Presentation given by Francesca Santaniello, Politecnico di Milano, Italy at a FEANTSA conference on "People who are homeless can be housed: An insight into successful practices from across Europe", Cardiff, Wales, 2008

1. Emergency accommodation
Paths to reception and hospitality
Francesca Santaniello
Politecnico di Milano,
Department of Architecture and Planning
fsantaniello@irsonline.it

2. The story
Fondazione Cariplo : important grantmaker in Italy [Lombardy]
supports housing intervention from the fist half of 90s though:
• no profit sector: accomodation for low income people [socalled ‘second reception’]
• promotion of a ‘social real estate fund’: housing - low rents [socalled ‘third reception’]
[datas about homelessness in Lombardy]
in 2006 Fondazione Cariplo:
• Identifies a new target: homeless people in urgent
need
• Giving a new interpretation of old response : hostel
Promotes an experimental project
In 2 territories: Milan [+Varese] and Bergamo
[support: Architecture and Planning Department of Politecnico di Milano]

3. Aims
1.
• ‘concentration’ [shelters, dormitories..] = no effectiveness:
• micro-facilities [local roots/specificity ]
2.
• focus on individual projects , support to autonomy
• [area based social and individual networks]
3.
• [but?] in a perspective of temporary night accomodation
• [‘ready response’ for urgent needs]
4.
• ‘light’ management models
• [reducing costs through local communities involvment]
5.
• re-insertion paths based on local networks of services
• [social, health, employment, housing…] + local communities

4. Main features
1. Context as a variable
One ‘model’ but different projects : characteristics change!
2. Experimental approach
The project is not meant as a ‘sure response’ but a possibility to be verify
in its impacts and effectiveness
3. Project as a process
Projects can construct products but above all processes : what is the
outcome in term of ideas, networks, other projects
triggered [interests by other operators/partners to construct other
possibilities…]

5. Resoureces
1. Material
Unused buildings owned by different actors [Curia, Charities, Foundations…] that
can be given for a period [no rent]
2. Financiary
Fondazione Cariplo
Funding to restore buildings and fornitures [promote flexible spaces/flexible
uses]
Funding for management start up for 1 year [self-sustainability oriented]
3. Capacities and competencies
Local organizations NGOs, Charities, Parishes – madiated by Caritas and local
networks in Social Plans define projects [social profile of beneficiaries, objectives,
strategies of intervention…]
4. Technical and creative
Politecnico
Experts/workgroup concentrated on the construction of specific, quality oriented
and innovative solutions
5. Relational [in perspective]

6. 2 contexts/2 models
Elements [from context analysis] for ‘models’ porposed
Milan
Context
• Weak [not existent] public policies in fight against homelessness
• Organizations: closed and limited networks
• High percentage of big structures [shelters and dormitories]
• Reinsertion paths not planned or difficoult to be planned or implemented
Model
• Immediate response to the ‘urgent need’
• No ‘filters’ [no intermediaries]
• Neighbourhood basis
• Activation of local communities [volountaries] in social support

7. 2 contexts/2 models
Elements [from context analysis] for ‘models’ porposed
Bergamo
Context
• Strong network public/private partnership
• Cooperation [even if very weak] between social policies and urban policies
• Trend: little structures [collective housing]
• Reinsertion paths: outcome of public/private partnership and cooperation between
organizations [‘system’]
Model
• Integration of existing ‘reception system’ [improving of the ‘system’]
• Filter [intermediaries: other organizations of local ‘system’]
• Professional approach to social support

8. Projects and territories
1. Analysis and strategies
Politecnico supports the process [2006/2007]: 2 work groups to define
project for spaces and fornitures + facilities and management model
2. Involvment of organizations [with different backgrounds and
experiences!]
14 buildings identified [relationships with owners: Curia, Fondazione Misericordia
Maggiore]
> 14 groups involved in construction of stretegies [filter: Caritas, Social Area Plan
l.328/00]
3. ‘Enabler’ position [Fondazione Cariplo]
Very temporary + very light management
4. Construction of solutions
In action: rise of problems
• for buildings: physical and legal constrains
• for facilities: adjustments [social profile, organizational models, specific
strategies…]
5. Outcomes
Selection of buildings/organizations > reduct ‘social impact’

9. Different projects for different contexts
four examples [not all of them will be implemented, but will found new funding]
1. Bovisasca, Milano
Present
Parish > group of volountaries
Developed experience in social reception [little shelter for homeless people]
Weak relationship with public policies and other organizations
Project
Social profile not defined [all those who are in need]
Positive reaction to temporary solutions [asked for the strong demand]
No physical, legal constrains on building

11. Different projects for different contexts
four examples [not all of them will be implemented, but will found new funding]
2. Caronno Pertusella [Varese]
Present
Parish > social cooperative
More structured experience in social reception
Weak relationship with Municilaity, strong with public policies and other organizations
Project
Social profiole strongly defined [refugees]
Quite positive reaction to temporary solutions [already developed more long term
ones]
High physical and legal constrains on buildings [700s]

13. Different projects for different contexts
four examples [not all of them will be implemented, but will found new funding]
3. Bergamo
Present
Historical reception facility, long experience [but also innovation]
Network linked to Local Social Plan [public/private coordination] + volountary sector
Orientation to social support to authonomy
Project
Social profile not defined
Negative reaction to temporary solutions [do not allow reinsertion paths]
Physical constrains on building [other flats]

15. Different projects for different contexts
four examples [not all of them will be implemented, but will found new funding]
4. Sesto San Giovanni [Milano]
Present
Parish > no organization
No experience in social reception
Weak relationship with public policies and other organizations
Project
Social profiole strongly defined [women who attend elders]
No reaction to temporary solutions [weak experience]
Process limits in planning of physical intervention

17. Conditions for success
[‘system’ perspective]
1. Networks already working in an integrate perspective > if not?
2. Availability of affordable solutions [more stable and adecuate]
> if not?
3. Length of stay: short if meant in a wider system of
responses [period to understand the problem and set solutions] > if
not?

18. Conditions for success
[project perspective]
1. Other functions can help local community to develop a
‘relationship’ with new facilities and contribute to financial
sustainability > how?
2. NGOs and local communities able to promote positive path
develop of capacities and competences > how?

19. Complementary functions [day/night]

20. Parallel functions [day/night]