Hello, My name is Marie-Paule Thomas. I did my doctoral thesis at the Urban Sociology Laboratory at EPFL on the subject of residential choices and household lifestyle. Why and how people choose their place of living? It is the subject we will discuss today. For three years now, I have worked in an consulting firm, called E-consulting, where I advise municipalities and town planners in the implementation of their housing policy. Therefore, this course will present As much as theoretical results than practical examples. How can we start from household location choices to rethink urban planning? In this course we present the main results of the Swiss research program PNR 54 sustainable urban habitat which was the subject of my doctoral thesis. The objective of this research was to analyze arbitrations residential household location. Why and how families choose to locate? We began with three observations: The individualisation of society. So people are increasingly different. Increased mobility. And increased segmentation of territories. Commonly in research, three major theoretical currents explain residential mobility. In the first type of approach, the individual determines its location based on a vision both rational and strategic. These approaches are rather worn by real estate specialists, engineers, economists, demographers, all these experts who favor an analytical framework metrical or economical. Thus, a household will determine its location depending on their income, ie a level of rent, depending on the size of the household ie a housing size, or as a function of the distance of workplaces, or of amenities. In rational actions theories, the variables are mainly metrical or economical. The second type of approach explains residential choice by social logics. The majority of these approaches are rather carried by anthropologists and sociologists. In these approaches, the choice of residential location is explained by social variables by values. The choice of place of life is thus influenced either by family logics: we want to live next to our family or next to the grandparents, according to statutory logic: we want a big house, a great car, to show our social status, or depending on cultural logics: depending on who we are, which country we live in, from where we have been socialized, we will want to live in a place that resemble us. All of these approaches thus explain residential choices based on social parameters. I will live next to my relatives in a place that distinguish myself socially, or in a place that fits my values. The third approach, less worked on, explains residential choice in relation to sensitive logic. Often these theories are carried, for example, by architects. Depending on who we are, our history the sensitive dimension can be, in fact, very important for people. While we may have determined a location based on a distance on a public transportation stop not too far from the grandmother. Eventually what will be decisive between the choice of two dwellings of similar size and similar budgets in the near perimeter from the grandparents, is : the light there will be in the housing, the smell of the neighborhood, the fact that we feel well. In approaches we will remember later, we consider that these three logical actions are important. Rational logic, social and sensitive. When a household chooses a location, it takes into account these three parameters. Thus, in a choice of residential location, a household observes both functional qualities, therefore the services, amenities, the price, size of dwelling. Social qualities: Is there a community life in the neighborhood? Is it important for me to meet my neighbors? Do I want to live next to my family? Do I want to be in a place that distinguishes me socially? And sensitive qualities: Is that in a place where I feel good? Do I want to live in this dwelling? or on the contrary, it has a light, a color, an environment that does not suit me at all. In the research process in housing, it is observed that there are often two stages. First, a location is defined or geographical area of residence according to his lifestyle, for example, one wants to live in an area up to 10 km around the grandparents, next to a public transportation stop and not too far from a green space so that my children can play. Then once we have determined this geographical area, or these location settings, we will go in search of a home that matches my budget, my household type, so if for example I am a family I will seek a three or four parts, and my values. Let's take an example : here we have a young middle-class couple which will soon have a child. For this couple, it is very important, in terms of location criteria, to be close to public transportation, be able to move by bicycle, they love the social mix, and they want a range of services and amenities nearby, be it shopping, cultural life restaurants, cafes. In terms of location, so far they prefer to live in an urban center. Once they have identified cities or small towns with all these criteria, they will go in search of three parts rather old corresponding to their budget of middle class. If we summarize our results in terms of residential location, we have highlighted six areas of differentiation of residential preferences. The first axis, the Security gradient, distinguishes people for whom being between peers is very important, from other people who will value social mix. Do I want to live with neighbors similar to me ? or on the contrary, live next to neighbors who are not like me? The friendliness gradient distinguishes household who feel that neighborlyhood, so as in the picture on the right, is very important. Is it important for me to meet my neighbors everyday and at all times of the day because I love the friendliness and community life, or, on the contrary, I want to live in an individualistic way and I do not want to pass by my neighbors every day. So this axis distinguishes people for whom community and easy life is very important, from more individualistic households. This axis will be particularly important in the definition of architectural projects. Do I conceive dwellings or buildings that will allow me to meet others? or, on the contrary, do I design buildings which will ensure that I do not cross my neighbors? The social gradient anchor distinguishes, on the one hand, households for whom it is important to live near relatives or their friends, from households for which this parameter will not count. The gradient of elitism distinguishes households valuing a socially distinguished place of living with a good reputation in the neighborhood, a good social status, as opposed to households caring less of these distinctive logic in choosing where they live. It thus distinguishes household with traditional values, of households with more post-materialist values enhancing personal development. The density gradient distinguishes households valuing local services, the ability to go to a shop or a service by walk from households that use more the car in their daily lives and for which proximity to local services counts less. It distinguished too, households valuing country life of households with life more connected to the urban agglomeration. The serenity gradient is itself universal. It shows that in the criteria for residential location, the concepts of peace, proximity to nature and green spaces, are very important for all households. We have seen that there are six axes differentiation of residential preferences, but finally, how these different location criteria form a system? Depending on our lifestyle, we will develop different visions of the quality of life. In our research we have shown that for an equivalent type of household and at the same income level, one can have different lifestyles. One can, thus, enhance urban life, have its organic basket, rather move on public transport, be an artist who does not have much money and live in a housing with a suitable rent, then a few years later, one will still move in public transport will still love uban life, and will still have its organic vegetable basket, but maybe one will become a cultural framework in a large institution. One will have a different income but still the same lifestyle. Thus we see that for the traditional criteria of the income of the type of household the lifestyle is decisive to explain the choice of residential location. Depending on who we are, we can define where we live, according to the maxim: "describe me where you live, I will tell you who you are". In the segmentation that we have put in place at the Urban Sociology Laboratory, we identified six lifestyles which have six different views of the quality of life, with two large groups: the classics and contemporary. We observe that these typologies or those living groups are found in other researches whether in marketing or research institutes. Like the Sinus-Milieus or the Friedlander Partners Institute. Finally, we have also shown that these different lifestyles, from the most classical to the most contemporary, are the result of a historical sedimentation. While 100 years ago, we were all rural households who lived on a farm next door to our parents, now, 100 years later, there is an infinity of ways of living or at least six main groups which are divided into two classes thaht we will present you now. The classics match the lifestyles including residential aspirations and lifestyles are similar to values rather traditional, regardless of the type of household income. They prefer quiet residential environments, monofunctional with beautiful visual clearances on a human scale in a neighborhood promoting being between oneself security and a certain social status. Preferably they are looking for recent real estate, if possible in property, if they have the means. They rather prefer private transport. The Classic ideal residential is an individual house. The contemporary lifestyles appeared more recently during the last thirty years. In parallel with the movement that we have called: "Gentrification movement" in the literature. Contemporaries often have more progressive values or less traditional then the previous group. Both are often dual-income, they advocate social diversity, living together, light modes of transport, public transport, cultural life, ecological values. They thereby prefer active residential environments, intensive, mixed, dense and urban where cultural and artistic activity is intense. The residential ideal of contemporary is an apartment in an old building, a loft, or an apartment in a modern building, like here in the right picture, in a building in Copenhagen, Denmark. If we summarize, we have two large groups of residential lifestyles. On one hand, the classic that emphasize individual residential mobility, Being between one-self, individualism, and instead value quiet environments,at the human scale, and they want access to a house. And on the other hand we have the contemporary households who value mobility by public transport, proximity and the compactness of the city and its urban bustle, its social diversity and, in terms of objects, they will valorize the old building, or the contemporary one. To schedule and plan the contemporary city, one must understand the views of users, their practices, their lifestyles, their appropriation of different spaces. The detailed understanding of lifestyles, of what the residents do and want, can anticipate the programming and planning of cities. Now how can one move from the theory, that I presented to you, to practice? It is important that public authorities reflect on the proactive housing policies and not suffered. We thereby suggest, for almost five years, many public and local authorities to implement a proactive housing policy. We work very often, upstream, under what is known as : Urban Programming Until now, communities underwent territory development. It is time to reverse the trend in order to influence future developments and to think in terms of target audience, both in terms of income and household type, than of lifestyle. When we support communities, we often have three steps for the definition of housing policy. First: define the target audience. The second: divide the target audience. And the third: build for the chosen target audience. To define the target audience, we are using the three variables presented earlier. Do we want to attract rather conventional household? or contemporary? Do I want to draw rather solos households? Couples ? Families ? And what level of income will we focus on in the new urban operation or in the town ? Social diversity of income? Rather the middle class? Rather the upper class? Where are we going to focus less affluent households of the population? With these three criteria, income, household type and lifestyle, we can define the target audience for a future town or a neighborhood. Once we defined the target audience, we need to divide them. Indeed, all lands, or all situations do not always have the same home-potential for all groups of the population. For each field, finally, what are the targets naturally attracted? Whatever I do, This town center will be very attractive for contemporary households. Which are the naturally excluded targets? This urban center will exclude, perhaps naturally the classics. Or what the potential targets depending on the project that I will develop? I develop public transport I have a flat topography, I have adapted housing and I will surely be able to attract senior citizens in this neighborhood. Each site or each place of the territory has a varied potential home for different target audiences. Let's take an example : considering the agglomerations of Lausanne and Bern we are in the village of Vufflens-la-Ville, at the top left. In fifteen minutes on foot or by public transport, we can barely get out of town. In twenty-five minutes, you get to meet the nearest town. This means that for contemporary households who value the proximity of public transport in the case of the agglomeration of Lausanne, we can live in very urban places like Renan, or in the center of Lausanne. If we now consider the town of Bern, in the upper right, we are in the village of Moosseedorf, a peri town, we see that in fifteen minutes by public transport, we can reach the village, but also all the neighboring villages and also the center city of Bern. The same thing for places available in twenty-five minutes. What does that mean ? This means that if one has a contemporary household for which the valuation of public transit trips are very important in Bern, we can live both in the center and in the surrounding area. This will not be the case in Lausanne. Thus, each place of the territory, has a varied potential home for different groups of the population. Based on these characteristics intrinsic, functional, social and sensitive, the territory will attract a target audience. Once we have defined the target audience, that we have described the potential attractiveness of places for the implementation of the housing policy, neighborhoods suitable to target audiences must be developed Two examples: on the left, we are in the town of Zurich. The city of Zurich has set up, for twenty years, a proactive policy to attract families in the city center. So it built over 10 000 homes for families and adapted its family policy in order to keep families in town. If we stand on another scale, on the architecture scale. The right picture is the result of an architectural competition which involved sociologists and architects. There are three types of buildings which correspond to three lifestyles. In each of its buildings there is a housing size diversity and a variety of available rents. In the building of Kodak, a cooperative, nurturing living together, the buildings were drawn with alleyways, a majority of meeting places, public spaces, laundriy rooms where people will meet. The Kings Cooperative building was drawn based more on an individualistic lifestyle. You can access the parking, then ascend directly into one's apartment through the lift without necessarily crossing all one's neighbors. Here we see the translation directly to an architectural project based on people's lifestyles. Is the living together valorized ? And do we want an architecture favoring this setting? The opening, proximity, link and meeting with the neighbors? Or, on the contrary, do we want a more individualistic lifestyle, and we will have an architecture that fits this lifestyle. Another example to the housing ladder. If we want to design two types of housing for middle class families we see that on the left, this accommodation will be more suitable for conventional families that will enhance privacy, individuality, so the children's game will take place, rather, on the terrace of the accommodation the same for the barbecue where we will invite friends that were chosen to our grills with ourselves in our garden. The photo on the right is a type of property or operation rather adapted for contemporary families. The children's game will take place rather collectively in vegetable gardens, and we will grill all together with neighbors. So we see that for an equivalent type of household, an equivalent income we can have urban architectural responses completely different! For years, the architectural determinism dominated. By a stroke of a pen, planners had the power to determine how people would live their housing or meet in a neighborhood or in a building. Now, with urban planning lifestyles, this is the reverse process and from the lifestyles of the people, or ways of living of the inhabitants, we draw a district. One can thus act with a policy of attractive housing, by prices, housing size, moods programming area. To attract a particular group of the population, the housing type, the deal, encourage as much that public support policies cultural, social, family. It may not thus not only attract families with a nice house, four rooms, affordable, but also with childcare, pre and after-school. To conclude the course on residential choices of households we can come back to three observations. We have seen that for an equivalent income and an equivalent type of household, households may have lifestyles and residential choices that are completely different. We also saw that the contexts present differentiated potentials of reception for the different groups. Depending on the site, we will be able to attract or exclude certain groups. Finally, to think residential choices of households, urban planning, it is necessary to rethink the planning so to go from the regulatory planning to urbanism project planning and thus think of city based on lifestyles.
