Housing Informalities Between Formal Designs and Informal Reality

Abstract

Housing informality (HI), and particularly unauthorized modifications, are a widely spread phenomenon in Morocco’s rapidly growing coastal suburb of Harhoura, Rabat. While previous research has already focused on the socio-economic aspects of informal adaptations in affordable and middle-class housing contexts in Morocco, it leaves a gap regarding how HI is expressed in affluent settings independently and in relation to the other contexts. This research aims to visually capture how residents adapt their housing through unauthorized modifications. The research objectives are to analyze informalities that are unique to affordable, middle-class, and affluent housing and to examine if there are any shared HI patterns that transcend socio-economic contexts. This paper utilizes a mixed-methods approach by superposing fieldwork data, including the recollection of existing buildings and authorized archival data, with the help of a referential grid based on three case studies in Harhoura, Rabat, affordable, middle-class, and affluent settings, which enables effective individual and communal spatial-morphological analyses. The findings reveal distinctive and shared patterns from one side and propagation dynamics from the other, including important concepts, such as mirroring (the replication of similar informalities) and contrast (the implementation of informalities in contrast with the existing ones), between the different socio-economic contexts, which suggest higher transcending shared needs between them. By showcasing that people of diverse socio-economic means adapt their homes in strikingly similar ways, this study discredits the assumption that poverty is the primary driver of renovation approaches. This broadened lens enriches our understanding of how urban housing evolves and points to the urgency of inclusive strategies addressing key housing priorities for all.

1. Introduction

1.1. Context

This study addresses the informalities of housing in Harhoura from the perspective of Knudsen [1] and Kamalipour [2] in order to understand the importance of the latter in the international context of the rapid urbanization of the Global South. The aim is to understand the extent and dynamics of informality beyond marginalized communities [3] in addition to the personalization and adaptation aspirations of the living environment regardless of the socio-economic context. Thus, we adopt an exploration of “ways of living” [4,5] in conjunction with the temporalities of informal spaces [6] by contrasting the informal with the formal and its constraints [7,8,9] while emphasizing community and individual innovation. In other words, this study challenges the traditional narrative through the unveiling of a whole spectrum of informal practices linked to housing, encouraging the reassessment of housing models [10,11]. Moreover, it emphasizes the role of different management types in affordable, middle-class, and affluent housing sectors, in line with the findings of Rice [12], van Gelder et al. [13], Hasgül [14], and Koenig [15]. This study also contributes by empirically linking academic discourse with architectural practice, offering a deeper understanding of informality based on Mrani et al.’s [16] methodology. It acknowledges the limitations of the available data, in the tradition of Abbott and Adler [17], Mears [18], and Dimitris and Marmaras [19], and incorporates regional perspectives from Brazil [20] and Italy [21]. The findings support more inclusive urban policies that align with Morocco’s informal housing practices.

1.2. Key Concepts

1.2.1. Formal and Informal Housing

In Harhoura, Rabat, Morocco, unauthorized modifications provide a unique perspective on housing informalities (HI). This research uses three socio-economic case studies to examine their urban implications. Housing, a pivotal component of urban systems, is generally divided into formal and informal categories, distinguished by their unique attributes and regulations. Heikkila and Lin [22] describe formal housing as adhering to building codes, legal frameworks, and municipal regulations, providing secure tenure and essential services. Informal housing, however, frequently lacks these elements, operating outside formal systems. The construction of informal structures without permits or on non-residential land underscores the inability of formal systems to satisfy housing needs [23].

1.2.2. Unauthorized Modifications

Falling under housing informalities, unauthorized modifications include unapproved changes to properties, from minor adjustments such as room additions to significant structural alterations that might compromise safety. Such modifications are critical in housing studies for examining the dynamic between inadequate regulations and residents’ evolving requirements [24]. In rapidly expanding urban areas, informal space use and housing design underscore the flexibility of urban living, revealing how residents adapt to unmet needs when formal systems fall short.

1.2.3. Informality as an Adaptive Mechanism

Rather than treating informality as a deviation, it is more accurately understood as a flexible response to systemic inadequacies. Ananya Roy’s “Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning” emphasizes informality as a core mechanism of urbanization, not a peripheral exception. Informal practices, notably self-built housing and unregulated land use, provide necessary services in areas where formal systems fail. Roy [25] argues for their recognition and integration into urban planning as a step toward equity. Expanding on these ideas, Lily Song’s “Planning with Urban Informality” calls for adaptive and collaborative urban development approaches, emphasizing the role of informality in enriching urban life and promoting context-specific innovation. Engaging with informal practices allows planners to design systems that better reflect the lived realities of urban environments [26]. Acting as an extension of informal practices, housing design bridges the divide between formal and informal systems. Smolka and Biderman [27] highlight the mutual economic reliance of these two domains. Housing informality provides critical support to populations excluded from formal markets, stabilizing urban economies in the process. Martim and Biderman recommend integrating informal housing dynamics into planning to advance equity.

1.2.4. Designing with Informality

Dorina Pojani’s “The Self-Built City” celebrates the ingenuity of informal settlements, portraying them as self-sufficient, locally tailored communities. Recognizing these contributions redefines the narrative, fostering community-driven urban design models [28]. The effective integration of informality into urban planning depends on abandoning rigid, top-down methods in favor of more inclusive and participatory approaches. The publication “Integrating Design and Planning in Informal Settlements” advocates for participatory frameworks that embrace the complexities and uncertainties characteristic of informal settings. According to Parmar and Singh [29], socio-cultural dynamics in informal spaces are critical to supporting holistic urban growth. Informal space use and housing design play a pivotal role in addressing urban complexities. By integrating these practices into planning, cities can transform into inclusive, sustainable environments tailored to diverse population needs, forming a basis for analyzing housing informalities and unauthorized modifications in Harhoura, Rabat, and other areas.

1.3. Socio-Economic Contexts

1.3.1. Affordable Housing

Incontrovertibly, housing is not only defined within the confines of shelter and refuge. It plays a more crucial role and transcends into more complex domains. Hence, the right to housing is universal with various global and regional challenges. Accordingly, countries in the Global North and South still struggle with many issues regarding this matter [30,31]. One of these concerns is informal housing and its multiple variations [32,33]. Therefore, researchers have looked at the multiple facets of housing and habitat, including the tenets of informality and adaptability [34,35] as well as the methods that can lead to their understanding [36,37,38]. As a result, the narrative linked to the informality of housing is seen as a complex and explicit projection of the systemic inequalities of urban systems [39,40]. By virtue of this, Morocco established the “National Housing Council (CNH)” through the decree n°2-01-1011 in order to ensure reflection around inclusive, contextual, and qualitative programs and strategies. It is composed of public and semi-public institutions, financing bodies, and professionals from the building and real estate sectors. The council meets annually, through the organization of its general secretariat located in the department in charge of housing, with an exhaustive report of the inventory of the previous year representing the discussion agenda. In addition, Morocco has just implemented a government program called the “Direct Housing Assistance Program” which theoretically runs from 2021 to 2026, and practically starts in 2024, promoting investment in the real estate sector as well as access to housing through the direct financing of low- and middle-income households. In this way, the program offers financial aid of approximately USD 7000 (for an approximate exchange rate of MAD 10 equivalent to USD 1) for the purchase of any house whose value varies between USD 30,000 and USD 70,000 and USD 10,000 for the purchase of any home whose value is less than USD 30,000. Added to this, Moroccan efforts in the context of affordable housing include the program “Low Total Real Estate Value Housing (FVIT)”, which since 2008 has offered social housing of up to USD 14,000 per accommodation in the urban and/or rural sector for areas ranging from 50 to 60 square meters (a total price of between USD 280 and 233 per square meter), as well as another social housing program offering USD 25,000 since 2010 for areas ranging between 50 and 80 square meters (a total price of between USD 312 and 500 per square meter).

Thus, while the “Direct Housing Assistance Program” offers direct aid to residents, the FVIT and social housing at USD 25,000 programs help real estate developers through the advantage of exemption from taxes linked to companies, income, construction operations, and land operations as well as Value Added Tax (VAT) advantages for buyers.

1.3.2. Middle-Class Housing

Just like affordable housing, middle-class housing includes many challenges and specificities in the overall housing narrative considering the significant demographic growth of the middle class [41] and territorial complexities [42,43]. For example, India’s middle class is currently facing the problem of access to housing given the excessive increase in the market and its fluctuations [44]. In urban China, we are seeing a significant increase in affordable housing gated communities [45]. In Colombo, Sri Lanka, middle-class (middle- and high-income) demand for housing is beginning to shift toward apartment buildings [46]. In Brazil, middle-class homeowners, accessing property for the very first time, are being influenced by public housing projects [47]. In Bavaria, Munich, the price of residential rental is becoming increasingly inaccessible for the middle class [48]. In Morocco, neoliberal reforms and the country’s economic development affect the housing preferences of the middle class, which currently prefers apartments and villas [49,50,51] of between 80 and 150 square meters, which have also significantly increased in purchase price [51,52,53]. To remedy this, in addition to the new “Direct Housing Assistance Program 2021–2026”, the Ministry of National Territorial Planning, Urban Planning, Housing, and Urban Policy (MATNUHPV) of Morocco has offered the “Housing for the middle class” program since 2013 for areas ranging from 80 to 150 square meters and a sales price of less than USD 720 per square meter (for a total price of housing less than USD 108,000). Similar to the FVIT and social housing programs at USD 25,000 for affordable and accessible housing, the “Housing for the middle class” program presents significant advantages for the real estate developer through an agreement with the state, although without tax advantages.

1.3.3. Affluent Housing

Moving beyond the middle class, it is imperative to note that the scientific and academic discourses around affluent housing are considerably deficient in comparison with those concerning affordable and middle-class housing, which make the dynamics and realities of this segment visibly misunderstood [54]. Yet, housing expresses aspects of diverse economic assets entangled with the contemporary economic landscape of global capitalism [55], as the multinodal nature of housing represents the values of family in addition to monetary investment [56].

Moreover, the affluent class perceives real estate in general, and ownership of real estate specifically, as being an important pillar of heritage, a phenomenon which has transformed the global urban landscape since the end of the 20th century [57,58]. Another phenomenon, much less investigated, is unauthorized and therefore illegal construction in sensitive ecological areas such as Bogota in Colombia linked to the trends of the affluent class, recently brought to light thanks to the work of [59]. In this regard, this study develops around the objective of a comparative analysis of the informalities of housing around three residential neighborhoods in Rabat in order to understand their dynamics and manifestations and how they align with their different types of management. From this perspective, the central hypothesis of this paper postulates that housing informalities constitute a persistent phenomenon, which is not exclusively dictated by different managerial or housing types. This implies underlying reasons that lead to informalities of housing transcending social and administrative parameters.

1.4. Research Gaps

Research on housing informalities (HI), especially unauthorized modifications, has largely concentrated on affordable and middle-class contexts, leaving a substantial gap in understanding of their manifestations in affluent communities. Tackling this gap is necessary for the development of urban planning policies that are inclusive of the full socio-economic spectrum. Research on housing informality largely focuses on lower-income settings, addressing issues such as limited formal housing access and the proliferation of informal settlements. Smolka and Biderman note that these dynamics are frequently driven by constraints in urban land markets, which disproportionately affect low-income groups. The research by Smolka and Biderman [27] examines structural barriers causing housing informality in low-income areas. However, affluent communities’ roles in unauthorized housing modifications remain underexplored. Without addressing affluent communities, our comprehension of the universality of HI practices remains incomplete. The tendency to view informal modifications as a low-income phenomenon obscures how regulatory adaptations in affluent contexts respond to spatial and cultural demands. This study investigates unauthorized modifications across affordable, middle-class, and affluent housing in Harhoura, Rabat, Morocco, revealing that housing informalities transcend economic divisions. The results highlight shared motivations, including adaptability and autonomy, that shape practices across socio-economic groups. Research on housing informalities (HI), especially unauthorized modifications, has largely concentrated on affordable and middle-class contexts, leaving a substantial gap in understanding their manifestation in affluent communities. Tackling this gap is necessary for the development of urban planning policies that are inclusive of the full socio-economic spectrum. Research on housing informality largely focuses on lower-income settings, addressing issues such as limited formal housing access and the proliferation of informal settlements. Including affluent communities in this research provides a more inclusive perspective on HI. The universality of unauthorized modifications underscores the importance of inclusive urban planning and housing policies. Formal frameworks should cater to the diverse needs of all socio-economic levels. This study identifies shared housing practices across socio-economic groups, reinforcing the importance of urban planning that embraces inclusivity. These insights are critical for creating housing policies that cater to diverse needs, supporting integrated and resilient cities.

2. Materials and Methods

Applying a multifaceted research approach, this investigation delves into the legal and extralegal elements of housing development in three socio-economic contexts in Harhoura, Rabat. Housing is deemed formal when it follows regulatory standards, including rightful ownership and sanctioned building activity. Conversely, housing that diverges from these norms—unauthorized expansions or redesigns that respond to residents’ evolving requirements—falls into the informal sphere. Through spatial-morphological analysis, this study captures how these informalities materialize in both individual and communal environments, categorizing them into extensions, infills, and connected attachments. The findings map out the trajectories and scaling of such adaptations, highlighting the intertwined relationship between official design plans and everyday informal modifications.

2.1. Conceptual Framework

Acting as the foundation for this study, the conceptual framework merges research methodologies, real-world implications, and projected findings. Its architecture includes the following key parts (see Figure 1).

2.1.1. Methods Overview

A three-pronged methodological framework drives this investigation, blending spatial-morphological examination, a mixed-methods toolkit, and detailed archival study. The spatial-morphological lens traces the physical evolution of housing units, identifying both the scope and nature of unauthorized modifications. This is complemented by the mixed-methods approach, which pairs on-the-ground qualitative observations with quantitative insights to capture how socio-economic conditions influence these informal developments. Finally, archival sources—ranging from municipal documents to remote-sensing imagery—enrich and validate the research, enabling a thorough exploration of the catalysts behind and expressions of housing informality.

2.1.2. Application to Case Study

The present study employs a conceptual model to examine informality in three housing segments—low-cost, mid-range, and high-end—within the same urban area. Soukhour II, a neighborhood offering affordable housing, showcases structural changes that predominantly address immediate living needs, including the accommodation of extended families. These informal strategies often represent inventive ways to surmount resource challenges and maintain acceptable living standards. Shifting to Al Firdaous, a middle-class development, attention turns to design and utility-focused adjustments, reflecting the homeowners’ ambition and desire for social progress. This setting highlights how personal modifications collide or integrate with official urban regulations. Finally, in the high-income area known as Résidence des Médecins, informality is expressed through high-end customizations that convey status, well-being, and personal taste. Across these diverse economic backgrounds, this study pinpoints the complex interplay between informal practices and formal planning strategies.

2.1.3. Datasets and Sources

Combining a wide variety of research methods, this study documents the unfolding of informal housing practices. Direct field explorations, supported by image-based evidence, paint a vivid portrait of how homes evolve in real time. A parallel scrutiny of municipal resources—such as official permissions, administrative blueprints, and property records—anchors these present-day observations within a historical continuum. People’s perspectives, gathered through targeted questionnaires and conversational interviews, add a human dimension, uncovering the aspirations and impediments linked to unregulated expansions. By cross-referencing these inputs, this study forms a cohesive narrative of how housing informality takes root and how it is shaped by local oversight.

2.1.4. Expected Outcomes

By amalgamating spatial reviews, qualitative testimonies, and archival materials, this study ventures to decipher the intricate machinery behind informal housing expansions. Its purpose is to clarify how each socio-economic environment shapes these developments via distinctive patterns of resource availability, cultural norms, and personal aims. Simultaneously, it highlights the wider tactics and hurdles that keep surfacing, reflecting a set of common features across multiple contexts. This deepens our perspective of how these under-the-radar shifts challenge conventional urban governance and planning frameworks. From a practical standpoint, this study’s results provide meaningful guidance for implementing socially just, adaptable, and visionary housing policies, thereby helping cities accommodate fluid population dynamics and varied requirements.

2.2. Case Studies

The coastal suburb of Harhoura, located near Rabat, Morocco, offers a unique perspective on housing informalities (HI), focusing on unauthorized alterations within formally established housing developments. Harhoura’s phenomenon exemplifies global urban trends while maintaining its contextual relevance, making it an invaluable subject for international studies. The relevance of Harhoura as a case study is tied to its demonstration of HI across income levels, with informal property changes in middle-class neighborhoods offering a clear example. As Mrani et al. [16] point out, these adaptations are frequently a result of inflexible housing regulations. Comparable trends are observed in Damascus, Syria, where “Mukhalafat” settlements have emerged as a response to housing challenges [60]. Driven by rapid urban growth and inadequate housing policies, urban informality manifests worldwide. In developing nations, informal housing dominates urban landscapes, demanding a shift toward more flexible and inclusive planning approaches [61]. By serving as both a localized example and a broader reference point, Harhoura reveals global patterns in urban informality. It highlights that middle-class communities, alongside low-income residents, engage in informal housing practices to meet needs for autonomy and adaptable living arrangements. Framing Harhoura within a broader housing informality narrative, this research highlights shared adaptation strategies across income groups. It advances the understanding of urban housing governance and supports policies that address universal challenges.

Three case studies are utilized in this study (see Figure 2) guided by specific selection criteria. Firstly, the cases needed to comprise affordable, middle-class, and affluent housing types in a shared location to control for any site-specific variations. Secondly, they also needed to be under the same management structure to mitigate against any potential management differences. Lastly, they needed to have been constructed in a similar timeframe and to have a tenure of approximately two decades. This period of existence is crucial for an exhaustive comparison between the authorized development plans and the existing development, thereby producing a holistic understanding of informal housing trends and dynamics. Given these criteria, the information-oriented approach [62] served as a guide in the selection. Consequently, three residences in Harhoura, Rabat Region, namely Soukhour II, Association Al Firdaous, and Résidence des Médecins, were found to respond to all of these. They present distinct socio-economic and managerial contexts, are geographically interrelated, and represent a contiguous narrative like their configuration of architectural diversity. Officially, they were designated as holiday accommodation areas and bungalows on the initial development plan.

2.2.1. Soukhour II Residence—Affordable Housing Typology

This case pertains to Phase I of the Soukhour II residence situated at long. -6.95 E, lat. 33.92 N. It received official authorization in its definitive form in the year 2002, with the completion of the structural construction occurring in 2005. Although the specifications and the official assignment dictate a holiday bungalow typology, the architectural design corresponds more to the MMM Modern Moroccan House for single residential use within a neighborhood adorned with vegetation. The selling price per square meter is USD 200 (for an average ground floor of 38.5 square meters). This is less than the average total price per square meter of the “Low Total Real Estate Value (FVIT) at $14,000” program calculated at USD 256.5 per square meter, and therefore fits perfectly into the category of affordable housing by its initial purchase price. Furthermore, this case study corresponds to a classic managerial type where a real estate company builds then hands over to a homeowners’ association (syndicat) for property management. In this specific case, the real estate company belonged to the late former president of the urban commune of Harhoura. Legally, the residence is built under the order of the urban commune of Harhoura through its approved urban development plan as well as Dahir No. 1-92-7 of 15 hijra 1412 (17 June 1992) promulgating Law No. 25-90 relating to subdivisions, groups of dwellings, and subdivisions.

2.2.2. Association Al Firdaous Residence—Middle-Class Housing Typology

This case pertains to Phase I of the Association Al Firdaous residence situated at long. -6.95E, lat. 33.92N authorized in its only version in 1997. Despite multiple requests for modification, including for major construction works, it was finally completed in 2005. The specifications and official assignment for this also dictate the holiday bungalow typology yet the architectural design corresponds more to the MMM Modern Moroccan House for single residential use, with a small outdoor courtyard/garden in an area with vegetation. The total selling price per square meter is USD 453 for an average area of 125.95 square meters. This is in line with the “Housing for the middle class” program established in 2013 by the Ministry of National Territorial Planning, Urban Planning, Housing, and Moroccan City Policy (MATNUHPV). Furthermore, the managerial type is a homeowners’ association governed by Dahir n° 1-58-376 of 3 Joumada I 1378 (15 November 1958),. This association is typically composed of an executive office having all legal and administrative rights over the housing units, with a financial model based on membership and participation as construction progresses. Legally, the residence is also built under the order of the urban commune of Harhoura through its approved urban development plan as well as Dahir No. 1-92-7 of 15 hijra 1412 (17 June 1992) promulgating Law No. 25-90 relating to subdivisions, groups of dwellings, and subdivisions.

2.2.3. Résidence Des Médecins—Affluent Housing

This case relates to the Résidence des Médecins also situated at long. −6.95 E, lat. 33.92 N, where housing units received authorization in 1992. Subsequent modifications occurred in 1994 and 2001, with the completion of structural construction works achieved in 2005.

Similar to the preceding two cases, the specifications and official assignment align with the concept of holiday bungalows. However, the architectural design is more indicative of a villa typology characterized by a villa immersed within a private garden. Notably, the 1992 specifications designated this space as “semi-private”, demarcated by plant hedges not exceeding 1.1 m. Subsequently, the 2000 specifications redefined this area as “semi-private”, paradoxically referring to the private gardens of each owner. This redefinition, aimed at informally deviating from the existing regulations in the development plan, became necessary at a stage where the plan strictly prohibited private gardens for bungalows. The design incorporates these features along three facades for semi-detached villas and along four facades for individual villas, with areas ranging from 258 to 756 square meters, having an average of 315.71 square meters and an extent of 498 square meters. Thus, the design is characterized by the luxurious nature of the vegetation, curvilinear architecture, and large surface areas.

The Housing Association of the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of Rabat (A.H.F.M.R) is the real estate developer intending the housing units to be sold exclusively to the doctors and pharmacists of Rabat, which further adds to the parameters of size, vegetation, and security an important socio-cultural dimension of exclusivity and status. As with the previous cases, the management of the housing estate was handed over to the homeowners’ association and the legal framework is similar to the other cases.

Examining housing informalities offers a valuable perspective on how official housing structures interact with residents’ everyday adaptive methods. Although previous research largely centers on informal housing in low-income settings, this study expands the conversation by exploring unauthorized alterations across affordable, middle-class, and upscale homes in Harhoura, a district near Rabat. This broader focus uncovers both shared traits and unique dynamics that cut across economic categories. Harhoura was chosen intentionally for this investigation. Its three distinct residential areas—Soukhour II (affordable housing), Al Firdaous (middle-class housing), and Résidence des Médecins (affluent housing)—together encompass a wide range of socio-economic contexts within a single, coherent geographical space. By selecting neighborhoods that are relatively close together and managed under similar structures, this study minimizes external variations and zeroes in on how socio-economic factors specifically drive different expressions of informal housing. Placing these housing types side by side is crucial for two main reasons. First, it disrupts the usual assumption that housing informalities occur only among lower-income residents. By also looking at more prosperous neighborhoods, this study uncovers the ways that unauthorized modifications arise in well-off areas, demonstrating that they are not exclusively driven by financial constraints but can also fulfill cultural and personal requirements. Second, the comparative lens draws attention to common motivations across a wide socio-economic spectrum, highlighting the universal inclination to adjust and personalize living environments, regardless of formal regulations. This study’s methodology combines direct field observations with historical and archival research. By employing a spatial-morphological viewpoint, this study takes a close look at how informal alterations come about in communal and individual living areas. Researchers have charted new additions, converted spaces, and structural tweaks across all three housing categories to spot larger patterns and see how these changes take root, providing critical knowledge for housing oversight and strategic decisions at multiple levels. By comparing these different residential configurations, this investigation not only fills gaps in the existing literature but also generates pragmatic recommendations for urban planners and policymakers. Recognizing both the universal and localized factors driving housing informality can promote urban development strategies that remain flexible and responsive to diverse community needs. Finally, integrating these comparative insights into wider policy discussions highlights this study’s broader contribution to cultivating inclusive and adaptable housing solutions on a global scale.

In exploring each neighborhood’s singular socio-economic makeup, we see a thorough cross-section of how housing informalities manifest in diverse income groups. The consistent geography of the region provides a basis for comparison, spotlighting the ways that local communities deal with spatial and regulatory challenges.

2.3. Data Collection

2.3.1. On Site—As Built

Primary data were built from fieldwork organized during February 2022 to August 2023. As a consequence, the initial data document how each of these three field cases were changed by informalities until August 2023. In the study of housing informality, a new methodological mode has been suggested by Conrad et al. [63] in order to see which additions are at the plot level using horizontal analyses. However, this horizontal strategy is deficient in capturing the complexity of diverse types and subtypes of informalities that they engage with. To tackle this, we take the approach offered by Mrani et al. [16], which is based on vertical mapping and analysis for a nuanced interpretation of informalities. This technique requires stacking the architectural plans of earlier and later life cycle stages, from the authorization stage to the present situation, to find what changes have modified over time. A vertical analysis accounts for physical changes, including additions, attachments, and infills, but also traces the morphological evolutions in common and individual spaces. Taking this detailed approach facilitates a more nuanced understanding of the formation of informalities in and through the built environment, helping to bring forward some of complex dynamics that are potentially obscured by horizontal approaches alone.

2.3.2. Archival Reconstruction

These kinds of data pertain to capturing the authorized development plans of the 3 cases. Given that only hard copies of plans were submitted during the planning approval process in those years, the research team digitized the approved plans (plans, sections, and elevations). The affordable and middle-class housing cases were digitized in two dimensions because their architectural layouts and elevations were straightforward and orthogonal. In contrast, the affluent housing case required 3D digitization due to its curvilinear architectural design and urban facades. In general, the process of digitization followed the following steps. We first captured the plans using a large format scanner with CIS contact image sensor technology for technical documents. Thereafter, the designs were modelled on ArchiCAD for two-dimensional drawing and SketchUp for three-dimensional reconstruction with the aim of creating a digital database and exhaustive representation tools [64] of the cases to analyze, compare, and understand.

2.4. Data Analysis

The analysis process starts with a deep comparative study of the authorized drawings submitted to the urban commune and the 2D restitution of real structures. A systematic mapping of housing informalities (HI) is executed by overlaying the submitted facades to the existing built environment. While intended to describe informal housing, we were careful in using the analytical framework by Kamalipour and Dovey [65] to understand housing informalities. We split these informalities into three main groups: extensions, attachments, and infills. For a more systematic grasp, we also classified them into two categories: common and private space alterations. The differentiation emphasizes that the informalities play out in various ways across spatial contexts.

2.4.1. Informalities in Communal Spaces

The following informalities were identified in communal spaces: extensions, infills, and attachments. Each of the above informalities has several subtypes and options for implementation. The grid below shows the technical classification of the following informalities:

Extensions:

• Horizontal extension: in communal spaces, incremental construction pushes through walls into shared areas; the limitrophe territory is annexed, stretching the boundaries of designated public spaces or gardens.

Infills:

• Drivable entrance infill: restricting the entry points for vehicles to enable better vehicle control over a communal space.
• Pedestrian entrance infill: shutting off potential paths where someone could enter.
• External augmentation: building “segregating walls” or fences to separate common spaces, thereby privatizing these areas if they had previously been shared.
• Entrance framing: details of structural modifications created at entries to enhance and introduce them.

Attachments:

• Garden space annexation: common land is annexed as private gardens, thus the extension of property lines.
• Seclusive landscape screening: use of shrubs or hedges to demarcate and privatize certain spaces within public areas, creating individual privacy and therefore changing the communal use of that space.
• Ornamental-to-seclusive landscaping: switching communal ornament vegetation to screening plantings in order to increase privacy.
• Greenery-to-iron transitioning: permanent metal replacements, such as fences, in place of greenery, for a clearer hard differentiation between public and private areas.
• Driveway entrance addition: in semi-private garden areas, the perimeter nodes also provide vehicle access points.
• Driveway shielding: incorporating items such as car shades in semi-private gardens to protect vehicles
• Driveway entrance and shielding addition: driveway entrances and shading of car structures in common or semi-private areas such as garden spaces.

This classification grid presents and organizes the informalities observed in communal spaces using technical terms, serving as the basis for further visualization and analysis in the Results Section.

2.4.2. Informalities in Private Spaces

We had to extend Kamalipour and Dovey’s model [65] with “Openings” as a new category, which we were able to identify in our analysis of informalities appearing in private spaces. This was an extension, since the original framework made reference to informal housing as largely pertaining to unauthorized constructions beyond formal regulatory practices. Nonetheless, housing informality (HI) exists as a spectrum between informal practices and homes located within legal zones that can be further disaggregated. It is an important difference as it relates to unauthorized settlements on the one hand (informal housing) and informal adaptations within formalized city structures on the other. As a result, informalities in private spaces fit into the following categories: extensions, infills, attachments, and openings.

Extensions

• Vertical extension: adding extensions or new levels/floors to existing structures, expanding building heights.

Infills

• Entrance framing: upgrading and strengthening entrances, emphasizing the identity of the building with new signage.
• Window subtraction: decreasing the number of windows and decreasing or eliminating window glazing (to shield outsider view).
• Balcony-to-window transition: converting balconies into windows to increase the size of the interior living area.
• Entrance glazing: replacement of doors with windows that necessitate opening new entrance points elsewhere.
• Greenery-to-iron rise: substitution of boundary hedges or plantings with permanent metal structures, to make less sociable the interface between private and communal areas.

Attachments

• Parking-to-living conversion: conversion of parking areas into living spaces, repurposing areas for additional residential use.
• Openings
• Window addition
• Window enlargement: expansion of existing windows to improve functionality and modernize building facades.

This expanded framework allows the detailed and nuanced categorization of housing informality in private spaces, thus promoting a more exhaustive assessment of informalities within formalized contexts. This also serves as the basis of our analysis and visualization to be undertaken in the Results Section.

3. Results

Using a rigorous assessment of adaptations made to private and common/semi-private spaces, we establish how residents reconfigure their living arrangements. By combining systematic analysis, context-specific spatial adaptations, and a comparative frequency analysis, this section reveals the differences in how informalities manifest across each housing typology with an understanding of common patterns that exist beyond socio-economic boundaries. The results illuminate crucial interventions in the ongoing negotiations between formal planning frameworks and informal spatial practices, highlighting how spaces of informality serve as sites for space-making projects that both shape their very character while affording new opportunities to existing communities.

3.1. General Observations

This part lays the theoretical base for informal modifications as they are seen among three housing typologies, i.e., affordable, middle-class, and affluent streams. Such informalities are indicative of a general tacit agreement rooted in socio-cultural proclivities and neighborhood peculiarities. Most of these changes are not spontaneous reactions to single needs but rather adaptations that emerge in response to real estate trends. Residents modify their spaces in manners consistent with frameworks and patterns of informal alterations that speak to a communal agreement within those communities. Although the housing typologies identified here come from different socio-economic groups, certain modifications are typically prevalent across them which suggest that shared societal norms have an influence on spatial evolution. Resident alterations conform to these broader frameworks and the notion of the collective within their communities. Although the housing typologies reflect socio-economic discrepancies, they all, respectively, incorporate a similar set of appearing as common community norms manifesting in spatial evolution.

Furthermore, we situate these informalities within the production of space by way of theoretical perspectives from Henri Lefebvre [66], James C. Scott [67], and Pierre Bourdieu [68]. The idea is that space is produced and constantly shaped by societal forces but based on collective adaptations which made landscapes their own [66]. Likewise, the characterization of top-down regulations versus organic space practices provides insight into the patterns behind these modifications taking place informally, more so in affordable and middle-class housing [67]. Bourdieu [68] concentrates on social distinction in a general sense and helps to encapsulate why we notice that vignettes of informality are especially entrenched in affordable/middle-class/affluent settings.

The modifications observed in the three case studies (see Figure 3) were informal adaptations made to meet a shared understanding among the housing typologies formed by collective socio-cultural ideals and local neighborhood milieu. These adaptations are not simply ad hoc solutions to spatial demands but are often rooted in multilevel real estate institutional precedents that laid the original schematics of space. Residents typically adjust spaces along the lines of these frameworks, making informal modifications that align with a wider recognition in their neighborhood.

While informal change emerges differently across affordable, middle-class, and affluent housing typologies, some of these alterations, such as the enlargement of entrances or vertical extensions, are particularly visible in all socio-economic contexts. This cross-cutting trend highlights a wider backdrop of community-based practices that inform how residents tailor their rooms, suggesting an elemental and more interactive process in formulating spaces across classes.

Drawing on the theoretical depth of Henri Lefebvre’s The Production of Space [66], informal alterations are shown to be embedded in social production. According to Lefebvre, the production of space demonstrates in practicable terms how socio-cultural forces produce more than just eruptions and paths among other spatial enablers; they also explain why neighborhoods come into being as somewhat stable entities whose identities change over time as collective norms to induce individual adaptations. The outcome of common/semi-private and private spaces generated by these changes instigated through necessity or desire aids in guiding the socio-spatial identity of the neighborhoods.

Indeed, informalities are influenced by the socio-economic conditions of each milieu. In Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott [67] provides an insightful way of explaining many root-centered processes that respond to spatial requirements in opposition to formal commands enforced from above. On the other hand, Mike Davis’ City of Quartz illustrates how residents maneuver urban planning agendas or even resist them, especially in middle-class housing. In wealthy contexts, we know from Pierre Bourdieu [68] that social distinction is a good explanation as to how certain types of informality work as indicators of individuality.

Overall, the analytical framework demonstrates that housing informalities are not random or individual resistances but meshed in socio-cultural and institutional spaces. Certain informal practices, such as the improvement of entrances and vertical constructions, in particular cutting across all levels of economic status, emphasize their grounding on collective norms activated within the framework of community dynamics. These productions and reproductions of informality seen through lenses as employed by Lefebvre, Scott, Davis, and Bourdieu, among others, may explain not only how residents have adapted but also contributed to the way that socio-spatial identities are curated among their communities. This negotiation and redefinition of space over time, what we might call the ongoing dialectic between formal frameworks and informal modifications, show us how these processes are at work in housing across a variety of typologies.

The housing informalities apparent across affordable, middle-class, and affluent typologies in Harhoura reflect a continuum of adaptations reflecting different socio-economic statuses. Affordable housing is riddled with informalities due to the spatial necessity for functionality, so a greater degree of casual practicality and ingenuity is involved. The adjustments of middle-class housing serve to reconcile communal aesthetics with individual requirements, while the informalities applied in affluent housing place a strong emphasis on privacy and especially exclusivity. Moreover, these spatial modifications are not idiosyncratic but are rather deeply associated with the socio-cultural and material conditions of each type of housing. The juxtaposition of private and public spaces sheds light on the precarious permutations that characterize domestic life in our case studies, asserting an urgent call for policies that are more contextual.

3.2. Distinctive Configurations

In this section, we offer a comparative overview of how informal practices manifest across three socio-economic housing categories—affordable, middle-class, and affluent—by examining adaptations in both private and communal or semi-private areas (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Drawing upon the work of scholars such as AlSayyad and Roy [25,69,70] who conceptualize informality as a mainstream, adaptive force in urban development, this discussion shows how each housing type embodies broader social and spatial strategies tied to class identity. Figure 4 highlights how the frequency of extensions, infills, and attachments in semi-private or shared spaces varies markedly among these three contexts. Meanwhile, Figure 5 sheds light on how informal changes in private spaces also differ—both in form and intent—reflecting motivations that range from purely functional concerns to aspirations of aesthetics or status.

3.2.1. Common Space Particularities

Within common or semi-private areas, affordable housing exhibits relatively high rates of horizontal expansions and attachments, suggesting a “collective drive” to extend living space into multifunctional zones—some researchers refer to these as “pleated spaces” to emphasize their adaptive character. In contrast, middle-class developments frequently use infills to enclose or subdivide communal sections, maintaining a façade of neighborhood unity while discretely catering to individual household needs. Affluent housing stands out for its pronounced reliance on both infills and attachments, including gated driveways and semi-private enclosures that symbolize a preference for exclusivity and privacy, effectively redrawing the boundary between “public” and “private”. (see Figure 4 below)

3.2.2. Private Space Particularities

Turning to alterations within private spaces (see Figure 5), the data show that affordable housing is notable for its vertical expansions, often prompted by the demands of larger or extended families. While middle-class households also build upward, they more frequently convert rooftop areas for pragmatic uses such as laundry or storage. By contrast, affluent homeowners direct their investments toward high-end modifications—installing driveway gates, altering façades, or adding other attachments that highlight luxury, comfort, and seclusion. Referencing Bourdieu’s theory on taste and social standing [68], these informal changes highlight how they can serve as unmistakable markers of class identity. More broadly, the findings show that informality is more than a matter of basic needs or legal loopholes; instead, it acts as a deliberate strategy for continuously reshaping living spaces amid evolving socio-economic and cultural realities. In the following subsections, we explore this dynamic in more detail by examining three specific neighborhoods—Soukhour II (affordable), Al Firdaous (middle-class), and Résidence des Médecins (affluent)—each demonstrating how informal practices are woven into a broader urban and cultural fabric (see [25,71]).

In upper-class environments, informal developments often arise not from dire need but from a drive to refine or highlight class distinctions, thereby exacerbating socio-spatial disparities via private adaptations. As demonstrated in Soukhour II, Al Firdaous, and Résidence des Médecins, the myriad ways in which inhabitants adapt shared/semi-private and private domains show that housing informality is a delicate balancing act among material limitations, aesthetic standards, and communal aspirations [25,69,71]. These outcomes corroborate scholarly work that positions informality at the forefront of shaping present-day urban realities—whether through cooperative initiatives among lower-income groups, discrete interventions safeguarding design conventions in middle-class areas, or more affluent residents seeking exclusivity and prestige. Embracing informality’s function in city formation is vital for policy and planning, accentuating the need for policies that are both inclusive and adaptable to various socio-economic scenarios.

3.3. Shared Patterns

Across the three socio-economic scenarios studied, housing informalities can be grouped into four significant categories: Accessibility, Elevational Aspect, Expansion, and Privatizing, derived from the main forms of informal growth, notably expansion, extension, infill, and attachment. These categories demonstrate how residents consistently repurpose space within formal housing. With Accessibility, the focus rests on how building entrances and walkways (pedestrian or vehicle-based) can be upgraded to be more functional, protected, or confidential. Meanwhile, Elevational Aspect concerns itself with upward expansions—extending the house vertically to accommodate new needs or match local stylistic cues. Expansion deals with the reimagining of windows, doors, and balconies to admit more daylight, increase ventilation, and reflect each household’s shifting social or economic context. Lastly, Privatizing designates changes that set boundaries—such as prolonging walls or gating access—to uphold personal space and security in locations formerly shared. In the three socio-economic settings examined, housing informalities manifest in several overarching ways. Four key recurring themes—[Accessibility], [Elevational Aspect], [Expansion], and [Privatizing]—emerge from the primary informality types of expansion, extension, infill, and attachment, showcasing how residents adapt and repurpose formal housing spaces.

3.3.1. Accessibility Patterns

Accessibility patterns refer to the way in which residents adapt entrances, both vehicular and pedestrian, for greater functionality, privacy, and security. The adjustments are visible throughout all housing typologies, reflecting common trends in informal alterations. Most pedestrian gateways of affordable housing connect directly to private dwellings without any public garden space buffer. Here, alterations are made for the sake of utility, where residents construct makeshift structures such as shades and rain covers for protection (see Figure 6). In middle-class neighborhoods, pedestrian entrances usually connect to semi-private gardens, serving as a transition space between shared and private areas. The shading structures around these entrances tend to be similar, primarily aimed at offering privacy and comfort. Door modifications typically enhance both the practical need for shading and aesthetic appeal, in line with the neighborhood’s expectations. In affluent housing, pedestrian entrances reflect a more luxurious style. These entrances are framed by semi-private gardens, where residents incorporate high-quality materials and sophisticated design elements. Modifications in these areas are both functional and prestigious, emphasizing privacy and exclusivity. These changes combine practicality with distinctive aesthetics, reinforcing the neighborhood’s status and visual harmony.

The approach to vehicle access also varies widely between housing types (see Figure 7). In affordable housing, driveways are rare, and most modifications focus on improving pedestrian mobility. In middle-class housing, driveway entrances are becoming more common as residents make informal additions, since the original plans did not include them. Some homeowners use creative solutions, such as shielding for driveways, showing the evolving needs for vehicle access. In affluent housing, driveways are included from the beginning, yet homeowners frequently add protective gates or convert garages into bonus rooms, balancing convenience with security while preserving the neighborhood’s visual harmony.

3.3.2. Elevational Patterns

Vertical additions in affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing are far from uniform, revealing how varied practical needs intersect with design goals (see Figure 8). In affordable housing, second-floor construction—partial or complete—is a routine approach to managing multi-generational living arrangements. Because there is limited room to expand horizontally, construction often goes vertical. In middle-class neighborhoods, these additions usually remain humble, such as rooftop spots for doing laundry, echoing Morocco’s common practice of drying clothes on the roof. In affluent neighborhoods, vertical extensions are more subtle. Homeowners might add small rooms or functional spaces, but the goal is to keep the home’s original look intact. Maintaining the overall style of the neighborhood is important, and any changes are carefully designed to fit in. Figure 8 highlights these different patterns across the three housing types.

3.3.3. Expansibility Patterns

Across all types of housing, we see changes to windows, doors, and balconies (see Figure 9). These adjustments aim to improve things such as natural light, airflow, and living comfort, while also reflecting differences in social and economic status. In affordable housing, it is common for windows and doors to be expanded, especially in areas without close neighbors. The primary goal of these changes is functionality, with an emphasis on letting in more light and air while preserving privacy. Middle-class housing, however, tends to feature more discreet alterations. Expanding windows or balconies allows for better light and ventilation, but these changes are made with care to keep the neighborhood’s appearance cohesive. The goal is to make practical improvements while preserving the overall look of the area. For affluent housing, these changes are much more polished. The expansion of windows and balconies is done using high-end materials that blend smoothly with the house’s design. These modifications not only make the home more comfortable but also elevate its appearance, showing the emphasis on luxury and exclusivity in these communities.

3.3.4. Privatizing Patterns

In any thorough remodeling plan, incorporating quiet alcoves into shared zones is key. People living in affordable housing frequently enlarge their dwellings by incorporating hallway or courtyard space, gaining both extra room and enhanced privacy. This same strategy also influences middle-class housing, where the need for privacy holds equal weight (see Figure 10). Such extensions respond effectively to limited space, highlighting residents’ resourcefulness in meeting their own spatial and privacy requirements. For middle-class housing, privatizing modifications are more restrained, often involving extended walls or restricted access. Inhabitants usually put these measures in place to boost security and privacy while keeping the neighborhood’s overall look consistent. Here, informal adjustments are made carefully to ensure that individual privacy needs do not conflict with the community’s appearance. Figure 10 shows how these privatizing patterns differ in affordable and middle-class housing settings.

In all types of housing—affordable, middle-class, and affluent—there are similar patterns in how people modify their homes. Whether it is making spaces more accessible, adding more room, or creating more privacy, people across different income levels adapt their living spaces in comparable ways. These changes are driven by personal needs and social expectations, showing how residents adjust their homes for practical reasons or to improve how things look. Whether it is for privacy, functionality, or style, these informal modifications highlight the active role residents take in shaping their homes. This study suggests that housing policies and city planning should take these informal changes into account. By recognizing these patterns, cities can become more flexible and inclusive. These informal changes are more than isolated acts; they mirror wider societal patterns. Practicality still reigns supreme in affordable housing, while middle-class housing seamlessly incorporates function and design, and affluent housing consistently highlights luxurious features. Nonetheless, expansions and improvements in accessibility are prominent everywhere, indicating that the boundary between informal and formal housing is not as rigid as it may look. Undeniably, transitions across affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing shape the trajectory of neighborhood growth. This study suggests the benefit of adopting more adaptable approaches to housing policies. As cities transform, planners should observe how residents inherently modify their homes and design regulations that foster these evolutions.

3.4. Propagation Dynamics

When looking at how informal housing changes spread through neighborhoods, two main patterns stand out: mirroring and contrast. These patterns affect the overall look of a community, either making homes look more alike or bringing out differences in the way people modify their spaces.

3.4.1. Mirroring Dynamics

Across affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing neighborhoods, mirroring occurs when homeowners start taking cues from next door (see Figure 11). It is not simply imitation, but rather a response to common demands—for instance, more elbow room or secluded living areas. If someone adds an extra room or makes changes to their yard, it is common for others nearby to do the same. Over time, you start to see entire blocks with similar kinds of modifications, especially in lower-cost housing areas where everyone is dealing with similar challenges. In the affordable housing context, people often face similar issues, such as needing more space or privacy. When one family makes a change—maybe adding a second floor or closing off part of their home—others in the neighborhood usually follow. It is not about copying each other; they are just dealing with the same challenges. As more people make these changes, the neighborhood starts to look more uniform because everyone is solving the same problems in similar ways.

3.4.2. Contrast Dynamics

In the affordable housing complex, there is a noticeable disparity between close-by buildings. When one chooses to install bigger windows or lengthen balconies for extra sunshine, the structure directly facing it often goes in the opposite direction, emphasizing seclusion and minimal exposure (see Figure 12). These choices are not purely aesthetic—they reflect the everyday needs of the residents. One building’s desire for openness is balanced by the other’s focus on privacy, which leads to a mix of architectural styles and a more diverse look across the housing complex. Over time, these differing approaches shape the overall character of the neighborhood, with each building adapting to its residents’ priorities. Over time, this interaction shapes the overall appearance of the housing development. The balance between openness and privacy continues to shift, adapting to the evolving needs and preferences of the people who live there. The interplay of these contrasting methods stands out as a defining element of the area’s architectural profile.

3.5. Summary of Key Findings

This examination of three housing categories—economical (Soukhour II), middle-tier (Al Firdaous), and upscale (Résidence des Médecins)—reveals both context-specific informal adaptations and cross-cutting similarities. In low-cost neighborhoods, families expand their homes in a step-by-step fashion—either by adding rooms upward or outward—to keep pace with family growth, exemplifying Turner’s “incremental housing” concept [72]. Conversely, in middle-class areas, subtle, nearly invisible modifications predominate. Residents stay consistent with the neighborhood look, favoring small vertical expansions or internal partitions for practical use. At the high end of the spectrum, owners highlight exclusivity and status through heightened security features, lavish gates, and meticulously designed facades. While such additions can sidestep formal regulations, they are frequently validated by concerns about safety or architectural vision, showcasing how privileged groups operate in and reshape ambiguous spaces that blend formality with informality [69]. Regardless of local context, three housing types share four consistent tactics: Accessibility, Elevational Aspect, Expansion, and Privatizing. Families refine entry points for cars and pedestrians, extend vertically to create additional living areas, enlarge window spans for ventilation, and secure semi-private settings to maintain personal space. The ripple effect of these changes is equally important. When neighbors replicate each other’s updates, it results in “mirroring”, whereas “contrast” occurs when households hold divergent ideals—one might desire openness, another might prefer enclosure. By examining affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing collectively, one sees a tapestry of built forms shaped by consistent adaptive reasoning, compelling local authorities to embed persistent informal solutions in planning.

4. Discussion

Here, we focus on how prescribed construction models often fail to capture the actual ways in which Harhoura, Rabat’s inhabitants transform their living areas. By looking at unapproved modifications from low-income units to luxury residences, we demonstrate that the label “housing informality” (HI) encapsulates practical, creative solutions rather than purely illicit or disordered acts. Afterward, we situate our conclusions within ongoing academic conversations, acknowledge both research design and methodological caveats, and propose avenues for reassessing Decree No. 2.23.103.

4.1. Confirming and Extending Prior Work

4.1.1. Challenging the Formal–Informal Dichotomy

Drawing on Roy’s insights [25,69], our study reveals that informality is integral to urban growth. This stands against the usual belief that illegal alterations happen only in affordable housing, given that middle-class housing and affluent housing also exhibit unauthorized changes. These results support Mrani et al. [16], who emphasize how informality in Morocco transcends socio-economic barriers, reflecting a shared necessity for residents to modify their homes in response to changing household dynamics, privacy concerns, and comfort demands.

4.1.2. Splintered Informalities

Beier’s concept of “splintered informalities” [73] proposes that disconnected, informal patterns frequently emerge when state programs apply regulations selectively. Although Beier primarily examines such outcomes in the context of government interventions, our research finds that individual homeowners also generate similar configurations. In some affluent districts, you may see elaborate gates and refined patio enclosures—forms of informality that are achieved through private funds and social leverage rather than direct governmental supervision. In line with Beier’s insights [73], we discover that populations occupying affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing are jointly responsible for directing these parallel networks.

4.1.3. Mode of Metropolitan Urbanization

Centering on extensions, infills, attachments, and the introduction of new openings, this research demonstrates that informality is deeply interlaced with the fundamental processes shaping cities, spanning affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing. Echoing Roy and AlSayyad’s integrated view of formal and informal housing [70], the findings reveal a give-and-take in which official planning outlines the initial framework, but resident-driven modifications address unmet needs. Over time, the boundary between the formal and the informal becomes permeable, as regulations, individual aspirations, and real-world resources interact to produce ever-evolving urban landscapes.

4.1.4. Broadening the Scope of Adaptability

Pojani’s exploration of self-built districts [28] emphasizes that informal adaptations can be hallmarks of creativity and resilience. Although her work largely focuses on affordable housing, recent findings indicate that residents of middle-class housing and affluent housing also adopt inventive alterations, such as decorative fencing and customized gateway designs. Across affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing, the guiding motive—improved comfort, aesthetic quality, and practical usage—leads to comparable results. This trend suggests that informality goes beyond mere reactions or cost considerations, signaling a universal method for reimagining living spaces.

4.2. Methodological Reflections

4.2.1. Spatial-Morphological Analysis

Understanding informal housing remodeling in socio-economic contexts calls for a spatial and morphological framework. This research relied on observations in the field, photography, and archival data, all adjusted to reflect the distinct dynamics of each area. From small-scale window expansions to major façade renovations across affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing, these transformations highlighted the demand for standardized documentation methods to mitigate subjective bias. Meanwhile, turning qualitative observations into quantifiable data underscored how flexible these informal practices really are.

4.2.2. Evolution over Time and Incremental Shifts

Changes in housing informality tend to surface gradually, spanning extensive intervals, thereby rendering isolated, cross-sectional analyses incomplete. Revisiting identical sites repeatedly yielded various glimpses into ongoing projects—such as expansions that were initiated but never finalized. Nonetheless, transforming qualitative field descriptions into numerical metrics underscores how fluid these informal practices can become, especially when examining affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing.

4.2.3. Combining Qualitative and Archival Evidence

Municipal documents, including building permits, complemented direct observations and interviews. Gaps between what was officially recorded and what was found in the field provided critical insights into how certain changes go undocumented. These inconsistencies emphasized the value of interviews: they shed light on homeowners’ motivations—ranging from practical space concerns to symbolic expressions of status—and on local officials’ sometimes ambivalent attitudes toward enforcement.

4.3. Decree Number 2.23.103: Streamlining the Formalization Process

A central facet of the existing policy framework is Decree Number 2.23.103, allowing homeowners two years to rectify unauthorized renovations. In essence, this ruling seeks to unify formal development standards with widespread, unofficial construction practices by giving homeowners a specific period to report and legalize their property modifications. Yet our research indicates that the sheer number and variety of these modifications often exceed what can be feasibly managed in such a limited timeframe. Homeowners also face considerable administrative and technical hurdles when attempting to comply. Since informal changes typically stem from economic hardships as well as personal aspirations, confining the process to a rigid two-year window may inadvertently burden lower-income households that cannot afford the financial and logistical demands of post hoc compliance. This risk is especially concerning when such households must cover costs for professional expertise or navigate complex bureaucratic procedures. A more accommodating, step-by-step process—one that acknowledges the gradual nature of many informal changes—could provide a more equitable route to regulation.

4.4. Considerations for Structural Safety and Public Welfare

Aside from the legal implications, such unauthorized changes can also endanger a structure’s soundness and compromise public safety. Numerous additions—expanded rooftops, enlarged terraces, and so on—are frequently put up without licensed engineering or architectural guidance. In the long run, the use of weak materials, inadequate supports, or faulty load calculations can threaten both the occupant’s safety and that of nearby units, most acutely in high-density neighborhoods. Regulations mandating professional involvement and periodic safety checks serve an important protective purpose by reducing the probability of hazardous situations. Skipping these safety measures compromises a building’s durability, as shown by roof extensions collapsing after heavy rains or balcony enclosures creating unsafe conditions for the people below. Recognizing such vulnerabilities draws attention to the need for a balance between personal renovation choices and public welfare. This compromise is critical for creating policies that accommodate informal housing changes.

4.5. Future Research Directions

4.5.1. Tracking Changes over Time and Across Cities

Scholars should conduct long-term studies on housing modifications to capture their progression in response to regulatory interventions such as Decree Number 2.23.103. Investigating cities across regions will underscore how disparate approaches to policy enforcement and cultural priorities influence the pace and range of informal growth.

4.5.2. Socio-Cultural Motivations

This study primarily addressed motivations related to privacy, utility, and prestige. However, further ethnographic inquiry might reveal more complex cultural patterns, such as strong kinship bonds or a deep-rooted preference for courtyard environments. Recognizing these dimensions can result in policy suggestions that are truly in tune with residents’ daily lives.

4.5.3. Policy Simulation and Impact Evaluation

A promising avenue for future inquiry involves modeling the influence of different regulatory approaches—such as longer windows for formalization or staggered permit systems—on the frequency and character of informal building practices. This kind of simulation work would support policymakers in finding a middle ground between mitigating unsafe construction and empowering resident-led adaptations.

A survey of informal modifications to living spaces across affordable, middle-class, and affluent areas reveals that residents’ actions defy conventional economic distinctions. In line with Roy, Beier, and Pojani’s scholarly contributions, this analysis underscores the omnipresence of informality, which emerges through a dynamic push-and-pull between formal limitations, personal hopes, and community conventions. Steps such as Decree Number 2.23.103 reflect an evolving policy stance but they likely need to incorporate greater adaptability and adequate funding to effectively address on-the-ground realities. Recognizing informal adaptations as a core element of urban development enables planners to create frameworks that support safe, personalized modifications aligned with community values. Balancing formal planning principles with the organic, everyday creative actions of residents in places such as Harhoura offers lessons that extend to cities worldwide that are likewise navigating the enduring and inventive nature of urban informality.

5. Conclusions

In Harhoura, Morocco, this project aimed to assess unauthorized housing modifications observed in affordable housing, middle-class housing, and affluent housing. The comparative approach questions the prevalent belief that such informality is restricted to lower-income zones, demonstrating how similar trends appear in the customization of formal housing layouts.

This research reveals that all income groups show evidence of informal home modifications. In the realm of affordable housing, stepwise expansions address urgent space demands; middle-class housing tends to carry out smaller-scale changes to preserve neighborhood appeal; and affluent housing invests in upscale updates that ensure privacy. Even so, shared tactics—such as enlarging front doors, turning shared areas private, and constructing additional stories—indicate a universal preference for flexible designs. These projects often follow “mirroring” or “contrast” themes, shaping communal identity over time.

By underscoring how informality crosses socio-economic boundaries, this research extends current scholarship, which has largely targeted low-income or marginalized locales. It reveals that alterations to housing encompass more than sheer financial necessity; they speak to cultural, spatial, and policy-driven conditions that structure people’s everyday routines. Moreover, this study enriches methodological frameworks by employing spatial-morphological mapping, offering an organized system to observe and classify informal developments.

Policymakers must move toward incremental, flexible standards in response to shifting community circumstances, rather than adhering to short-term obligations such as Morocco’s Decree 2.23.103. Observing how informal building adaptations change over time—using longitudinal research—would provide valuable insights across diverse cultural contexts. A comprehensive approach that unites technical, anthropological, and policy-making viewpoints can help clarify the reasons for informality and inform the design of safer, more equitable housing strategies.