This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected according to the proposed strategy. The chapter is divided into four sections. The first section is a summary of the evolution of El Gallo since its creation. The intention of this section is to familiarize the reader with the context and changing environment in which dwellings evolved at El Gallo, that is, how the land was distributed, how the site was settled, how services were provided, and how the housing stock of El Gallo was formed. In the second section selected case studies of El Gallo's housing stock are documented. This section introduces the household composition and the household's perspective of dwelling growth. The third part comprises the analysis of the sample on each dimension of growth and evolution. The last section integrates the information collected in a summary of the growth and evolution of the dwellings at El Gallo.
3.1 El Gallo, from 1963 to 1991
. Selection of Participants and Land Allocation
El Gallo, like most sponsored housing programs, followed a screening process to allocate land to applicants. As established in the guidelines of "El Roble Pilot Program," the selection procedure gave priority to families evicted by the construction of the first hydroelectric dam and by the CVG's infrastructure works. The directions for plot allotment stated that plots were to be equally distributed among applicants of the following four groups:
. Applicants with construction experience.
. Applicants with leadership skills.
. Applicants with monthly incomes below Bs200 (approx. US$44).
. Applicants with monthly incomes between Bs800 and Bs1,000 (approx. US$178 to US$222). (Corrada, R. 1962:2 Annex C.0)
In an analysis of the selection process, Corrada mentioned that social workers responsible for the screening process exceeded their functions, selecting only the most needy applicants and rejecting "socially undesirable" families. (Ibid 1966:18).According to Corrada, the selection procedures contradicted the initial idea of having a random representation of the social diversity of the low-income population of Ciudad Guayana (Corrada, R. 1966:18).
According to this view, El Gallo had been consistently considered a better-off low-income neighbourhood. Already in 1967 a survey of 30 households showed an average annual income of $766 (Caminos, H.& J.F.Turner 1969:218). Unfortunately, no data were available to know the household income and other characteristics at the moment of arrival in the settlement. However, according to Silva's observations, most of the people living in ranchos (55% of the households) were unemployed or employed on a temporary basis (Silva, J. 1964:10).
In a survey carried out in 1975, Daykin identified certain characteristics of the inhabitants of El Gallo. More than 85% of them came from the country's north-east or the Guayana region, where they spent their youth living in small cities or villages (centers of less than 50,000 inhabitants). Less than half were skilled workers, white collar workers and clerks or owners of medium- and small-size businesses with a small percentage of semi-professionals (6.3%). More than half lived in the city the previous 5 years, and lived in an average of 2 neighbourhoods before moving to El Gallo (Daykin, D. 1979:87-115).
. Settling and Facilities Provision
The process of settling began in October 1963. By October of 1964 all 434 plots were occupied. People themselves made their connections to the electricity poles, and attached rubber hoses to the water taps so water could be brought directly to the houses. By the end of 1964 the main water pipeline and individual water connections were installed in a common effort between the public water department and the community. According to old neighbours, project plans, pipes, working materials and technical assistance were publicly provided. The inhabitants cooperated with their labour to install the water line. Inhabitants agreed among themselves that those who were not able to work themselves should look for representatives to do their job (i.e., relatives, friends or paid workers). Many of the technical assistants hired from the CVG to direct the works were inhabitants of El Gallo with experience in construction work. In 1975 El Gallo incorporated a sewer system under the same work participation scheme. In 1976 the development agency built sidewalks andpaved streets.
The community organization and participation described by the inhabitants were remarkable. Common problems and needs were discussed in general assemblies. Water and sewage installation were considered achievements of the community, as well as the acquisition of the construction materials for the first school. Shortly before 1967, the CVG built a community center, where courses for adults were taught by members of several communities and special courses were organized for school holidays. Today community facilities at El Gallo include the school for kindergarten and complete basic education, which is directly funded by the Ministry of Education. The school offers a breakfast (Desayuno Escolar) for the students, which is funded by the Ministry of Family Support and Development and run by the inhabitants themselves. The sports courts and the neighbourhood association are run and funded by inhabitants. At the time of this survey, the neighbourhood association was organizing the construction of the church.
. Housing Provision and Diversity
According to aerial pictures of El Gallo taken between February and March of 1964, there were 123 occupied plots containing 121 "ranchos" or "barracas" (shacks) and 2 permanent dwellings. In August of the same year the total number of households living at the site increased to 300; of those, 241 lived in ranchos (55% of the total number of plots). The process of building the house in these initial stages varied from household to household. However, people usually moved into the plot after a rancho was built and then either applied for a loan to purchase materials or built a house on their own.
The purpose of the UMUP projects was to incorporate the urban squatter into the legal framework of the city, so the construction of a house was a main objective, and it was encouraged by giving the inhabitants the right to buy the land. However, the permanent house had to meet official standards and be accepted by the local engineering office. Meanwhile, the land would only be leased to the user. According to this scheme, the inhabitant was free to build a rancho, but was strongly advised to set it in the back of the plot so that the front space could be used for the final house. According to Daykin, the process was as follows:
Residents [were] encouraged to construct their shacks toward the back of the lot allowing space for piecemeal construction of a cement block house toward the front. Once the cement block house [was] complete, the tin shack [was] removed (Daykin D. 1978:238).
With few variations this pattern was followed by most of the settlers.
To complement the housing aspect of the program, three ready-to-use house designs produced by the housing program were made available to the users who obtained loans to build their houses. However, one of the designs was preferred over the others by the borrowers. Several objections to the other two options were made by the inhabitants. Among them were the lack of a porch and the inconvenience of an internal patio during rain time (Silva J., 1964:16)(see designs a and b, Fig.5). The preferred design allowed easy future extensions to the house. Thus, it was reproduced with a range of variations, such as changing the dimensions, moving the doors and windows and even excluding the kitchen or the bathroom (see design c, Fig.5). Changes in the design brought serious conflicts with municipal authorities, who did not accept the houses. Other problems occurred when households of the loan program stopped the house construction before it was finished or did not remove the rancho immediately after finishing the construction work. Nevertheless, official pressure did not succeed, and eventually, people finished dwellings at their own pace and according to their own spatial preferences.Thumbnail('cr-fig05-sm.jpg','cr-fig05.jpg'); ?>
When El Gallo obtained individual services, neighbours could apply for programs reserved for fully serviced developments. According to the Structures Inventory made by the CVG in 1967, between 1965 and 1966, 160 houses were built by the Malariology Division of the Health Ministry (see group A, Fig.5), which together with the 129 ranchos and 132 houses built before 1965, comprised the total housing stock of El Gallo. At the end of the 1960s, the areas where public taps were placed were subdivided and "invaded" by inhabitants' relatives and friends, resulting in 14 new plots to the original plot provision. The local housing agency -- Funvica -- intervened with a program of basic units to replace the remaining ranchos (see group B, Fig.5). A total of 54 units were added. Around the middle of the 1970s, the CVG itself divided the remaining "green areas" in plots for 31 new applicants who ended up building by their own means.
According to observations of the survey and the aerial photographs, the housing diversity for El Gallo was as follows:
.1 Formally Produced Dwellings:
- 206 units built by the Malariology Division of the Health Ministry.
- 54 units built by the local housing agency Funvica.
.2 Formally Prescribed Dwellings:
88 dwellings built according to three different plans and specifications under the "El Roble" Pilot Program, although some households started the proposed dwelling but finished it years later.
- 5 dwellings according to plan a.
- 8 dwellings according to plan b.
- 75 dwellings according to plan c.
.3 Self-Produced Dwellings:
126 dwellings varying widely in size, style and shape that were built at various times. The latest group of dwellings was started in 1978.
Five dwellings, however, could not be clearly identified as belonging to any of these groups.
3.2 A New Consideration: The User-Participation Level
The original diversity of El Gallo was relevant to the study because it also involved a different approach to housing. The three differentiated groups incorporated the user in the housing process at different times:
. In Formally Produced Dwellings, households received a finished basic unit; the user did not play a part in the production of the dwelling.
. In Formally Prescribed Dwellings, households received plans and specifications, but they were responsible for the construction process. At the same time they also enjoyed a certain amount of freedom which allowed them to make individual adjustments and variations. Households had a restricted or limited participation in the production of the dwelling.
. In Self-Produced Dwellings, households chose the financing method, design, materials and pace of construction of their dwellings. Households enjoyed a total participation in their housing process.
In the next section, case studies were selected to illustrate dwelling evolution according to these three levels of user-participation.
3.3 Housing Provision According to Levels of User-Participation: Selected Case Studies
This section portrays how dwellings grew and changed at El Gallo according to different user-participation groups. A summary of the characteristics of each group of sampled households is followed by a description of a case study of the same group. Graphic information about the house evolution and segments of the conversations held with households are used to illustrate each case study.
The purpose of the section is twofold: to present the household characteristics of each sampled group of dwellings, and close the gap between the survey observations and the households' view of dwelling evolution. The observations are summarized at the end of the section as they are analyzed in section 3.6 for the whole sample of this study. Table 1 summarizes general household characteristics of the sampled groups.
Table 1. Household characteristics of sampled groups.
|characteristics / dwelling #||size #peop.||time in C.G.||time in ElGallo||original settler||#dwell. before||dwelling owner||plot owner||initial rancho|
|G R O U P A||# 22||3||32||26||yes||2||yes||no||no|
|G R O U P B||# 18||8||32||28||yes||3||yes||no||yes|
|G R O U P C||# 71||7||12||2||no||6||no||no||no|
|G R O U P D||#178a||10||26||14||yes||3||yes||no||yes|
Legend: (Size #peop.: size of the household, Time in C.G.: time living in Ciudad Guayana, Time in El Gallo: time living at El Gallo; Original settler: whether or not the current household was the first on the plot; #dwell.before: number of dwellings inhabited before the current one; dwell. owner: dwelling ownership; plot owner: plot ownership; initial rancho: whether or not dwellings were preceded by ranchos).
3.3a Formally Produced Dwellings: No User-Participation
This category includes the two different basic units offered to users. The program characteristics of both groups were very similar (both were publicly implemented programs based on the household's regular income). The difference between the number of units of each type found in the settlement (206 vs 54) reflected the number of units available from each program and the different times the programs were implemented. No evidence was found regarding the user's preference for either one of the two cores. Subgroups were presented separately to facilitate observations.
. Group A. Basic units of type 1
Most units of this group (7 out of 8) were preceded by ranchos. Households of these dwellings had been in Ciudad Guayana an average of 31 years. These families had been living at El Gallo from 23 to 29 years, with the sole exception of two households, which had been living there for considerably less time (7 and 15 years). Households were comprised of 5.62 persons on average, ranging from 2 to 10people. All houses were owned by their users, only 5 of which were the original settlers. Of the remaining group of owners, one had bought a rancho from the original settler and built the current house, another had bought a house and the last had inherited a house. However, just one of the households owned the plot. The others paid a monthly rent to the CVG for the use of the land. All units of type 1 were preceded by a rancho with one exception, which was directly built.
. Group B. Basic units of type 2
Again, only 1 of the 7 dwellings of this group was directly built. Households in this group had been in Ciudad Guayana an average of 27 years, but barely more than half of the time in El Gallo (an average of 14.42 years). The average household size was 8 persons. With the exception of one renter, houses were owned by their users, though only 2 out of the 7 were original settlers. Other households bought either a rancho (2) or a house (2) from the previous users. Six of the houses of the subgroup were preceded by a rancho. None of them owned the land. The following examples represent the households and dwellings of these groups.
House #301Thumbnail('cr-fig06-sm.jpg','cr-fig06.jpg'); ?>
This was one of the houses provided by the Malariology Housing Program. A high fence enclosed the front yard, which was totally cemented, except for an area for two big mango trees. There was no porch in this house, but the four chairs in the shaded front yard indicated there was no need for one. Exterior and interior walls had finishings and had been recently painted. Inside the house, the living room had been enlarged by the removal of one of the original bedrooms. This large space was furnished with two separate living room sets. The dining room had also been enlarged and was followed by an extension containing the kitchen area. This kitchen, together with two bedrooms, was part of the first extension made to the house. The new bedrooms were larger than the original ones. However, the windows of the original bedrooms were shut with pressed-board to gain privacy from the new bedrooms, thus leaving them without ventilation and light (see Fig.6).
An open veranda at the back of the house was added and was used as a laundry and drying facility. A structure covered with a tin roof at the rear of the backyard was being used to store bird cages and construction materials. The backyardwas also paved, except for holes for two trees. Four adults and two children (a couple and their two daughters and two grandsons) lived here. The father drove a taxi, the mother worked in the social department of the CVG, and one of the daughters did administrative work in a carpenter's workshop. The older daughter had recently divorced and returned home with her two children.
"We came here relocated from the land for the dam. We had a big rancho there. We built one here. There were two rooms at the beginning, but then we added two more when the girls were born. It was here at the backyard... see the lines on the concrete floor? We lived three years there. Then my husband bought this house. Malariology was building these houses everywhere. This one was also made by them. It was so small! I didn't want to move in because it was so small. There was no space for us. I cooked at the house and cleaned it, but I lived in my rancho. We first added the kitchen and these two rooms and finally tore down the rancho. People liked the way we made the new bedrooms seem larger than they are. The kitchen was big enough, but then we built over the "zaguan" [meaning the narrow side yard] and made it bigger.
The last thing we did was the new bathroom. It's larger! [than the old one]. And the veranda there in the backyard... it was for resting and chatting, but now we have the washing machine there. We chat in the front yard; it has trees so it is shaded. We also built that roof at the rear of the backyard. I have nothing there, just trash and the pigeon cages. My daughter likes pigeons, but when she married we got rid of them. They are so messy! See them over there? They still come here. My daughter divorced and came back home, she and my two grandsons.
Now I am thinking of building rooms using that roof. Three rooms I could build. People can use the other "zaguan" to go into the backyard. Many people have done it that way, and I think it is a good idea. It is something for the elderly, you know. We have nothing but this house."
This house was one of the cores built by Funvica but was enlarged to more than twice its initial size. The front yard had some grass but no plants. Actually it was just an earth extension with little care taken of it. The façade was not modified, except for a big window that was opened to the front bedroom under the porch. One of the side yards was closed by two garage doors; the other one, by a high wall. All exterior walls had finishings and were painted.
A living-room set and a sewing machine occupied the former living/dining/kitchen space. The front bedroom had been changed into a shop, which had remained closed for several years. The kitchen was moved to a large extension at the back of the original dwelling. The new kitchen was almost as big as the living room, making it possible to have a dining table inside. Thumbnail('cr-fig07-sm.jpg','cr-fig07.jpg'); ?> A back door opened to a large porch, which could be directly reached from the street through the garage doors. The porch had doors leading to two rooms and a second bathroom. This bathroom could also be reached through the other door in the laundry area. The laundry area opened to the other side yard, which was a carefully maintained garden with plants in cans and hanging pots. Wires crossing the area were used for drying laundry. A small area at the back of the house was used as a storage space for construction tools and materials. None of the exterior walls of the added sections of the house had finishings (see Fig.7).
There were seven people living in this house. A woman head of the household, her three children (two girls and a boy), an adult nephew, and a married couple who were renting one room.
"We bought a rancho from my mother-in-law here in this plot; she lived a short time here, but she didn't like it and moved to her daughter's house. It was there at the back [the shack]. It was so small! We never lived there... well, we lived a short time, but then my husband got a job, and Funvica built us the house. Not this house, the first one. It was just three bedrooms and the living room. I opened the shop in the front room with a few things. I used to sell candies and sodas. I still have the shop, though I don't sell any more. Those who know I have the shop still come to buy things, a softdrink, a snack. So I always keep something. I don't earn anything from the shop; it just pays for itself.
My husband died in 1985.... Yes, '84 or '85, just when we were building the kitchen. The house was already paid and we were building the kitchen there at the rear. Things stopped then, you know. But my nephew came and helped me and my children to go on. He lives in one of the rooms there; I rent the other. I couldn't charge him anything. He is my best helper and also the only one who works here; he works so much. A couple live in the other. They are out all day. They don't have children. We've just finished the bathroom. It has two entrances, you see? It was my idea, so they can use it and us too."
3.3b Group C. Formally Prescribed Dwellings: Limited User-Participation
The sample included one dwelling of each of the less popular designs and 4 of the most popular. Except for one, these dwellings were not preceded by ranchos. Households of this group had an average of 30 years in Ciudad Guayana, 22 of which had been at El Gallo. These households averaged 8.50 persons per dwelling. Houses were owned by their users with one exception, a household who was renting the house. All house owners were the original settlers, however, only one of them owned the land. In 5 cases, the house was the first building on the plot; no previous structure had been built.
House 92 was one of the houses financed by a loan of the pilot project. The house was 27 years old and had evolved considerably since its initial structure. The main façade had two stories hidden by dense vegetation of palms and trees. It was well painted and decorated. Lateral façades, as well as the rear façade, were not visible from the front and their raw concrete block was exposed.
The dimensions of interior spaces were generous. As in several of these houses, a third bedroom took the place of the proposed living room. The dining and kitchen area were also transformed into a big living room that exhibited a new living room set protected with transparent plastic sheets. Next to the living room was the kitchen, a large space containing two dining tables. A roof over the side yard beside the living room was built to add two bedrooms. All interiors were well finished and painted. Floors were shiny, finished on polished concrete.Thumbnail('cr-fig08-sm.jpg','cr-fig08.jpg'); ?>
A concrete roof over the porch allowed for an extra room which was reached by an exterior staircase. This room gave a two-story appearance to the house. The front yard was a reduced, but neat garden with a variety of plants, trees, small paths and masonry work (see Fig.8). The backyard was used to raise some chickens and to store construction materials, tools plus a variety of other things. There were 11 people living in the house. The couple and 3 children, the mother-in-law, 2 brothers and a sister-in-law, and one sister with her husband.
" We were already here. Hum, no..., well, I lived in that house down the road; I was born here, see? My husband came and bought this lot, and then we built this house. He asked for one of those loans they [the CVG] were offering. They gave us plans to build the house. My husband hired workers, and his brothers also helped. I worked too; I changed all the house. I didn't like the kitchen here inside... and the living room was too small too! I enlarged it and moved the entrance. We built as long as we had money, and then we moved in. The kitchen came later. At the beginning, it was just a roof in the backyard. But then we built it all, walls and roof at once... at the rear. The porch is not original either. It is bigger [than in the plan]. It is made with clay slabs and concrete.
We built all this. My brother-in-law knows how; we helped him. He was the one who built the standpipes here at El Gallo. He was also hired by the CVG when the sewer was installed.
Many relatives live here. That's why we built those two rooms there. My brother-in-law and my sister sleep there now. In the small room sleeps my brother during the day. He works in the steel mill, you know, in the night shift. Last year we built that room over the porch. We put the stairs outside, it's better. We are going to rent it, but my other brother-in-law lives there now."
3.3c Group D. Self-Produced Dwellings: Total User-Participation
This was the largest group in the sample (10 dwellings). Households in these dwellings lived an average of 23 years in the city and 20 of them at El Gallo. Seven dwellings were preceded by ranchos, while the others were directly built. The average size of these households was 6.10 persons. A large percentage of original settlers was also found among them (8); the other two had bought a rancho. All dwellings were owned by their users, but there was only one land-owner.
The distribution of this house was similar to the majority of the self-provided houses of El Gallo. Rooms were at both sides of a central circulation area, which was wide enough for a dining table. However, the plan was based on the most widely used plan which included the bedrooms on one side and the social areas on the opposite side.
Walls were crude concrete block outside and inside, but this was one of the newest houses at El Gallo. Access to three of the bedrooms was from inside the house, while a fifth bedroom was added to the fourth and these two were rented as a two-room unit. These rooms had direct access from outside. The kitchen and living room were the biggest rooms of the house. The latter was lit from a small windownear the kitchen. All other rooms had better light except one, which had no windows at all. A rear terrace was added recently to wash and dry linen as a business, and another bathroom was in construction beside this terrace.Thumbnail('cr-fig09-sm.jpg','cr-fig09.jpg'); ?>
The front porch was a tin roof supported by wood poles. It was part of the old rancho, which was located at the front of the plot. Construction materials, as well as some tools, were stored under it (see Fig.9). There were 11 people living in this house, the couple, four sons, a daughter, two grandsons, and a tenant couple.
" We came here in 1977, when these new plots were allocated. We first built a rancho. It had four rooms and we lived there until we started building this house. We built the house in parts. See, part of the rancho was where the house is now. We didn't demolish it at once..., instead we built parts of the house while parts of the rancho were removed. We demolished everything except the living room and the kitchen..., well what is the porch now. I think we'll leave it; it's a fresh and big porch.
My husband and I sleep in the first room, and the three boys in the second one. The girl used to have the third one, but then this couple came. My husband added that other room to make it like a small apartment. They also have a stove inside and we will finish the bathroom outside so they don't have to go inside the house. They work all day and don't have children.
The small room is for my daughter. See, I was worried about thieves and bad people, so we didn't open windows to her room. The roof of the back terrace is also new. I do laundry for other people. Now I leave the laundry drying even when it's raining. Oh, there is still so much to do in this house! But you know, slowly... There is no money now. "
3.4 Housing Evolution According to the User-Participation Levels
From these examples many observations can be made about the kind of changes that occurred and are occurring in the dwellings. Probably the most important observation is that no house is considered finished. The observations that follow are clustered around the three dimensions of analysis: area increase, changes in the spatial structure and changes in the use-layout.
. Area Increase
Dwellings #301, #412 and #178b were preceded by ranchos, while #92 wasdirectly built. The rancho area varied from 26 to 60 sqm, depending more on the size of the household than on the time spent living in them. For instance, The rancho of household #301 was initially smaller, but it was enlarged for the two daughters even though the permanent dwelling was built within three years after they arrived. However, dwelling #412 was used by an old couple for about 6 years and was not enlarged. Finally, dwelling #178b built a large rancho initially which did not change until the permanent dwelling was built, when it was removed.
When permanent dwellings were built, the area of the self-produced dwelling was far larger than the bare basic units (116 sqm as opposed to 59 and 62 sqm). Still basic units were smaller than the prescribed dwelling of the loan program which was enlarged in relation to the original plans. Eventually, all dwellings increased their initial dimensions independently of the way they were built. Households of dwellings #301 and #412 complained about the size of the basic unit, as well as about the dimensions of internal spaces, and started additions and internal changes. However, even after first additions were completed in all dwellings, dwelling #178b still was the biggest, although that was its last addition. The other dwellings kept building additions and, up to the time of the survey, the amount of construction that had been progressively added in these dwellings was similar to the first permanent structure built on the plot.
. Extension of the Spatial Structure
Ranchos were similarly laid out, and when the permanent structure was built, ranchos were removed. Household #178b left part of the rancho as a front porch of the dwelling. All dwellings had similar patterns of settlement, leaving front yard, backyard and side yards. However, dwelling 178b reduced one of the side yards to a small space for ventilation and widened the other side yard.
The household of dwelling #142 shrunk the living area to open a small shop in the front bedroom. Soon after, the household started building an extension in the backyard to relocate the small kitchen provided by the housing agency and consequently enlarge the living area. An extra bedroom was also added as part of this extension. Dwelling #301 started similar extensions toward the backyard immediately after the dwelling was built. Dwelling #92 relocated the kitchen in an added area toward the backyard too, but extra bedrooms were added in the side yardinstead. Meanwhile, dwelling #178b added a large veranda and a two-room unit to be rented. The wide side yard of this dwelling became useful to give an independent access to the rental unit.
In the next stage of growth, dwellings #412 and #301 started new additions towards the backyard also for rental purposes. Dwelling #92 also added an independent room to rent, but on top of the porch. Households of dwellings #178b and #301 expressed their intentions to keep extending their dwellings.
. Changes in the Use-Layout
Original use-layouts were also similar among all dwellings. However, almost immediately, kitchens in dwellings #301, #412 and #92 were relocated. New kitchens were cooking, dining and even social areas. In dwelling #92 the proposed kitchen was useless given the size of household, so it was not built. Instead, among the first additions, a large kitchen with room for two dining tables was built. New and larger bedrooms were also built in dwellings #301, #412 and #92. For formally produced or prescribed dwellings, additions during the first stages were made because existing spaces did not meet the household's needs and characteristics.
The self-produced dwelling was already built, meeting household requirements. Thus, first additions were made to obtain extra income from washing or renting since there was a demand for these activities. Young people started their search for housing looking for a cheap and secure room to live in. The same kind of additions were produced in dwellings #301, #412 and #92, but at later stages. Ultimately, households were very conscious that investing in their dwellings was a way to make a living for the future.
3.5 Dwelling Evolution at El Gallo
The following section of this report contains the analysis made for the sample of 31 dwellings of the three housing types. Groups were analyzed separately according to the three dimensions of the study. An analysis of each dimension is concluded with a summary of the most relevant observations.
The three analyses are summarized in the last section, which discusses relationships between changes in each dimension.
3.5a Area Increase
This section of the analysis is based on the aerial photographs of El Gallo taken in 1964, 1967, 1974, 1980, 1983 and 1987. Area increase was analyzed plotting the increases of dwelling area observed in the aerial data. Plans drawn from the survey provided the information for the year 1991 and increased the accuracy of measures taken in the photographs.
The following is an analysis of the area increase for each group of households:
. Group A. Formally Produced Units of Type 1
Most households in this group (7 out of 8) first built a rancho on the plot. The smallest initial area recorded for a rancho was 14.5 sqm, and the largest area recorded before the unit was built was 60 sqm. Ranchos averaged 32.6 sqm of area for the same time. Households spent from 2 to 3 years living in their rancho before building the basic unit.
The area of the new unit was 59 sqm, which in many cases was twice the rancho area (117.9% of rancho area in average). For other households, building the unit did not represent a relevant increase in the dwelling area and even in one case the new unit was smaller than the rancho. That explains why some households did not remove the rancho before the first additions were made as household of dwelling #301 mentioned in section 3.4a.
During the second stage, the dwelling area averaged 113 sqm, almost doubling the original unit area. The smallest dwelling was 74.5 sqm, and the largest 128.5 sqm. This was a considerable change (91.5% of the original area) if one considers that it happened within the 15 years after the first permanent dwelling was seen in theaerial data.
The 6 dwellings that went on to a third stage increased their area to 143.8 sqm on average. This was a much smaller increase of 25.4% of the previous area, although the changes happened between 3 to 13 years after the last stage.
The fourth and last recorded stage was reached only by 2 dwellings that achieved 157 and 171 sqm each (164 sqm on average). This stage was recorded 4 and 11 years, respectively, after the last stage, which is about the same time that the remaining dwellings did not show further increases. Table 2 summarizes the area increase for Group A, provided cores of type 1.
Table 2. Area Increase by Stages of Evolution. Group A, Formally Produced Dwellings. Note: averages are calculated using only dwellings involved in each stage.
|growth stg.||RANCHO STG||1st STAGE||2nd STAGE||3rd STAGE||4rd STAGE|
|house # 22||--||--||59.0||1967||146.0||1980||153.0||1983||--||--|
|house # 72||23.0||1964||59.0||1967||74.5||1980||89.5||1987||--||--|
|house # 73||22.5||1964||59.0||1967||98.0||1980||--||--||--||--|
. Group B. Formally Produced Units of Type 2
Ranchos existed in 6 of the 7 cases. The smallest rancho just before the permanent dwelling was built was 26 sqm, and the largest was 56.5 sqm. At this same moment, ranchos averaged 45.75 sqm, and most of them had been there less than 7 years, a longer time, however, than those of group A.
During the first stage permanent dwellings were built and average area increased to 62.0 sqm. The provided units did not represent a big improvement over the rancho area (52.7% added area) as it was for dwellings of group A.
All dwellings went to a second stage when the basic unit was enlarged. The average area for this stage was 104.3 sqm, and the smallest dwelling was 80.5 sqm, while the largest was 147.5 sqm. It is interesting that the largest dwelling was also the one which was not preceded by a rancho. All dwellings considerably increased their area after completing this stage (an average of 68.3%). The time between the first and second stage according to aerial photographs was 3 to 6 years for most of the households.
Only 3 dwellings of this group went on to a third stage. The average area for these dwellings was 126.1 sqm, the smallest being 108.5 sqm and the largest 151.1 sqm. Households completed this stage within the 7 years after the last time they were observed in the aerial data.
The last stage was reached by two dwellings which increased their areas to 121.5 and 144.5 sqm (133.0 sqm average), a marginal improvement on their last area. Table 3 summarizes the area increase for Group B, provided cores of type 2.
Table 3. Area Increase by Stages of Evolution. Group B, Formally Produced Dwellings.
|growth stg.||RANCHO ST||1st STAGE||2nd STAGE||3rd STAGE||4rd STAGE|
|house # 18||42.0||1967||62.0||1974||80.5||1980||118.5||1987||144.5||1991|
|house # 50||54.0||1967||62.0||1980||83.5||1983||108.5||1987||121.5||1991|
|house # 80||47.0||1967||62.0||1974||124.5||1980||--||--||--||--|
. Group C. Formally Prescribed Dwellings
Only one of the six sampled dwellings built a rancho in this group. Permanent dwellings were built between 1964 and 1967 following the plans and specifications given by the housing agency (see sections 1.3c and 2.3c). The sample included 2 cases of the less popular designs and the remaining 4 of the most popular. Due to the workable size of the sample, no separation was made between different designs. However, differences between designs were pointed out as observed.
The proposed area of the units was about 58 sqm. Three of the sampled dwellings complied with this area. However, one of them was the household that was living in the rancho. This household kept part of the rancho; therefore, building the permanent dwelling represented an increase of 102% of the previous rancho area. The remaining 3 dwellings were built with 5 sqm extra up to twice the proposed area. The average area for the first permanent structure was 80.7 sqm.
The second stage was built within the 3 to 7 years after the permanent dwelling was seen in the aerial photographs. The average area for this stage was 116.3 sqm. The smallest area was obtained by the dwellings of plans 1 and 2 (93.0 and 86.5 sqm, respectively). The largest area of the group was 105.0 sqm.
Table 4 shows the area increase for Group C, Assisted dwellings.
Table 4. Area Increase by Stages of Evolution. Group C.
|growth stg.||RANCHO ST||1st STAGE||2nd STAGE||3rd STAGE||4rd STAGE|
|house # 71||--||--||59.0||1967||105.0||1980||--||--||--||--|
|house # 75||--||--||58.5||1967||93.0||1974||--||--||--||--|
|house # 92||--||--||68.5||1967||115.5||1980||124.5||1987||--||--|