INITIATIVES TOWARDS INTERESTS OF RESIDENTS: SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR LARGE SCALE HOUSING ESTATES IN RIGA?

Transcription

1 INITIATIVES TOWARDS INTERESTS OF RESIDENTS: SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR LARGE SCALE HOUSING ESTATES IN RIGA? Sandra Treija Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning Riga Technical University, Āzenes Street 16, LV 1048, Riga, Latvia Uģis Bratuškins Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning Riga Technical University, Āzenes Street 16, LV 1048, Riga, Latvia Jānis Briņķis Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning Riga Technical Univers ity, Āzenes Street 16, LV 1048, Riga, Latvia ABSTRACT The spatial environment of Riga is undergoing active development with its direct impact being exerted also on the large-scale residential estates by quantity the most significant part of the residential environment of Riga. Since about 60% of the city dwellers reside in large-scale residential districts, which constitute approximately 40% of the housing stock of Riga, the future prospective for these territories is an urgent topic in the context of the urban development in Riga. Public involvement, residents participation and a qualitative appraisal of their needs and interests are believed to help urban communities to articulate commonly shared values, which can serve as reference criteria for local planners to envision more sustainable city strategies. This paper is focusing on the goal to examine the various initiatives: implementation of the Program for Improving Energy Efficiency, rearrangement of green open space and others, initiated by municipality, state agencies and NGO that are seeking to develop the residential environment in large scale housing estates in Riga. INTRODUCTION In many European cities, large-scale housing estates are perceived as degraded territories inhabited mainly by social groups with low-income. Therefore, these districts are facing a range of problems, like poverty, high risk of criminality, etc. To avoid ultimate degradation of the extensive territories the responsible authorities have to invest resources in renovation of buildings and revitalization of whole of the areas. By contrast, in Eastern Europe, large scale housing occupies the majority of the housing market, thus including a more mixed population. Socially, Eastern European system built, high rise developments, tend to have a different profile than in the west (MacArthur, 2001). While in Western countries centrally planned suburbs often began as welfare projects for low income families, in the Eastern Europe large scale housing was more egalitarian. A specific feature of these settlements in the Eastern Europe is that they are composed of middle class, well educated people. However, as the estates physically decline, and a new richer middle class emerges, wealthier families will start to move away, beginning the cycle of decline. 1

2 In Riga, large scale housing is the living environment for the major part of community and for inhabitants belonging to the middle class in its traditional sense: workers and professionals mostly employed in the public sector, as well as pensioners who are living here from erecting of the estates. Their level of income prevents them from improving their housing conditions for years to come. In Riga, large-scale residential areas are very often located within an easy reach from the city centre; they have service objects, educational establishments and facilities for recreation. For these reasons, the large-scale housing districts of Riga are active urban territories, the public image of which is appealing to a vast number of inhabitants. Still, it is obvious that current quality of housing estates and apartment buildings does not meet the requirements of contemporary housing standards; green open areas are not properly managed, but people lack the information and motivation to improve the neighborhood. Hence, large scale housing estates are under strong risk to lose their active status. Residents are looking for housing quality and quantity; surveys show the private house as the most preferable housing type for residents. The growing demand for the new housing was determined not only by the shortage of dwelling space, but also by the moral and physical deterioration of the Soviet apartment blocks. Availability of accessible mortgage loans made even more inhabitants want to replace their old flats with new ones. An essential factor was the desire of a socially active group of population (aged with the level of income appropriate for Latvia s middle class) to live in socially homogenous buildings with modern architectural design and adequate service level. This is a huge challenge for municipalities to keep this status; it is being promoted by a number of activities. There are some national and local initiatives to improve the quality of residential environment in large-scale housing areas in Riga. The following questions are at the focus of the research: What is the position of large scale housing in the current situation in Riga? What kind of activities are being planned or implemented in large-scale housing areas to improve the quality of residential environment? What are the main barriers and risks for implementation of planned activities? The paper starts with the general overview of development processes in large-scale housing estates in Riga focusing on actual questions related to housing management. Using data from different sources: Riga Municipality survey about residents satisfaction in large- scale housing estates (2013) and residents questionary organized by Riga Technical University (2008), the most topical areas are defined. Analyzing processes of housing renovation and development of green open space, the risks and barriers of redevelopment of large scale housing estates are identified. CONTEXT Large-scale housing represents a large part of the housing stock in Central and Eastern European countries, its house a very large proportion of the population (in some countries up to 40 or 50%). In 2011, 41.5 % of the EU-27 population lived in flats, the share of persons living in flats was highest among the EU Member States in Latvia (65.3 %) (Housing Europe Review, 2012). 2

3 Being the leading paradigm of residential development after the WWII over the whole period of Soviet domination within next to half-century long time, the shape of large-scale housing estates underwent a certain transformation from decade to decade. Although the main goal remained unchanged, i.e. to provide people with high-quality (in soviet terms) living environment in a quick and cheap manner, the housing estates differ considerably in size, number and density of population as well as in urban layout and density (Table 1). Table 1. Characteristics of large scale housing areas in Riga (Marana, 2002) Period of construction Housing area Number of inhabitants (thd) Density inh/ha Āgenskalns Sarkdaugava Jugla Ķengarags Imanta Purvciems Bolderāja Iļģuciems Vecmīlgrāvis Mežciems Pļavnieki Zolitūde Ziepniekkalns Total/ average Design of new residential areas and separate buildings in Riga during the Soviet period complied with strict frame for housing development process the essence of which was: strong, almost totally centralised Moscow dominance and supervision of development and implementation of this frame throughout the whole of the USSR; acceptance of standardised apartment building designs only that resulted in development of so-called series buildings for construction all over the USSR (i.e., each standardized design was assigned a special number or code); statements and demands on contents of series buildings (amount of apartments, their area, number of rooms, etc) strictly regulated by the Centre, with the following approval of the series buildings designs exclusively by the Centre; dominancy of the so-called large-panel structures (structure of building is formed by mutually joined reinforced concrete load-bearing slab and wall panels and pre-cast spatial elements). Large-scale housing estates are one of the quantitatively largest types of built-up areas in the city of Riga. Developed within the Soviet housing expansion plans that were mainly based on industrial grounds, 13 large-scale housing estates were constructed in Riga along with numerous 3

4 groups of separate apartment blocks in various locations all over the city totalling to around 200,000 dwellings. Large-scale housing estates encircle the historic centre of the city forming wide belt of residential areas different in size and density. Mass construction of apartment blocks in Riga began in the late 1950s and continued up to the early 1990s. During this period, about 40% of the existing housing stock of Riga was built, the largest part of which consists of pre-cast large-panel apartment blocks. Ownership reform As a result of denationalisation of real estate and privatisation of the public and municipal residential buildings, the ownership structure of the housing stock considerably changed in Latvia. Private ownership rate in Latvia is among the highest in Europe: 84 % of the population in Latvia lived in owner-occupied dwellings in 2011(Housing Europe Review, 2012). In Riga, this figure is about 87 %. Table 2. Privatisation of apartments in Riga (Data of Central Statistical Bureau, 2006) Privatised apartaments % from total number of apartaments ,2% 68% 85% These massive processes have created preconditions for further development of residential areas. Privatisation of flats for vouchers resulted in emergence of middle class in Latvia, which acquired a kind of savings in a form of immovable properties. It led to the increase of paying capacity of a large proportion of population and formation of a market segment of standard apartments. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge and resources prevents the owners of privatised houses to restore the housing stock on a systematic basis. As a result of denationalisation of land properties, when the land in large-scale residential districts was returned to the previous owners and then provided as the minimum required land to the privatised buildings, the original spatial composition of districts was completely destroyed creating a legal basis for new construction in large-scale residential districts. Housing Management Since the start of the privatization in Latvia there is topical discussion on housing management issue. As result of the privatisation, a wide range of problems has emerged: mixed ownership of apartments in the building, which raises questions about the division of responsibilities between public and private owners; lack of adequate legislation; lack of knowledge and motivation; limited financial resources for maintenance and renewal (Gruis, Tsenkova, Nieboer, 2006). Legal reforms introduced in the mid-1990s have provided the legal framework for the organisation of owners, as well as procedures for the enforcement of rules and obligations. After 15 years since privatisation started, Latvia is moving towards the professional facility 4

5 management that is evidenced by a number of significant laws and regulations determining the provisions of administration and management of residential houses, which have been adopted during the last two years. The Law On Residential House Management (hereinafter referred to as the Facility Management Law) has entered into force as of 1 January 2010, but in some cases the provisions of this law have not been observed in the practice and noncompliance with the laws and regulations create problems for the companies operating in the sector. Cabinet Regulations of 28 September 2010 are adopted as a supplement to the Facility Management Law. A new Law On Residential Property, which is more updated and which more clearly defines the rights of apartment owners, their duties and responsibilities, has entered into force as of 1 January 2011 and substitute the previous law with a similar title. Currently, the biggest challenges referring to the facility manager activities are low solvency of the property owners and the gaps still existing in current legislation (On Residential Properties: Law of the Republic of Latvia 2010) (Slava, Geipele, 2012). After privatization apartment house management can occur in two ways. The first type, which is also known as a conservative, suggests that each individual apartment owner enters into a residential home maintenance and management agreement with the existing house manager, who most often is the house administrator. The second way - democratic - means that the owners of the apartments and houses (managed or handled by the apartment owners) has contract with a management company. In Riga, 86% of the apartments and only 20% of residential buildings are privatized. This indicates that the apartment owners who have purchased these apartments as a property are either very inactive or there is nothing that motivates them to take over the house in their possession, or they are satisfied with the current situation when the apartment owners may apply to the local municipality and request the repair of the deemed share of their house and require to provide facility management services at the expenses of the municipality. The question of housing management has become even more topical during last couple years when the activities for housing renovation were initiated. The State wants to implement the residential building insulation program using the European Union funds, while the apartment owners in Latvia are still not sure about making such decisions having different reasons for such doubts. INTERESTS OF RESIDENTS One of the most widely used way to study the living conditions are by measuring residential satisfaction. Current results from an ongoing research project on sociospatial differentiation of different neighbourhoods in CEE-urban regions reveal a high level of residential satisfaction. The residents satisfaction with the dwelling and the neighbourhood could be represented as an important indicator for explaining residential mobility and housing choices. Still, different meanings of residential satisfaction have not been questioned for the current and future sociospatial developments in CEE large housing estates. It is pointed out that the rating of personal residential satisfaction reflects external conditions, socio-structural and psycho-social characteristics of the resident, such as individual feelings, convictions and conations. On the one hand, residential satisfaction may mean the real satisfaction in terms of well-being when the existing housing situation meets residential needs and the aspiration level of the resident. On the other hand, adjusted satisfaction means a self-constructed residential satisfaction. The often 5

6 cited paradox of satisfaction refers especially to this notional adaptation process. Although the housing situation is bad or worsens, the residential satisfaction is or remains high (Herfert, 2012). Riga City regularly examines satisfaction rates in many different fields. The latest is the surwey of residents in two large - scale housing areas: Zolitūde (completed in the late 1980s) and Imanta (completed in the early 1970s) (December January 2013). According to the results of survay, residents generally are satisfied with living conditions in the estates: 93 % from respondents in Zolitūde and 94 % from residents in Imanta evaluated as satisfied or very satisfied. Residents identified that the main area where improvements are needed is the open space between buildings The buildings are also indentified as the topic for redevelopment. In the autumn of 2008, as part of the project Usage Intensity of Inner Courtyards in Purvciems a Large-scale Housing Estate in Riga a public survey was held in order to find out public opinion about the importance and role of public open spaces in the assessment of the quality of life in large-scale housing estates. A quantitative direct (face-to-face) method of interviewing was used, focusing on several objectives: 1. General assessment of spatial quality in large-scale housing estates. 2. Determination of level of satisfaction of the residents of large-scale housing estates with different aspects of the living environment. 3. Ascertaining the role of public open spaces in the establishment and maintenance of social contacts among inhabitants. As many as 246 people residing in the northern part of large scale estate Purvciems (completed early 1970s) were questioned. A predominant number of respondents 92% were residents of multi-storey apartment houses. The majority of respondents were people aged % of respondents represented households with children. Most of the respondents were living in the area for 10 years and more (47%). Only 7% were the new occupants, who live in the current dwelling for less than one year. The results of the study proved that the assessment of spatial quality in the large-scale housing estates is relatively high. According to the survey, overall 72% of the population like the district. Respondents mentioned nearest shop or other service object, as well as the number and location of educational establishments in the area as the most appealing qualities. 68% of residents are satisfied with public transport access in the area. Inhabitants in the age group over 70 are the most satisfied with their district and people aged are the least satisfied. Regarding to the open space quality of the residential district, 67% of respondents were not satisfied, mentioning the neglected courtyards and greenery, destroyed landscape elements, lack of benches and playgrounds as the main reasons. 34% of respondents used the courtyard only as a parking, 26% admitted that they did not use the courtyard at all. 78% of inhabitants mentioned that they did not know their neighbours inhabitants of the adjacent buildings. Inhabitants were also dissatisfied with insufficient parking options near their homes (Treija, Bratuškins, Suvorovs, 2010). Summarizing the survey results the two main topics were defined: energy efficiency of buildings and quality of green open space 6

7 INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE: RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS In Latvia most of the existing buildings have high energy consumption and low heat resistance, which significantly affects the heating and home maintenance costs. Most of these buildings will be operated for some considerable period of time, the gradual renovation of buildings is topical question. Therefore, in the main policy documents Latvia has set a goal to improve the energy performance of buildings and to gradually reduce the average thermal energy consumption in buildings. In 2006, the following main strategic documents for sustainable development of the energy sector were developed and adopted in Latvia: Guidelines for Development of Energy Sector for ; and Strategy for use of Renewable Energy Sources These documents provide guidelines and criteria for the development of the energy sector, energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources, which further are being introduced in legislation and state programs. The Law on the Energy Performance of Buildings (2008) determines the competencies of state and municipal institutions in the field of energy efficiency, as well as legal and managerial bases for the energy certification and auditing of buildings. The general supervision is carried out by the Ministry of the Economics, which also develops the policy for the energy performance of buildings. The State Agency of Construction, Energy and Housing ensures the implementation of the policy. According to the procedure and scope set by legislation, local authorities (and the state) may provide support for energy auditing and building renovation considering the provisions and procedure defined by the Law on Assistance in Solving Apartment Matters, taking into account principles of cost-effectiveness of investments, sustainability, maximum energy saving and application of environmentally friendly technologies, as well. The law does not set obligatory requirements and terms for the energy certification and renovation of the existing private housing stock and allows to use the principles of one s own initiative and voluntary participation in this very potent field. The main result of the State Energy Efficiency Strategy adopted in 2004 is the implementation of institutional and administrative measures that determine the procedure of co-ordination and control of energy efficiency, as well as setting up additionally needed institutions (National Energy Inspection, Housing Agency), redistribution and optimization of functions. The Government has developed and adopted several documents in the form of action plans, development programs, and state support programs that promote an increase in energy efficiency and the use renewable energy resources: First National Energy Efficiency Action Plan of Latvia. The Action Plan provides the assessment of the situation, indicative targets for energy efficiency, as well as an overview of energy efficiency actions in particular branches. State Support Program of Apartment Dwelling House Renovation Promotion. This Program foresees financial state support for energy audits in the amount of LVL per house. Furthermore, the state contributes to renovations with a 20% co-financing on the eligible renovation costs. 7

8 At present, the main practical activities are available on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) program, which covers 50-60% investment in building renovation. Table 3. Number of application for participation in ERDF program (Ministry of Economics, 2013) Region Total Kurzeme Vidzeme Rīgas reģions Zemgale Rīga Latgale Table 4. Number of completed projects in ERDF program (Ministry of Economics, 2013) Region Total Kurzeme Vidzeme Rīgas reģions Zemgale Rīga Latgale For renovation of large scale neighborhoods would attract EU funding and private investment. The major problems that hinder the process are: the lack of political will, the complex structure of the property, as well as the individuals' own inability or unwillingness to find common ground on matters of substance. INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE: OPEN SPACE The territories of large-scale housing estates were planned as residential areas with an appropriate network of consumer service, educational and recreational institutions applying similar principles of spatial organization. Green areas in those districts covered % of the territory. A part of courtyards as a place was designed for the most important household functions, i.e. drying of wash, cleaning of carpets, placement of waste containers, and parking for a small number of cars at the entrances to the buildings. The rest of the courtyards usually were occupied by greenery where standard children s playgrounds and small recreation sites with benches were set up. Sports grounds were established in the large courtyards, taking into consideration the layout of each housing estate. Today green spaces are turned into neglected areas of trees and shrubs, which are overshadowing ground floor apartment windows and recreation areas. Street furniture elements and footpaths have deteriorated. The courtyard as a place for recreation has degraded. Parking of cars in all possible places and placement of waste 8

9 containers are two main functions of the courtyards and environmental quality of large-scale housing estates does not meet contemporary standards and does not provide for social and recreational needs of the inhabitants. As a result of denationalisation process ( ) the propriety of land was re-established to the former owners or their legal heirs. Since the large-scale housing estates were planned in the conditions of socialism where all land belonged to the state the layout of buildings was not consistent with the former borders of the land. Due to denationalisation the united spatial composition of the districts was disarranged and legal basis for possible new construction in the non-built areas (i.e., public open spaces) such as large-scale housing estates was created. In connection with the privatization of residential buildings the regulations on the plots of land acquired for the needs of the privatized buildings were prepared. As a result, the original planning scheme of residential districts has been completely disarranged, their spatial composition has been mechanically destroyed, dividing residential blocks into small plots of land, which very often fail to provide their owners inhabitants of the buildings even with the basic functions of the living environment. The economic growth between 2001 and 2007 increased the demand for housing in Riga. It is estimated that over five years about 50 residential buildings with more than 1000 apartments were built in the public open spaces of large-scale housing estates. It reduced areas of habitual free spaces and resulted in protests of inhabitants of surrounding buildings. Respecting this, Riga City Council in 2006 imposed a moratorium on new construction in inner courtyards. The moratorium referred to approximately 1700 plots in courtyards, that is almost five per cent of the total area of the whole city. In December, 2009 due to changes in Riga Building Regulations, a moratorium on building courtyard was cancelled. During last years, there are some initiatives to improve the situation in green open space. Riga Municipality is going to start the revitalization program for inner courtyards in large - scale housing estates. In 2011 it started with repairing of streets and sidewalks in these estates and the plan is to finish this activity by In addition to the street and sidewalk repairs, the new revitalization program for courtyards is scheduled. This program will include four main elements - children's playgrounds, recreation areas - benches and greenery, sports areas - health bars and ordinary trainers, as well as dog walking areas. Another activity is initiated by NGO Big Clean-up. Big Clean-up is nationwide initiative supported by wide range of institutions: professional associations, state and municipal enterprises and private companies, as well as it has massive support from residents. Since 2010 the Courtyard Redevelopment Project competition was announced yearly. People living in apartment buildings all over Latvia were asked to have a close look at their courtyards and together with their neighbors consider what problems they have observed and what should be done to turn their courtyard into a pleasant place for leisure and recreation. The Big Clean-up Day organizers received a large number of applications with photos of existing problems and descriptions of required improvements. The jurors reviewed all of them and selected some of them to be improved and refurbished during the Big Clean-up Day. The preference was given to applications envisaging greater involvement of local people and their active participation in the Big Clean-up Day activities and improvement of their own courtyards. All the applications that were not selected have been sent to the relevant local municipalities with a request to review the problems people have indicated and to see if anything can be done to their provided solutions, therefore encouraging the spreading of environmental culture idea throughout Latvia. 9

10 RISKS AND BARRIERS IN RENOVATION OF LARGE SCALE HOUSING ESTATES The current practice of building renovation project implementing parties identified a number of risks that can affect both the initiation of the project ideas and the implementation. The residential renovation can be affected by such risks and obstacles: 1) The barriers and the risks regarding the access to information: - lack of awareness of the population on building energy efficiency and the benefits of building energy efficiency; - lack of awareness of the population about financial instruments for improving energy efficiency in buildings; - inability of apartment owners to reach an agreement 2): The barriers and the risks regarding financial questions: -decline of resident s solvency; - errors in the calculation of the project budget; - increased costs of construction of the project (construction industry recovers from the crisis, picked the construction market and increased construction services and building materials prices); - receivables for services related to residential use of property, denying residential apartment building owners to get a home renovation loan. 3) There is a risk that residents using significant co-financing (50%) and other financial models for renovation of buildings will get used to this approach. The experience in Lithuania shows that interruption of the massive support led to serious reduce of activities regarding building renovation. CONCLUSIONS In Riga, the large-scale housing estates still actively participate in the real estate market and the compact apartments have become popular and are required again. It raises actuality of renovation of the buildings and spatial arrangement in accordance with modern requirements at the same time imposing a special responsibility for the maintenance of structures of modernist period residential areas and buildings over time. Large-scale housing is difficult to manage, whether privately owned, government owned or belonging to a housing association. Bringing together a large and diverse population, different ownership schemes, different needs and, with time, the emergence of technical problems means that problems are often overwhelming, requiring a well organized and skilled administration, which is often lacking. Currently, the quality of large-scale residential districts does not comply with the modern requirements and does not meet the social and recreational needs of inhabitants. While the quality of individual flats is gradually increasing, the whole building and the public open space continues to decline. In order to determine development directions for large-scale residential districts, it is necessary to elaborate complex criteria for evaluation of the quality of the living 10

11 environment. The principal task for further development of the living environment is the creation of a multifunctional and intensively utilized urban environment along with the preservation of the identity of the place. As seen from a wider perspective of urban environment, priorities should be the renovation and modernization of the already existing densely populated areas, their humanization ensuring accessibility to high-quality goods, services and public transport services. Such undertakings would motive population not to leave their dwellings and would not permit expansion of cities. REFERENCES Belanger, H. (2007) Public Spaces in Gentrifying Neighbourhoods: Conflicting Meanings? European Network for Housing Research Brade, I., Herfert, G., Wiest, K. (2009), Lull Before the Storm? Recent Trends and Future Prospects of Sociospatial Differentiation in Urban Regions of Central and Eastern Europe. In: Cities 26, pp Csizmady, A., Csanadi, G. (2008) Gated Communities versus Large Scale Housing Estates. European Network for Housing Research Databases of Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia - Data of Ministry of Economics of Latvia - Dekker, K. and Van Kempen, R. (2005), Large housing estates in Europe: a contemporary overview. In: R. Van Kempen, K. Dekker, S. Hall and I. Tosics (Eds.), Restructuring Large Housing Estates in European Cities. Bristol: Policy Press. Evaluation of Living Conditions in Imanta. Residents surway results. December 2012-January Market and public opinion centre SKDS- Evaluation of Living Conditions in Zolitūde. Residents surway results. December 2012-January Market and public opinion centre SKDS- Gruis, V., Tsenkova, S., Nieboer, N. (2006). Managing Privatized Housing. An International Overview of Developments and Challenges. European Network for Housing Research A%2F%2Frepository.tudelft.nl%2Fassets%2Fuuid%3A679e2ebe-def b a1887f6%2F pdf& Herfert, G., Neugebauer, C. S., Smigiel, Ch. (2013) Living In Residential Satisfaction? Insights From Large-Scale Housing Estates In Central And Eastern Europe. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 2013, vol. 104, issue 1: Housing Europe Review Hur, M., Nasar, J.L., Chun, B. (2010). Neighbourhood Satisfaction, Physical and Perceived Naturalness and Openness, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30: Kovacs, Z., Herfert, G., Wiest, K. (2008) Changing Housing Preferences and Residential Mobility in Post-Socialist Cities the Position of Large Housing Estates. European Network for Housing Research 11

12 Krantz, B. (1999). Large Scale Housing Estates in North West Europe: Problems, Interventions and Experiences. Delft: Delft University Press: MacArthur, I. (2001) Ensuring Shelter in Eastern Europe. In: J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55 Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City. London & New York: Routledge. Nieboer, N., Gruis, V., Hal, A. van & Tsenkova, S. (2011). Energy efficiency in housing management - conclusions from an international study. In C Thouzelier & MC Jaillet (Eds.), Mixité: an urban and housing issue? Mixing people, housing and activities as the urban challenge of the future, 23rd ENHR Conference (pp. 1-12) Prak, N.L. and Priemus, H. (1985), A Model for the Analysis of the Decline of Postwar Housing In: The International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 10, pp Rapoport, A. (1985). Thinking about Home Environments. In: Altman I. & Werner C. M. (eds) Home Environments, New York, Plenum Press: Slava D., Geipele S. (2012). Legal and Economic Problems of Housing Management in Latvia. In: Ekonomika un uzņēmējdarbiba, Riga, RTU: Tsenkova, S.; Gruis, V.; Niebor, N. (2011) Energy Efficiency in Housing Management: Conclusions and International Perspectives. European Network for Housing Research Tsenkova, S.; Youssef (2012) Green and Affordable Housing in Canada. In: Sustainable Transformation of Social Housing: Energy Efficient Policy and Practice. London, Routledge: Tsenkova, S. and I. Marana (eds.) (2002) Challenges and Opportunities in Housing: New Concepts, Policies and Initiatives. Riga: International Council for Building Research and Innovation (CIB) Rotterdam. 156 p Treija, S. (2009). Housing and Social Cohesion in Latvia. In Holt-Jensen, A.& Pollock, E. (eds) Urban Sustainability and Governance, New York, Nova Science Publishers: Treija, S., Bratuškins, U., Suvorovs, E. (2010) The Use of Public Open Spaces in Large-scale Housing Estates in Riga. Architecture and Urban Planning, Riga, RTU: Turkington, R., van Kempen, R., Wassenberg, F. (2004). High rise Housing in Europe. Current Trends an Future Prospects. Delft: Delft University Press. Wassenberg, F. (2008), Prospects for Large Housing Estates. European Network for Housing Research Wassenberg, F. (2004), Large Social Housing Estates: From Stigma to Demolition? Journal of Housing and the built Environment 19, pp Страутманис И Бука О Крастыньш Я Асарис Г (1987) Архитектура Советской Латвиu Москва:Cтройиздат. 12