Ibarra, G (2016) The meaning of 'social' in Mexican social housing: A study of housing developments in Mazatlán, Mexico. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
This thesis explores the social housing process in Mexico, which is mainly defined by the planning, construction and provision of housing, and ends with the delivery of the dwellings, overlooking the post-occupational stage of housing. This research focuses first on INFONAVIT, a Mexican institution in charge of administering a housing fund for workers since 1972 that has received many critiques because of its disconnection from the housing process since the late 1980s, when law reforms delegated the construction of housing to the private sector. Secondly, on private actors such as developers and construction companies, who have been critiqued due to the decreasing material quality and size of the houses. Finally, on social housing residents’ experiences with their houses and the built environment’s impact on their everyday life. Through an extensive qualitative approach, 19 actors involved in the housing design, planning and production process, and 50 residents in four housing projects in the city of Mazatlán, Mexico, were interviewed during a two-stage visit to Mexico City and Mazatlán. Along with the development of semi-structured interviewing, the architectural design of social housing units and the housing policies and regulations behind its production were analysed, making use of a multi-methods strategy combining direct observation, document analysis, analysis of secondary sources, and the use of photographs, architectural layouts and sketches. The findings of this research contribute to a deeper understanding of the meaning of ‘social’ in social housing, while acknowledging the need for a socially responsible planning and architectural design process. Due to the multi-disciplinary theoretical basis of this study, this thesis aims to be of interest not only to researchers, but also to inform practitioners in their decisions, including planners, architects, and policy makers.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Meth, P and Williams, G |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural design; built environment; multi-disciplinary; private sector; housing design; housing projects; policy; production process; regulation; architects; developer; direct observation; document analysis; interview; Mexico |
| Index terms: | critique, direct observation, qualitative approach, housing policy, architect, housing, architectural design, housing project, planner, construction company, production process, social housing, interview, housing development, regulation, law reform, private sector, housing design, Mexico, practitioner, everyday life, meaning, strategy, built environment, Mexico City, document analysis |
| Subjects: | legal systems, design practice, infrastructure and transport systems, housing and residential development, data science, industry analysis, construction type, evaluation and assessment methods, management, sociology, profession, data collection methods, Geography, political science, design process, practitioner, organization, public policy, manufacturing engineering, research methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here