elevators and stairs in contemporary architectural plans and were included in the existing regulation.

In 2015, the National Housing Strategy considered that Portugal no longer faced a housing deficit, but instead difficulties. It was pointed out that urban regeneration was the way to solve the remaining housing problems. A new role was assigned to cooperative housing in the new housing policies.

Currently, in Portugal, cooperative housing is on the market to be sold or rented. These edifices can benefit from some financial assistance from the state. The selling price of the buildings must not exceed 30% of the construction costs. When leaving the cooperative, the members are reimbursed at the nominal value. When property is acquired by the cooperative members, the cooperative or the cooperative members administrate the condominium. The cooperative offers several services apart from housing, such as kindergarten, elderly housing, cultural activities, and legal and financial assistance [7,9].

The Millenium period (c. 1991–c. 2006) was relevant to the cooperative housing production. This epoch was marked by the political coexistence of a socialist President of the Portuguese Republic (Jorge Sampaio, 1996–2006) and a socialist government and parliamentary majority. This is also the period of the construction of a new part of the city due to the World Expo ‘98 exhibition and the end of 500 years of the Portuguese empire with the transfer of Macau to China in 1999. It is the epoch of the first plans for the urban regeneration of the eastern zone of Lisbon: the Preliminary Master Plan of Expo ‘98 (1991), by Carlos Duarte and José Lamas, and the Preliminary Urbanization Study (1993), by Nuno Portas [10]. The Euro 2004 in Portugal, which involved the construction of several new football stadiums in the country, symbolically and urbanistically closes this era.

Regarding the collective dwelling of cooperative promotion, the buildings referenced by INH/IHRU, the Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation (Instituto da Habitação e da Reabilitação Urbana), between 1989 and 2010 showed a diversity of typologies, ranging from T1 to T4 and, in some cases, from T0 to T5. The types of edifices varied between multifamily dwellings in a row and multifamily dwellings in a tower. Two historical-constructive periods were involved: that of buildings with a reinforced concrete structure of the third phase (c. 1980–c. 1990), corresponding to the maturation of the binary system of concrete/ceramic block, and the historical-constructive period of c. 1990–c. 2010 for the buildings of reinforced concrete, corresponding to the emergence of sustainable construction, whose paradigm is Ponte da Pedra (second phase of construction) in Matosinhos, concluded in 2006.

As for the typology of the plans of the dwellings, available in the catalog of the INH/IHRU Prizes in 1989–2010, most of the buildings exhibited the modern matrix type. However, there were cases that corresponded to the conjugal contiguous privatization type, which preserves the modern matrix and the privatization of the space of the individuals, focused on the area of the spouses. The remaining bedrooms, without any difference between them, shared a bathroom. These were the cases of the dwellings with the typology T3 of the 1999 INH Prize in Matosinhos, of the dwellings with the typology T3 of the 2002 INH Prize, and of the dwellings with the typologies T3 and T4 of the Honorable Mention 2006 INH Prize. The social bathroom was an element that generally appeared connected to the higher typologies. A conservative partition of the social area in the living room and dining room could sometimes be seen (IHRU Prize 2009, Aveiro). The IHRU Prize 2010, in Burgos, concentrated the living room and dining room in a common room.

The variety of typologies permitted affordable dwellings for low-income middle-class dwellers, targeting the nuclear family, focusing mainly on the T3 typology, and exhibiting a representation of the family structure [11].

Currently, the Housing Access Support Program integrated in the PRR aims to present affordable houses to 26,000 families by 30 June 2026 (Investment RE-C02-i01). To ensure the access of the low-income families to a dwelling, the program states that it will mainly focus on social housing. However, it will also address renovation and reconstruction.

To amplify the offer of accessible social housing, the existent housing cooperatives should be regenerated. The construction of new social housing will permit a public response, at the national level, to the urgent and temporary lodging needs created by natural catastrophes, pandemics, migratory movements, asylum requests, or imminent danger situations (domestic violence, risk of eviction, and human trafficking) and to increase the offer of student lodging at affordable prices [1].

Aiming to attain this goal, on 12 June 2024, agreements were signed with 80 Portuguese municipalities in the regions of the north, center, and south of Portugal in which the Lisbon City Hall was included. This context constitutes an opportunity for the collective dwelling of cooperative promotion to adapt and rethink itself, to ensure every citizen has the fundamental right to a proper dwelling at an affordable price. The very type of financing of cooperative housing acts as an advantage: reduced VAT for social housing construction ranging from 20% to 5%, tax exemption on land acquisition, and subsidized interest rates on loans to construct or buy social housing, including those built for sale. The benefits are higher whenever the target group is the low-income population, and the percentage of help increases if the dwelling is to rent or buy or if the targeted group needs to be relocated because it lives in poverty. The cooperative housing sector can access the special rehousing program through agreements established between the central government and the municipalities. The housing allowances are attributed to individual members bearing in mind their income, age, tenure mode, and professional activity [7].

In the context of urban regeneration of existing buildings, the promotion of intergenerational cohabitation can be a new opportunity for the collective dwelling of cooperative promotion. These edifices can be used in house-sharing programs without fundamentally threatening the architectonic and artistic characteristics of this legacy in the present and near future. A program like Canada’s house-sharing programs in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, can be a gateway. This house-sharing program aims to support adults and seniors by connecting them with post-secondary students. For both, it is advantageous: the house-sharing model contributes to the recruitment of students, and their retention permits the adults and seniors to age in place and reinforces their social inclusion. The benefits are numerous: to combat loneliness and social isolation, to be able to share experiences, to access an affordable house, and to decrease the time waiting for a dwelling. However, there are some challenges, such as managing conflicts with individuals from different backgrounds, the lack of privacy, and the financial responsibility upon the tenant. These situations can be fulfilled by the existent collective dwelling of cooperative promotion. However, for any house-sharing program to be successful, transparency and collaboration are needed [12].

3. Materials and Methods

To solve the present housing crisis, the Support for Access to Housing Program, in the context of PRR, states that its main focus will be social housing to be built or housing of social interest to be regenerated. Thus, we raised the following research question: “What is the significance of the existing cooperative housing in solving the current housing crisis?” Considering this problem, a set of questions emerged to evaluate the edifices and their relevance in the context of the PRR:

(a)

What is the architectural impact of the urban ensemble?

(b)

What is the social impact of the urban ensemble?

(c)

Does the urban ensemble define or is it inscribed in a delimited neighborhood?

(d)

Does the urban ensemble present possible reuse and urban regeneration?

(e)

How is the surrounding area?

(f)

How can a house-sharing program be implemented?

To analyze the significance of current cooperative housing in this framework, we adopted a multiple case study. We chose two urban areas in Lisbon: Caselas, inside Monsanto Park, and Expo Urbe, next to Parque das Nações. Below can be seen maps in Figure 1 and Figure 2 and plans of the areas of study locating the urban ensembles in the city of Lisbon and in their respective neighborhoods in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

To gather the data and analyze the case studies we adopted a descriptive approach. We collected data and information on the parishes where Caselcoop’s buildings and Expo Urbe are located, constructed an analysis guide, defined the criteria to be analyzed in the urban ensembles, and afterwards, we analyzed the sample universe.

3.1. Sampling

In Caselas, we chose the first and the second phases of construction of Caselcoop, designed by the architect Justino Morais, built in accordance with the scale of the neighborhood. The dimension sampling for Caselas has been determined by the constructive and architectonic unity that the two urban ensembles present, which we considered as part of the same single case study. These urban ensembles were chosen by their categorization as social housing of cooperative promotion; by their location, in Lisbon in an urban setting, i.e., a non-rural area; and by their architectonic and urbanistic quality as an urban complex and as individual urban plots as well as by the similarity presented in both phases of construction.

As an element of comparison, by contrast, we used Expo Urbe, located in Avenida D. João II 19-19M/ Rua do Passeio do Báltico 39A–39C, in Parque das Nações, to be dwelt in by wealthier people, which allowed us to perceive the renovation in the cooperative sector built at the scale of the city.

The main criterion that guided the selection of the case studies was to maximize what we could learn from them concerning the collective dwelling of cooperative promotion. Being a multiple case study, the small sample may raise doubts regarding the representativeness of the work. We did not expect to represent all the variety of the collective dwelling of cooperative promotion, but rather, to understand the gap created by the Cooperative Code of 1998 and its consequence on the potential urban regeneration of this built heritage in the context of the present housing crisis. Expo Urbe expresses a different reality regarding the population it targets. Their urbanistic and architectonic layouts highlight the opposite situation shown by Caselcoop’s buildings. Thus, the choice of the cases was carefully pondered. The first and second phases of construction of the collective dwelling of cooperative promotion in Caselas were chosen: two small-scale urban ensembles with great unit in the urban area of Lisbon built at the scale of the neighborhood. Subsequently, we chose a distinct collective dwelling of cooperative promotion in a recent urban area built on the scale of the city, well served by buses with easy access.

Future research should integrate a larger sample of collective dwelling of cooperative promotion cases, with characteristics similar to Caselcoop’s buildings, which express the Portuguese reality.

To better analyze the reuse of the existing housing of social interest, focused on the low-income population, historical research was developed that allowed us to contextualize the Portuguese collective dwelling of cooperative promotion. Firstly, an international approach was taken and the Portuguese context of collective housing promoted by cooperatives was described. Housing models and legal frameworks for international and national housing cooperatives were shown to help build this panorama. After that, the edifices of Caselcoop and Expo Urbe were analyzed using the information available in Lisbon’s Municipal Archive, the existing literature on the subject, and the information available in the real estate market. Then, the edifices were photographed, and the technical drawings of the buildings provided by the Lisbon Municipal Archives were also considered. The architectonic housing types were analyzed and confronted with the prices offered by the real estate market and by the legal and financial framework for different buildings [13,14].

3.2. Data Collection

To gather relevant data from the parishes of Belém and Parque das Nações, the information on the Social Portrait of Lisbon 2024 and the information existing in the Census were used. This allowed us to develop an approximate profile the two urban areas.

Lisbon housing stock has seen a significant improvement in recent decades. However, 39% of the remaining housing stock still needs to be repaired. In 2021, 15% of the family lodgings were vacant, unoccupied, and available to be sold, rented, or demolished. Lisbon is the municipality of its metropolitan area with the higher medium value of renting housing contracts, 15.22 EUR/m², in 2023, and the prices are higher in this city than in other parts of the country. In 2022, the average prices for a family home were 3872 EUR/m², 17.8% more in nominal terms than in 2019.

In the next 20 years, there will be an increase in the population living in Lisbon. It must be noted that Lisbon exhibits a reduction in the aging index, going against the general Portuguese trend. Simultaneously, the capital has seen an increasing number of foreign populations between 2014 and 2022: an increase of around 70,000 foreign residents [15].

Belém Parish, to which Caselas belongs, presented, according to the Census 2021, 9373 family lodgings out of a total of 9389 lodgings. In Belém Parish, there were 7154 family classical lodgings registered as the usual family residence. The number of private households in Belém was 7155, of which 4728 had 1 to 2 individuals and 2427 had 3 or more individuals. The number of nuclear families was 4492. The number of nuclear families with children, the younger of whom was less than 25 years old, was 2236. The number of individuals was 16,546, the number of male individuals was 7574, and the number of individuals of the feminine gender was 8972. The number of individuals between 0 and 14 years old was 2468. The number of individuals between 15 and 24 years old was 1729, the number of individuals between 25 and 64 years old was 7958, and the number of individuals 65 years or older was 4391.

According to the Census 2021, Parque das Nações Parish presented 11,321 family lodgings. There were 9323 family classical lodgings registered as the usual family residence. The number of private households in Parque das Nações was 9023, of which 5233 had 1 to 2 individuals, and 3790 had 3 or more individuals. The number of was 6339. The number of nuclear families with children, the younger of whom was less than 25 years old, was 3753. The number of individuals was 22,382, the number of male individuals was 10,823, and the number of individuals of the feminine gender was 11,559. The number of individuals between 0 and 14 years old was 3961, the number of individuals between 15 and 24 years old was 2701, the number of individuals between 25 and 64 years old was 12,321, and the number of individuals 65 years or older was 3399 [16].

Although the statistics provide information and clues about different issues, there are phenomena that are not always understood through statistical data, such as the increasing number of homeless people, which is perceived only by the people who move around the city on a daily basis. Hence, a descriptive analysis of the sample universe is necessary to better understand the territory in order to evaluate the edifices and their relevance in the context of the PRR.

3.3. Analysis

To answer the questions resulting from the research question, we constructed the following analysis guide based on the work of Reyes et al. (2022), which studied the impact of cooperative housing on health and quality of life in Catalonia, Spain [17].

The criteria in

Table 1. Analysis guide. Source: authors.

Components	Aspects	Health Effects Dimension
Dwellings
Architectural context	Edifice was rehabilitated	Physical and emotional well-being
	Edifice was not rehabilitated	Emotional distress
	Edifice state of conservation	Physical and emotional well-being
Location of the dwelling	Fear of gentrification; distance from the daily leisure spots of the residents and from shops and services	Physical and emotional well-being
Communal living
	Sharing resources, mutual support, creation of logical family	Feeling of security, tranquility; feelings of belonging and identity; decrease in the feelings of loneliness
	Addressing problems collectively
Common spaces	Common spaces promote shared activities and social interaction	Feelings of companionship, happiness; decrease in the feelings of loneliness, loss of intimacy
	Common spaces promote health behaviors	Physical and emotional well-being
Relationship with the neighborhood community	Existence of a community network constructed with the environment	Emotional well-being

capture the following aspects: architectural context, location of the dwelling, communal living, addressing problems collectively, common spaces, and relationship with the neighborhood community where the edifice is located.

3.4. Architectural Context

In the architectural context, we considered if the edifices were regenerated or rehabilitated. These aspects are important because they improve the health condition of the residents, contributing to reducing allergies, colds, and muscular pains and to improving pulmonary health. The initial monetary effort of the urban regeneration can put at risk the urban regeneration of a residential area.

3.5. Location of the Dwelling

The location of the dwelling can have a negative impact on the daily life of the residents. A gentrified neighborhood can be a disadvantaged area and can generate discomfort and fear.

3.6. Communal Living

3.6.1. Sharing Daily Life and Mutual Support

This criterion is related to the intention to live in a community, to share daily life, to generate a chosen family that supports each other, and to share the existing resources.

3.6.2. Addressing Problems Collectively

This criterion is related to sharing daily life and creating mutual support networks to face the risks and problems collectively. These originate feelings of security, of tranquility, and of belonging to a place, which simultaneously reduces the loneliness and isolation and promotes emotional well-being.

3.6.3. Common Spaces

Common spaces can promote social interaction and healthy behaviors: bicycle parking, urban parks, collective kitchens, co-working, multipurpose rooms, and care rooms, among others.

3.6.4. Relationship with the Neighborhood Community Where the Edifice Is Located

The community network creates an environment increasing the feeling of rootedness to a place and the feeling of security and tranquility and decreasing the fear of suffering from violence [17].

The above components and related aspects provide an evaluation of the sample universe in order to analyze its architectonic and social impacts, the characteristics of the neighborhood and the surrounding area in which the edifices are implanted, their possible reuse and urban regeneration, and how they can be used by vulnerable groups through house-sharing programs.

4. The Portuguese Supply and Demand Scenario in the Housing Sector

Portugal is included in the European countries that have a small percentage of public housing stock [18].

This situation lasted for decades with the exception of two moments: post 25 April 1974 and, in 1993, the housing promotion connected to the Special Rehousing Program in the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Oporto. The generalized acquisition of dwellings spread the idea to the average citizen that the issue of Portuguese housing was, in its essence, solved. This idea lasted for several years, given the lodging ratios per family from 1991 to 2011, 1.3 to 1.5, and maintained in 2021. On the other hand, since the 1990s, the percentage of families living in their own house increased from 65% to 73%, decreasing to 70% in 2021. This can be considered an improvement in the Portuguese housing conditions, given the bigger supply of houses and the decrease in vacant homes of 67% from 1991 to 2011. Furthermore, precarious accommodations were reduced by 76% from 1991 to 2011, and in 2021, only 4000 precarious accommodations existed in Portugal. However, the idea of overcoming the Portuguese structural situation of housing crisis would fade in the second decade of the 21st century. Three events were crucial to that change: the social and economic impact of the 2008 financial crisis; the political reorientation for the housing sector in the context of the structural adjustment process of 2011–2015; and the new housing dynamics in major cities regarding the tourism demand and foreign real estate investment.

These events contributed, particularly since 2013, to a rise in the prices for renting or buying a dwelling. This context did not change during the pandemic. The Portuguese State was not able to provide the answer to this persistent problem.

Given the increasing difficulties that families face with access to housing at prices compatible with their incomes, we will in this section consider the supply and demand in the housing sector in Portugal in recent years.

In the 1990s, the liberalization of the banking system and the fall of interest rates, as well as the liberalization of tax benefits and subsidized credit, contributed to housing acquisition to be the principal axis of housing policies and the main choice of Portuguese families.

In the origin of this process are national causes related to the debility of the national housing policies and external causes related to the European integration of Portugal and the increasing influence of the financial markets in the activities of families, of companies, and of the state.

In the housing sector, the economic and social financing resulted in a boost in the housing policies focused on the demand and supported by low-cost and abundant credit reinforced by public support for acquisition with interest rate subsides.

In this period, home ownership acquisition prevented the revitalization of the rental market, at the time freed from the Rent Freeze policy.

From 1981 onwards, it was possible to opt for a free or conditioned rent regime in all new contracts. After 1991, there was a liberalization of the rent in terms of its value and its duration. The frozen rents are currently residual. One should not try to find in this factor the answer to the persistent crisis of the Portuguese rental market. There is a strong preference for house ownership due to easy access to credit via household debt.

Thus, the public expenditure between 1995 and 2005 related to the housing sector reached values that surpassed EUR 300 million, almost reaching 700 million in the early 2000s. These amounts far exceeded what was spent on other housing policy measures, namely those related to the direct promotion of lodgings. Supply-oriented measures over a 25-year period, interest subsidies, and rental rates exceeded the budget execution levels, respectively, by 106% and 109%.

From 1970 to 2019, approximately 2.5 million homes were built, 63% of which were constructed between 1990 and 2009, achieving an annual average of over 100,000 dwellings between 2000 and 2004.

The idea that the support of demand would originate an increase in the supply, making housing more accessible to the Portuguese families, was an assumption based on the belief that the market would produce a reduction in housing prices in Portugal, which did not happen. During this period of strong public and private investment, the average value of the urban properties transacted continued to increase, from EUR 33.8 million in 1992 to EUR 126 million in 2008, reducing in 2014, and then increasing again.

The option of home ownership permitted Portuguese families to gain unprecedented levels of access to a dwelling and financial condition compatible with their income. However, that very option did not safeguard a universal policy of access to housing that is less expensive and, thus, more affordable.

The easy access to credit for housing acquisition is related to the increasing Portuguese State divestment in policies of direct promotion of lodgings. In 2015, public housing represented 2% of the existent lodgings.

The 112,000 public housing units existent in Portugal were built between 1970 and 2019, and 61% were constructed between 1970 and 1984. From 2010 onwards, the direct promotion of public housing was reduced to smaller numbers: 1700 lodgings in 10 years, 170 dwellings per year, against the 4500 lodgings per year between 1970 and 1984.

The reorganization of the housing policies in the last decades, investing in the support of dwelling acquisition through the real estate market, resulted in a generalized emptying of the public intervention mechanisms.

This reorientation of the housing policies is reflected in the institutional changes at the level of the nomenclature of the state institutions in the housing sector: Fundo de Fomento da Habitação, House Investment Fund, (1969–1982); Fundo de Apoio ao Investimento para a Habitação (FAIH), Support Fund for the Housing Investment (1982–1984); Instituto Nacional de Habitação, (INH), National Housing Institute (1984–2006); Instituto de Gestão e Alienação do Património Habitacional do Estado (IGAPHE), Institute for the Management and Alienation of the State Housing (1987–2002); Instituto da Habitação e da Reabilitação Urbana (IHRU), Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation (2007).

The comparison between the levels of housing promotion achieved by public institutions and the stock of public owned housing units registered in the Census over decades permits us to establish a relation between the alienation of the social lodgings and the reduced expression of the current public housing stock.

Hence, considering the period from 1991 to 2011, a potential loss of 60,000 housing units can be observed. This implies that if these housing units had been preserved and not alienated, we would have 18,000 dwellings of public promotion, i.e., our public housing stock would be 4.6% of the total housing stock.

On the other hand, in 2018, the Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation registered 26,000 precarious accommodations, 74% of them in the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Oporto.

The market seems to be unable to meet the housing needs on its own. In the context of increasing financing and internationalization, it is necessary to rethink the role of the state, regaining mechanisms of direct intervention to answer the most evident insufficiencies but also the problems of access for households with intermediate incomes to affordable housing. Thus, a reinforcement and diversification of the types of supply in the Portuguese public housing stock is necessary—a robust answer, not conditioned by the market logic, to ensure universal access, equity, and non-discrimination and to answer to the social changes and unforeseen events [19].

5. Family Types and the Real Estate Market

The analysis of the Census allows us to observe changes in the designations of family types. Mariage unions between people of the same sex appear in the Census table only in 2011. Until then, the expressions married de facto (1991 Census) or married without registration or de facto (2001 Census), always designated people of the opposite sex who lived in an identical situation to that of a married couple although without having their situation registered in the Civil Registry. Regarding the designation of the classic family, from 1991 to 2011, there is a variation.

According to the 1991 Census, an institutional family is a group of people living in a collective accommodation, who, regardless of their kinship relationship, obey a common discipline and are ruled by an internal or external entity.

The notion of reconstituted family nucleus appears in the 2001 Census, designating nuclei that consist of a legal or de facto couple, with or without child(ren), in which at least one of them is a natural or adopted child of one of the members of the couple.

In 1991, a classic family was understood as a group of people who have kinship relationships with each other, either “de jure” or “de facto”. In 2011, the individual’s position in the classical family had a broad spectrum, including

(a)

People in a family nucleus: people who are married or in a civil union status, single parents (father in a single-parent nucleus or mother in a single-parent nucleus), children (from a single-parent nucleus or from a non-single-parent nucleus);

(b)

People without a family nucleus who lived alone or with non-family members.

Regarding individuals who did not live in traditional families, the same Census mentions people in an institutional family and homeless.

In 2001, 3,650,757 classical families were registered in Portugal. The average family size was 2.8, and the classic resident families were distributed as follows: 17.3% corresponded to single-person families, 28.4% to families of two people, 25.2% to families of three people, 19.7% to families of four people, and 9.5% to families of five or more people. In the 2001 Census, the two-person family had the largest representativeness in Portugal, except for the north and Madeira, where the most representative household consisted of three people. In Portugal in 2001, the proportion of classic single-person families grew by 44.9% when compared with the 1991 Census. If, in the 1991 Census, classic single-person families represented 13.8%, in subsequent Censuses, these families reached a percentage of 17.3%. More than a half of these families were elderly. The lowest proportions of single-person families occurred in regions where the average family size was larger—the Autonomous Regions and North Coast. The percentages of single-person families constituted by elderly people were higher in the interior regions, such as Pinhal Sul and Alto Alentejo. The lowest percentages occurred in the Greater Oporto area, Greater Lisbon area, Setúbal Peninsula, Pinhal Litoral, Cávado, and Algarve [20].

In 2011, the percentage of couples with children was 58.79%, which represented a decrease of 6%, observed in all regions, when compared with 2001. In NUTS, Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, only the autonomous and the northern regions of Portugal had a percentage of couples with children exceeding 60%. In 2001–2011, there was a 36% increase in single-parent families. The 4% growth observed compared with 2001 demonstrates the change in the model of family life in contemporary society. The Autonomous Region of Madeira presented the highest percentage of single-parent families, 20%, followed by Lisbon, which had 18%. Regarding reconstituted families, their numbers rose from 2.69% in 2001 to 6.55% in 2011. Lisbon and Algarve were the Portuguese regions where the percentage of this family aggregate was the highest, 10%, in contrast to the northern region, with 4%. In 2011, the number of families living in social institutions was 3129. This figure corresponds to an increase of 49% compared with 2001. This reflects society’s response to the increasing aging population [21].

The collective dwelling of cooperative promotion in the period of 1989–2010, which targeted the nuclear family, was focused on the T3 typology. Hence, it exhibited a representation of the family structure that did not cover the social diversity.

The 2021 Census for the city of Lisbon partly reinforces this fact. Lisbon exhibits an aging population on one hand but presents signs of a rejuvenation of its population on the other: 13% children aged 14 years old or under, 64% individuals between 15 and 64 years old, and 23% aged 65 or over. There is a delayed autonomization of the young people regarding their parents, passing from 28.8 in 2012 to 33.6 in 2021. There are 127,000 people aged 65 or over and 44,000 aged 80 or over. The increasing elderly population does not have an adapted dwelling, either living with relatives or alone. In 2021, the family aggregates were constituted by a single person (35%), by two persons (33%), by three persons (16%), by four individuals (11%), or by more than five persons (5%). Thus, the average dimension of the family in Lisbon was 2.2. According to the 2021 Census, 14% of the families in Lisbon shared their dwelling with other families or individuals outside their family aggregate [22].

6. Collective Dwelling of Cooperative Promotion in Caselas

6.1. The Place

Caselas neighborhood is in Monsanto Park, near Estrada da Circunvalação and the Estoril Highway. The eastern zone of the neighborhood has Rua da Igreja as its main road, and the western zone, Rua do Miradouro [23]. This urban area, constituted by 159 semi-detached houses, was originally built in 1944–1949 according to the plans of the architect Couto Martins. Currently, Caselas exhibits an urban ensemble of collective dwellings of cooperative promotion, dating from 1980s and 1990s, and a luxury condominium, Vila Restelo dating from 2002.

Caselas neighborhood was inaugurated in 1949 under the designation of the Residential Quarter of Economical Houses of Caselas’ Sacred Family, integrating some infrastructure, namely a church, a primary school, and the Caselas Football Club. The semi-detached houses were built for two social standards. Class A, for families whose income per month varied between 800 and 1700 escudos (Portuguese currency unit in 1911–2001), and class B, for families whose income per month varied between 1600 and 2500 escudos. Each detached house had a backyard. These dwellings had a resolvable ownership, the possession passing to the dwellers after a certain period.

Despite its initial inaccessibility, Caselas received a new generation of dwellers that revitalized and enlarged the neighborhood due to the construction of the edifices of Caselcoop, Cooperative of Construction and Economic Housing of S. Francisco Xavier. The progressive renewal of the residents occurred as the old heirs sold the dwellings due to the death of the primary residents. Nowadays, Caselas is considered a safe and pleasant urban area, a shelter in the city [24].

6.2. Justino Morais Cooperative Housing in Caselas

The National Federation of The Economic Cooperative Housing, FENACHE (Federação Nacional de Cooperativas de Habitação Económica) played an important formative, unifying, and empowering role in the development of the cooperative sector, namely in its national and international representation, its management practices, and its cooperative projects. Presently, FENACHE has 31 cooperatives of regular promotion [25]. From 1975 to 1985, the construction of cooperative housing of social interest fulfilled an urgent need for housing. In the second half of the 1980s, a constructive boom occurred. On the other hand, in the 1980s and 1990s, cooperatives such as Caselcoop operated in Lisbon due to agreements between FENACHE and Lisbon City Hall. The buildings were built in municipal urban plots, available by surface rights, in areas where Lisbon City Hall had a strong intervention. The cooperative housing built in 1989–2007, evaluated by the INH Annual Prizes, was supported by FENACHE, which promoted social housing at controlled costs. Until 2008, FENACHE took part of the jury of INH Prizes [26].

In the first phase of construction, Caselcoop built 66 multifamily buildings in a row, a project of the architect Justino Morais (1928–2011), presenting two dwellings per floor and being two to three floors high, in Rua Sara Afonso and Rua Carolina Ângelo. These edifices received the INH Honorable Mention in 1989. In the second phase of construction, the same architect, with the support of Caselcoop, built 34 tower-type edifices three floors high with four dwellings per floor. To the second phase of construction was attributed the INH Honorable Mention of 1992. The technical drawings of Rua Sara Afonso, first phase of construction, that we consulted dated from 1986–1988, and the descriptive memory of Rua Lucília do Carmo 2/Rua Frederico Valério 9, which we saw, dated from 1993–1994. The edifices are well integrated in the urban area of Caselas’s social neighborhood, given their volumetry, scale, and architectonic quality. The urban ensemble in Rua Sara Afonso presents wide pedestrian crossings. The urban ensemble in Rua Carolina Ângelo also has a pedestrian crossing at the back, overlooking Monsanto Park, and in both urban ensembles, the architect pursued an interior/exterior connection [6].

Figure 5, below, provides an overall of one of the two rows constructed in the first phase of the cooperative housing project of Justino Morais. The technical drawings refer to Rua Sara Afonso 3, located in block 12. Figure 6 shows the north and south façades of the urban ensemble in Rua Sara Afonso, respectively, and the main and rear façades of the urban ensemble. Figure 7 shows the plan of the first floor of block 12 in Rua Sara Afonso.

In Rua Sara Afonso, the edifices present two dwellings per floor, and the typologies range from T1 to T4. The architectonic model replicates the transitional modern type (1950–1970), that is, the partial adoption of the modern matrix characterized by the rationalization of the spaces; the use of the rectangular or quadrangular plan; the organization of private, social, and service zones; and the autonomy of the living and the dining areas, though in a logic of a spatial continuity. The social zone includes the common room, the service zone comprises the kitchen, and the private area the undifferentiated bedrooms, which use the social w.c. and the bathroom [27]. The T1 exhibits entrance hall, spouses’ bedroom, kitchen, social w.c., bathroom, storage, and a balcony. The T2 presents entrance hall, spouses’ bedroom, a double bedroom, kitchen, social w.c., bathroom, storage, and a balcony. The T3 shows an additional double bedroom. The T4 presents two additional double bedrooms and another single bedroom. The dwellings are developed on a single level, except for the T3 and T4 duplexes.

The living room and the kitchen of the dwelling have independent access through the stairs to allow visual continuity given by the covered porch, stimulating the connection with the exterior.

The constructive methods used are a resistant structure of reinforced concrete, exterior peripheral insulated double-brick walls, and interior single-brick partitions. The general structure is based on a three-dimensional mesh of alternating modules of 550 m and 3.00 m long, 4.30 m + 4.30 m depth, with projections of 2.00 m + 5.50 m.

The urban ensemble built in Rua Carolina Ângelo has a balcony. In the rear façade, the solution presented is like the one of Rua Sara Afonso: the balconies permit the visual connection between interior and exterior and exhibit a pedestrian crossing.

The edifices of the second phase of construction resemble the ones of the first phase regarding the balconies’ guards and the opening types chosen. The repetition of the elements of composition of façade and the maintenance of a small volumetry and scale create elements of architectonic identity between the two phases. The architectural programs of the second phase replicate the T1 to T4 typologies and the constructive systems of the first phase. The architectonic model also replicates the transitional modern type. However, the three-dimensional mesh is slightly7 different: an orthogonal mesh of 5.00 m and 3.00 m length, 4.50 m + 4.50 m of depth, with projections of 2.00 m × 5.50 m. The urban plots are aggregated forming streets, squares, or appearing as isolated buildings. The dwellings are organized around a tall atrium illuminated by a skylight. The edifices have two dwellings per floor, accessed by two-flight stairs or by a gallery whenever there are more than two dwellings per floor. In the staircase, a garbage duct was foreseen.

In both phases of construction, the historic constructive period corresponds to the edifices with structure of reinforced concrete of the third phase (c. 1980–c.1990), in which the reinforced concrete structures used exhibit the maturity of the constructive system based on the binary concrete/ceramic block [28].

In both constructive phases, a chromatic study occurred so that the buildings could be well integrated into the green surroundings of Monsanto Park. Thus, light colors were used: for the exterior façades was chosen light ochre and light rose textured paint, as can be seen in some urban plots in Rua Sara Afonso and Rua Carolina Ângelo (first phase of construction) and in Rua padre Fróis (second phase of construction). Concerning the guards of the windows and balconies and the socles, the architect chose the same building materials and colors to reinforce the continuity of scale and of the urban image, dark green for the guards of the windows and light gray for the socles.

Below, the images Justino Morais buildings can be seen. Figure 8 and Figure 9 present the main and rear façades of Rua Carolina Ângelo showing the small volumetry of the edifices, the balconies, and the pedestrian crossing at the back of the urban plot. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the aggregated urban plots forming streets. Figure 12 presents a plan of the first floor of block 3 of the second phase of construction.

7. Expo Urbe Collective Dwelling of Cooperative Promotion

7.1. Parque das Nações Parish

Expo Urbe (2000–2007), in Parque das Nações (Avenida D. João II 19A-19 M/ Rua do Passeio do Báltico 39A–39C) in Lisbon, is a collective dwelling of cooperative promotion of the Architectural Office of Tomás Taveira (1938) that targets a population with bigger financial resources, capable of buying its own house. This edifice expresses a moment of reinvention of the urban image of cooperative housing that contributed to regain an old, degraded industrial area for the city, converting the small scale of the neighborhood into the city scale, appropriate to a new Lisbon that wanted to show itself to the world by giving added value to the river front, which is of major importance to Lisbon.

The strategic plan of real estate development for the Expo ‘98 intervention area was based on the sale of urban plots as defined in the Strategic Economic and Financial Plan of 1997. The real estate market offers for the collective dwellings between 1995–1998 comprised medium and small investors, cooperatives already established in the market, and new ones created for the urbanization of this zone. This plan sought quality in the investors and cooperatives chosen as well as in the projects of collective dwellings proposed. In the new urbanized area, the following aspects should be considered: a multifunctional metropolitan structure of high environmental and urban quality should be built; the river front should be urbanistically and geographically valued; the new urban area should be constructed in a continuum with the surrounding consolidated city; the public space should be constructed as a structural element of the urban regeneration process. This new residential area should be provided with good road and transport networks; there should be a dense urbanized area in the inner mesh near the railways; a green corridor should be integrated in the housing area and the riverside view system should be enhanced; also, maximum flexibility of urban management in relation to the established concepts should be safeguarded. These were considered key elements to achieve the centrality and attractivity for the regenerated urban area [29].

7.2. Expo Urbe

The singularity of Expo Urbe relies on its architecture, on its innovation, and on its chromatic study. The Millenium period (c. 1991–c. 2006) corresponds to an epoch in which the past housing models of the cooperative sector were revised according to a new architectonic layout. Because of the Cooperative Code (1998), the Portuguese cooperative housing focus was mainly on the population with bigger financial resources.

Below can be seen the technical drawings of Expo Urbe. Figure 13 shows the main façade in Avenida D. João II, Figure 14 presents the rear façade in Rua Passeio do Báltico, and Figure 15 shows the plan of the first floor of the edifice.

A new reference of collective dwelling was built with innovative constructive systems. Parque das Nações established a new model of urbanism and of sustainable urban development for the Portuguese cities, and new reference collective dwellings were built.

Parque das Nações parish (2012) results from the urban, environmental, and social regeneration of the Expo ’98 intervention area incorporating principles of sustainability, which established new models at the scale of the building and the city. All edifices of this parish, in which Expo Urbe is included, benefited from these advanced technologies. The project included an underground Technical Gallery, which comprised a Pneumatic Collector System of Urban Solid Waste and a Cold and Heat Network, as well as a Natural Gas Network, introduced in Portugal in 1997. The Cold and Heat Network permitted better thermal performance of the edifices while decreasing the carbon dioxide emissions by 40% and reducing the greenhouse effect considerably, namely the CFCs. This also permitted eliminating the exterior air conditioning equipment, enhancing the urbanistic and environmental quality of Parque das Nações buildings. To preserve the architectonic quality of the buildings, the use of chimneys, ducts, and air conditioning equipment was forbidden.

The technical gallery is a visitable underground concrete corridor, with a rectangular section, 4.5 m high by 4 m wide, extending over 6.2 km. This technical gallery shelters all the cable and infrastructural networks needed for Parque das Nações and is interrupted at specific points to allow the passage of rainwater collectors or other infrastructure needed at the underground level. The Pneumatic Collector System of Urban Solid Waste has two centrals, the north and the south central. This system is innovative in Portugal. The high potence turbo-extractors extract the air, producing a flux that ensures the transportation of the residues. These fall by gravity in hermetic 30 m³ containers. For the undifferentiated waste, public garbage outlets were designed.

The Pneumatic Collector System of Urban Solid Waste, integrated in the architecture, has distinct plumbing for recyclable waste and for the solid waste. The undifferentiated waste was put in a vertical plumbing in the stairwell, with litter mouths in each floor. Waste collectors for recyclable waste are put in the atrium of the buildings, at the level of the ground floor in the common areas of the edifice, or even in the backyards. In the backyards, floodgates were required to drain the garden waste and to clean the floors. An exterior litter mouth was foreseen for the use of the small commerce at the ground floor level.

The property real estate developers and of the cooperatives responsible for the construction of the edifices were in charge of the construction of the interior infrastructure of the buildings. The Cold and Heat Network was a fundamental energetic and environmental strategy that implemented, for the first time in Portugal, a centralized distribution of thermic energy at the urban scale, which permitted a reduction in the primary energy consumed in the buildings. Through established legislation, it was regulated that the final energy used for the climatization and heating of the sanitary waters should come from the Cold and Heat Network. This meant the construction of stations and of transfer substations, the only exception to this being the endogenous energy provided by the solar equipment. The production of electric and thermic energy is made in the Triggeration Central, located in the north of Parque das Nações [30].

Expo Urbe consists of two buildings of cooperative housing to be dwelt in by 52 families. The architectural office designed T2, T3, and T4 typologies. The T3 typology exhibits a contiguous spouse’s privatization plan: the spouses’ bedroom has a private bathroom, and the other bedrooms share the same bathroom. As a building of the Central Zone–Panoramic Platform, Expo Urbe obeys specific legislation. The surrounding area and the roof of the edifice are considered of architectonic and landscape relevance. The integration of infrastructure and equipment (water, sewer, gas, electricity, telecommunications, ventilation, smoke exhaustion, air conditioning, elevators), must safeguard the architectonic quality of the building, of the urban landscape, and of the view systems.

The figures below show different aspects of the technical structures and of the urbanistic and architectonic layout. Figure 16 shows the public litter mouth near Expo Urbe, which is part of the Pneumatic Collector System of Urban Solid Waste of Parque das Nações, and Figure 17 and Figure 18 present the natural gas mouth that is part of the existing Gas Network. Figure 19 shows the careful integration of the technical infrastructure in the gardened area. And Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23 illustrate the careful layout of the edifice to achieve the demanded architectonic and urbanist regulations of Central Zone–Panoramic Platform.

In the main façade, at the ground floor level, an arcade was built, ensuring the continuum with the adjacent buildings. The terraced area at the first floor level functions as a platform from which the two buildings rise. A public stair ensures the access to the entrance doors of the fractions and to the garden, which presents a sculptural element in the terraced area. In Avenida D. João II there are two commercial areas, an entrance door to access to one of the edifices, and a stair that leads to the terraced area. The building also presents two car parking spots, which are accessed by Rua do Passeio do Báltico [31]. The urban unity of the street was ensured by the architectural drawing using the colors and the revetments applied. The colors chosen were yellow, blue, green, and red according to industrial experiences performed to obtain a private, calm, and uncompromised environment. The chosen colors combine with the interior architecture of the edifice in order to integrate the city’s image and to please a greater number of future dwellers. The building reflects the cultural reference of Die Stil, regarding the fractured layout of the façades and the colors that were applied in them.

8. Results and Discussion

To analyze the significance of existent cooperative housing due the current housing crisis, this study opposes two different collective dwellings of cooperative promotion, which stood out by their quality: Caselcoop’s buildings in Lisbon, near Monsanto Park, and Expo Urbe, next to Parque da Nações. To achieve our goal, we formulated the following research question: “What is the significance of the existing cooperative housing in solving the current housing crisis?” To address this problem, several sub-questions were raised to evaluate the edifices and their relevance in the context of the PRR, which will be detailed in this section followed by the results obtained.

8.1. Caselcoop’s Buildings Results

8.1.1. What Is the Architectural Impact of the Urban Ensemble?

In what refers to the architectonic impact, both phases of construction, the small urban scale of the edifices, the creation of streets and squares, and the interpenetration of public and private space create a humanized urban space (Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11). Thus, the collective dwellings of cooperative promotion of Justino Morais, in Caselas, reached their own earned merit in the recognized social housing in Lisbon, alongside with other iconic works such as the Pink Panther Social Housing Complex (1972–1979) of Gonçalo Byrne and António Reis Cabrita. Additionally, their combination with the equipment existent in the neighborhood, the services, and Monsanto Park’s green area provides a vital perspective of the public space and encourages the intense use of the exterior space. The pedestrian paved space is kept safe from the circulation of vehicles. The buildings are well integrated, presenting an urban continuity with the pre-existing edifices.

8.1.2. What Is the Social Impact of the Urban Ensemble?

Concerning the social impact of these buildings, due to their human scale, being constituted by a small number of dwellings, they foster close neighborhood clusters combined with proper conviviality spaces, namely small cafeterias, a local Football Club, groceries, and public space. These spaces, equipment, and shops may be closely regarded as communal spaces, also referred to as shared areas or common spaces, i.e., to be used by more than one inhabitant. These are areas to gather, to socialize, relax, and play, typically comprising playgrounds, sports clubs, picnic areas, small shops, cafes, leisure areas, kitchens, urban forests, parks, and public squares. They contribute to reinforce ties to the community and to the place.

8.1.3. Does the Urban Ensemble Define or Is It Inscribed in the Delimited Neighborhood?

The residential streets fully protect the privacy of the ground floor dwellings of the second phase of construction, but in the dwellings of the first phase of construction, on the rear façades a spatial interior/exterior continuity prevails, to the detriment of privacy. Nevertheless, the edifices transmit a sense of well-delimited neighborhood and of well-being due to the pleasant urban image, their good state of conservation, and how they were carefully integrated in Caselas neighborhood [32].

8.1.4. Does the Urban Ensemble Present Possible Reuse and Urban Regeneration?

Caselcoop’s buildings present possible reuse. The real estate market shows that the dwellings are being sold and rented, and newcomers are coming into the neighborhood. The edifices are in a good state of preservation.

8.1.5. How Is the Surrounding Area?

Caselas is characteristically a residential area, presenting a population consisting of families with young children, and middle-aged and senior adults. The population uses the small coffee shops and grocery as well as the existent facilities: primary school, Football Club, playground.

8.1.6. How Can a House-Sharing Program Be Implemented?

Caselcoop’s building design and communal space fit in a house-sharing program. The dwellings present a clear partition of the common and private spaces, and the overall space is easily dominated by the residents. In the context of the house-sharing program, the younger residents can contribute to maintaining the common areas as a group effort. Simultaneously, offering a functional and inviting shared space helps to create a more appealing and enjoyable overall environment, fostering more quality of life for the adult and the young residents. Additionally, sharing aspects of the daily life and mutual support is demonstrated to foster feelings of security and trust, to diminish the sense of loneliness, and to transmit tranquility. Consequently, the well-being of the individual is strengthened by these ties. Caselcoop’s edifices’ communal areas promote social interaction between generations related to feelings of companionship, protection, security, combating loneliness, and originating well-being and happiness. Moreover, the environment created by the urban design of the exterior space, of Caselas’ small streets and squares, fosters an easy implementation of a neighborhood network creating feelings of belonging to the place, rootedness, a sense of security, and lack of fear regarding the surrounding environment [17]. These are aspects that make the Caselas cooperative housing so appealing for a house-sharing program.

8.2. Exo Urbe Results

8.2.1. What Is the Architectural Impact of the Edifice?

Expo Urbe was built to stand out in an urban and prestigious avenue of an urban regenerated area of Lisbon near the river front. The scale of the edifice, its medium size, its careful architectonic layout, its integration in the avenue according to what was regulated for the Central Zone–Panoramic Platform, contributes to its architectonic quality.

8.2.2. What Is the Social Impact of the Edifice?

The edifice, being a small city unit, does not foster neighborhood clusters. Nevertheless, the building includes small shops that can be accessed from the street. The edifice is constituted as a single unit. The building has its own garden in the terrace area and presents two shops, one on the ground floor level and the other in the terrace area. The edifice does not exhibit the same degree of complexity of combined urban plots, which present areas to dwell and spaces of conviviality to socialize, relax, and play.

8.2.3. Does the Edifice Define or Is It Inscribed in the Delimited Neighborhood?

Expo Urbe is implanted in a main avenue of Parque das Nações parish, Avenida D. João I., which belongs to a new urban center and does not define a delimited neighborhood.

8.2.4. Does the Edifice Present Possible Reuse and Urban Regeneration?

Expo Urbe apartments are being urban regenerated. Newcomers are arriving to the urban area, and the edifices are being sold and rented to new dwellers.

8.2.5. How Is the Surrounding Zone?

Expo Urbe is next to the big-company buildings and hotels as well as near the Vasco da Gama Shopping Center. As we go far away from the Shopping Center, another residential zone appears. The avenue is closed by the roundabout and encircled by corporate and residential edifices. Near the river front, there are other residential streets, and in their immediate surroundings emerges Lisbon’s Casino. The urban area comprises a very diversified population of different ages. This population uses the small coffee shops owned by big franchising companies in the nearby residential area.

8.2.6. How Can a House-Sharing Program Be Implemented in Expo Urbe?

The edifice communal spaces are established on the scale of the city. There is not a feeling of a delimited neighborhood. However, the Shopping Center, Vasco da Gama, near Expo Urbe and the galleries of the edifices present the useful shops for the daily life. The dimension of the urban mesh makes difficult the implementation of a neighborhood network.

8.3. Discussion

Caselcoop’s buildings and Expo Urbe both became references of Portuguese architecture, portraying epochs in which were reinvented models that presented quality patterns and marked the urban landscape. Both are cooperative housing made by Portuguese architects that constructed buildings in Lisbon in significant periods of the recent history of Lisbon. Yet, despite being a reference in the cooperative sector, Expo Urbe cannot be considered as housing of social interest.

Caselcoop’s edifices contrast with Expo Urbe by presenting an architectonic program of smaller dimensions that targeted the low-income population. They were constructed with a small investment cost in a residential area, and the constructive systems were the current ones at the epoch. Thus, the cost of the dwellings was maintained at the cooperative housing normal price for the expected target. The regulation of the price in the market followed the established rules. These buildings benefited from some financial assistance from the state, and their selling price could not surpass 30% of the construction costs.

Given the prestigious urban area in which it was built and its big scale, Expo Urbe gained great symbolism. The investment prior to the construction of this edifice was immense, and generous areas were conceived for its dwellings. Expo ’98 permitted an urban, environmental, and social regeneration of the degraded industrial port area of Lisbon’s eastern zone, comprising 340 ha, near the Tagus River, allowing it to reestablish the connection of citizens with the river front and to create a new urban and multifunctional center. The urban renovation and the new technologies integrated in the edifices raised the prices of Expo Urbe dwellings. As with Caselcoop’s buildings, Expo Urbe apartments were sold to the dwellers at a more affordable price than the one practiced in the real estate market for non-cooperative housing. However, Caselcoop’s edifices are sold at a lower price than Expo Urbe apartments: the T3 in Rua Sam Levy is sold for EUR 365,000, the T2 in Rua Sara Afonso is sold for EUR 270,000, and the rental of a refurbished T3 in Rua Lucília do Carmo 1, Energy certificate energy class D, is rented for 2.450 EUR per month. In contrast, in Expo Urbe, in Avenida D. João II, a T3 is sold for EUR 1,090,000 and a T4 adapted to a T3 is sold for EUR 990,000. Given the targeted social group, Expo Urbe is distant from the original mission of the cooperative housing in Portugal, which aimed at giving an accessible dwelling for everyone, for a greater number of individuals.

Urban investments can generate strong economic returns, as cities are drivers of economic growth. To achieve sustainable development goals (SGDs) the most vulnerable groups cannot be left behind. The engagement with those groups can make urban projects more responsive to the actual needs of the population, creating cities for all. These aspects foster the economic development and social welfare. Social inclusion strategies address vulnerable groups, namely women, children, persons with disabilities, and older people. An inclusive city is a place for all, regardless of their economic status, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion, fully participating in the social, economic, and political opportunities that the city has to offer [33]. Urban regeneration plays an important role in achieving more sustainable and inclusive cities. A thoughtful urban regeneration approach is an answer to the real needs of the community, rethinking the use of built resources to better serve its needs, redistribute opportunities, increase urban prosperity and quality of life of the city dwellers, and ensure affordability and access to services. Furthermore, urban regeneration promotes the preservation and valorization of the heritage, seen as a key element of its action in the territory.

However, the shift of the economies towards the outskirts or to new economic multifunctional urban centers, leaves the city centers, undermining the quality of life and the state of preservation of the oldest urban areas and excluding their residents from better opportunities. The diversification of economic activities is necessary as well as to preserve the heritage and to reuse it and to reactivate the public space and strengthen the delivery of services. The inclusive and sustainable urban regeneration encourages a shift in the paradigm for urban life. In this new paradigm, the social, economic, physical, and environmental aspects must be considered as well as the Environmental Social Governance (ESG) in the policies and operations. Urban regeneration is intrinsically connected with the UN-Habitat’s Flagship Program, “Inclusive Communities, Thriving Cities”. This program aims to promote shared prosperity by supporting governments and urban actors to construct more inclusive, resilient, and green cities, neighborhoods, and communities through urban regeneration.

It is of the utmost importance to live in social inclusive cites and to balance the increasing inequalities. Thus, we assume that, considering the present housing crisis, in the context of the Program of Support to Access to Housing, the focus must mainly be on social housing for the low-income people. These are times in which many people are living in poverty and have difficulty maintaining their house and daily expenses. For a larger range of the population, the high price of housing forces them to live in the outskirts, far from their working place and far from the city centers. These factors constitute causes of social inequality, which results in less economically balanced and less sustainable and ecological cities.

The Caselcoop buildings’ human scale fosters close neighborhood clusters combined with proper conviviality spaces. These spaces for human interaction promote more social inclusiveness and help to balance the social inequalities. Furthermore, Caselcoop’s edifices’ design and communal space fit better in a house-sharing program than Expo Urbe, fostering the human ties to the community alongside a more appealing and enjoyable overall environment. These aspects contribute to nurturing a greater quality of life for the adults and the young residents, thus addressing the needs of vulnerable groups.

Thus, we consider that it is necessary to construct new cooperative housing of social interest, but it is also crucial to regenerate the existent controlled-cost edifices. The renewed dwellings can be adapted to the new daily needs. This urban regeneration could support students, displaced professionals, low-income families, and low-pension families [34].

Caselas’s cooperative housing fits into the recent heritage, which can provide the necessary public answer to low-income people, ensuring the right to a dwelling and to the individual project of happiness. These buildings, being strongly attached to a community, implanted in a currently well-connected and diverse residential neighborhood, can provide good social inclusion of vulnerable groups at affordable prices, benefiting from the state’s help.

The real estate market shows that these dwellings are currently rented and sold at affordable prices, being proof of the continuous renovation of the Caselas neighborhood. Hence, the cooperative heritage of the 1980s and 1990s of controlled costs should be regenerated, rented, or bought, alongside the new social housing, to combat the housing crisis.

9. Strengths and Limitations

The main strengths of this study are to center the research on a relevant and underrated urban heritage and examine its potential reuse in the context of the present housing crisis in Portugal. Additionally, this study contributes to raising awareness of the pertinence of cooperative housing and the need for social sustainability. Also, we have chosen contrasting cases to apprehend the disparity created by the Cooperative Code of 1998 and its consequences on the potential urban regeneration of recent heritage given the current housing crisis. However, this study presents several limitations: the sample analyzed is small, and the evaluation of the health and the quality of life of the edifices would benefit from the analysis of the input of the dwellers alongside the input of the cooperatives.

10. Future Research

Future research should integrate a larger sample of collective dwelling of cooperative promotion cases, with analogous characteristics of Caselcoop’s buildings broadened to the different Portuguese regions and Portuguese reality. It would be interesting to know how the collective dwelling of cooperative promotion, recognized as social housing, can be a usable resource for the present housing crisis. Additionally, the analysis of the input of the residents alongside the input of the cooperatives and policymakers should be integrated. Also, it would be interesting to know if the edifices were rehabilitated based on sustainable criteria and energy-efficiency criteria. This would permit a better understanding of the quality of life and health of the edifices.

11. Conclusions

The Portuguese cooperative housing constitutes a legacy of built projects of domestic and urban spaces at the city-scale level. It is necessary to study it and to reinvent it, ensuring rightful access to an affordable dwelling.

In 2015, the National Housing Strategy considered that Portugal no longer faced a housing deficit, but difficulties. However, to solve the present housing crisis, the Support for Access to Housing Program, integrated in the PRR (Investment RE-C02-i01), will mainly focus on social housing to be built or of social interest to be regenerated. To analyze the significance of cooperative housing in this context, this study presented a comparative analysis of Caselas, near Monsanto Park, a collective dwelling of cooperative promotion at controlled costs aimed at a low-income population, and Expo Urbe, in Parque da Nações, constructed for a wealthier population (post-Cooperative Code of 1998). These two collective dwellings of cooperative promotion, which are opposed by contrast, are significant by their quality and their architectonic and urbanistic layout.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s in Portugal, collective dwellings of cooperative promotion designed by Justino Morais were built in Caselas. Given their architectonic and urbanistic quality, they constitute recognized housing of social interest. In the context of the present housing crisis, urban regeneration and future reuse of these buildings may contribute to give a qualified public answer for the low-income population, guaranteeing the right to a dwelling, Additionally, Justino Morais edifices, inscribed in a delimited neighborhood, can also favor intergenerational cohabitation, permitting house-sharing programs supporting adults and seniors to age in place. Justino Morais’s buildings are strongly attached to a community, implanted in a currently well-connected and diverse residential neighborhood, providing good social inclusion to vulnerable groups at affordable prices. These edifices can benefit from state support. The real estate market shows that these dwellings are currently rented and sold at affordable prices, being proof of the continuous renovation of the Caselas neighborhood. In the context of PRR, the Caselas collective dwelling of cooperative promotion is a recent heritage that can be a reference pattern for the new social housing. Hence, the controlled-costs cooperative heritage of the 1980s and 1990s should be regenerated, rented, or bought, alongside the building of new social housing to combat the housing crisis.

Expo Urbe, produced in the context of Expo ’98, targets a wealthier population. It contrasts with Caselas by presenting a more ambitious architectural program whose relevance relies on the technological innovation and the meaningful reinvention of the urban image of the Portuguese cooperative housing. However, Expo Urbe is not, and is not recognized as, housing of social interest. Expo Urbe is distant from the primary mission of cooperative housing to ensure the right to housing for all at affordable prices. Both constructions became renowned for their architectonic quality, their urban image, and their relationship with the city’s territory, one at the scale of the neighborhood (Caselcoop’s buildings), and the other on the scale of the city (Expo Urbe).

The cases chosen revealed the disparity created by the Cooperative Code of 1998 and its consequences for the urban regeneration of this kind of heritage. They demonstrated that Caselcoop’s buildings, built in a residential urban neighborhood, strongly attached to a community, provide good social inclusion at affordable prices, and it is, thus, eligible for urban regeneration and reuse (for renting or acquiring). On other hand, Expo Urbe emerges as a heritage that is apart from the big rescue programs of the country, because it is targeted to a population that can afford its own house and does not depend so much on the real estate market fluctuations. Nevertheless, the higher standard, the urban regeneration programs, for prestigious areas like Parque das Nações, will also focus on the reuse of this resource for the management of an efficient and sustainable city.

Regarding the urban regeneration of the recent heritage, in the context of the Support for Access to Housing Program, the reuse of the buildings must not compromise their cultural or residential values nor threaten the integrity of the individuals. The modification of the interior space must not put at risk human health nor its safety. The evaluation of a potential alteration must consider how the edifice will be affected, the consequences on its design, and the constructive techniques required. The extension of the modification should be evaluated considering how the new use results in new technical characteristics and the design requirements for the edifice. Extended parts of a building shall be considered as separate units regarding meeting the new requirements for recent buildings. Whenever the renewal of a building takes place, attention should be paid to prevent the following situations:

(a)

Larger modifications in the dwelling’s layouts;

(b)

The edifice being furnished for non-residential purposes;

(c)

Extensive work on the building frame and replacement of most of its technical systems.

As a maintenance measure in a significant renewal, the building’s envelope should also be considered, as well as the technical systems and the interior surface finishes [35].

This paper contributes to disseminate and raise awareness of a recent heritage, still undervalued, whose urban regeneration is a fundamental key for a social and urban, inclusive, and sustainable city.