Le choix résidentiel des ménages

Loading...

En provenance du cours de École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Mobilité et urbanisme

62 notes

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Mobilité et urbanisme

62 notes

Le cours présente un tour d’horizon introductif des interactions entre la mobilité et les dynamiques urbaines. Il propose des outils méthodologiques et opérationnels permettant d’appréhender et de réguler la mobilité. Ces vingt dernières années, la mobilité urbaine a beaucoup changé. Le nombre de déplacements de loisirs a augmenté tandis que la part des déplacements pour motif travail a diminué. Dans le même temps, de nouvelles formes de mobilités se sont développées, comme la multirésidentialité, la pendularité de longue distance, le tourisme urbain et l’excursionnisme. Ces changements ont été concommittants de transformations urbaines comme l’étalement urbain ou la fragmentation. Dans ce contexte, la mobilité est un enjeu pour l’ingénierie des transports urbains et le développement territorial, en particulier urbain: sa régulation nécessite une appréhension nouvelle de la demande de transport. Le cours montre ainsi aux étudiants les interrelations entre la ville et la mobilité, l’espace urbain et les flux de déplacements, tout en leur offrant une vision renouvelée du transport et de son impact sur le territoire et les modes de vie.

À partir de la leçon

La transformation des modes de vie urbains

L’objectif de ce second module est de montrer comment les territoires se sont progressivement transformés en lien avec l’évolution des potentiels de vitesses procurés par les systèmes de transports rapides, puis les technologies de l’information et de la communication.

Le choix résidentiel des ménages21:25

L'effet barbecue10:58

Le développement de la mobilité douce3:20

Rencontrer les enseignants

Vincent Kaufmann
Professeur
Laboratoire de Sociologie Urbaine, Faculté de l’Environnement Naturel, Architectural et Construit, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Aniss M. Mezoued
Docteur
Laboratoire de Sociologie Urbaine, Faculté de l’Environnement Naturel, Architectural et Construit, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Bernard Declève
Professeur
Faculté d’Architecture, d’ingénierie architecturale et d’urbanisme, Université catholique de Louvain

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.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play