In London, I was quite intrigued that people really were quite fascinated by the title.
Participants actually joked about it, enquired whether their flat was disobedient enough.
They felt that somehow it was linked with civil disobedience and activism in Romania.
Some participants questioned the meaning of disobedience. They often questioned the results of our project and the usefulness of it, they said.
Will this project help us or will the project have the world in any way?
In a sense, in the Norwegian context, I think this kind of co-design and participatory led project is in itself a disobedient practise,
especially if you compare it with the ideals of modernism and these ideals from from the post-war era when the buildings we're looking at were built.
Welcome to the Disobedient Buildings Podcast, an AHRC funded project at the University of Oxford.
Our focus is on the everyday lives of people living in ageing blocks of flats in three European countries the UK, Romania and Norway.
In this episode, the team will introduce some of the key topics that feature in season one.
We hope to contextualise some of the conversations we had with a variety of experts working in housing,
ranging from architects and academics to designers and activists.
My name is Inge Daniels.
I'm a professor of anthropology at the University of Oxford and the principal investigator on the Disobedient Buildings Project.
And over the past year, I've been conducting empirical research in blocks of flats in central London.
For today's discussion, I will be joined by the two postdoctoral researchers on the project Gabriela Nicolescu and Anna Andersen.
I'm Gabriela Nicolescu, an anthropologist and a curator for this project.
I conduct research in Bucharest, the capital of Romania, in a post socialist context.
Yes. Hi, my name is Anna Andersen, and I am an architectural historian and also a filmmaker.
And in this project, I've been working on Norway and more specifically, Oslo.
I would like to start our discussion by clarifying the title of the project, a disobedient buildings.
So in my view, the ageing high rise buildings we study can be called disobedient for two reasons.
Firstly, they're materially disobedient. So by which I mean that over time, the physical structure has decayed.
And this, coupled with maintenance and management issues, often has led to a real impact on the health and safety of inhabitants.
This material disobedience can also be extended, for example, to unruly interiors like messy storage spaces or dangerous cables or plugs.
But also, the inhabitants within the buildings and the flats can be disobedience.
For example, their bodies have aged over time.
There might be disability issues, or even the make up of the household might be quite different from what we see as the standard nuclear family.
Like, people might be living alone, we might have same sex couples etc.
But I also think that this kind of material disobedience can be linked with more intangible disobedience like sounds, smells or moods.
So that's one way in which I would think about disobedience, but also in a more conceptual way.
Disobedience of the buildings is linked with how they used to be the pinnacle of modernity and technological innovation.
But then over time, they have not quite fulfilled this promise.
They have failed.
If you want to sustain the original context in which they were produced and the ideologies they were associated with and topologies are,
of course, very aware that we, we conceptualise and frame.
Our research is often very different from how people experience things in practise.
And I think it would therefore be interesting to discuss whether during our fieldwork disobedience did or did not emerge as a team on the ground.
In Romania, it's interesting that some participants, especially in their 60s, educated in the historical materialism of their time,
questioned the meaning of disobedience, and they often questioned the results of our project and the usefulness of it, they said.
Will this project help us or will the project have the world in any way?
But after a few months of research, I think people realised that they wanted to show me their life in the blocks and
they they just tell me stories about how they are happy with the life they live,
or the fact that the block is surrounded by vegetation or some other stories are
stories of people not liking the the sounds or the that their neighbours do,
or the way the neighbours throw their waste. And they think that by telling me these stories, they implicitly talk about disobedient neighbours.
And in episode three, you up one, Konstantinos talks about the lack of trust that Romanians have in state institutions.
And I think in this context, the lack of trust in institutions can be connected in very fruitful ways with the term disobedience.
Yeah. And I mean the the borrowed, I'm focussing on them in Oslo.
It is located centrally in the city, and it is an exceptionally diverse population who lives in this this area.
And it is interesting during fieldwork to see how even individuals who live in in
the area position themselves within this very diverse population and and also
how they see their own role in certain frictions that could take place between
groups and and also how certain behaviours then are experienced as disobedience,
such as making noise at night.
For example, in the fourth episode of the podcast, I speak with the Jack Hughes and Elsa Abrahamsen from the architectural firm Maker's Hub.
In this episode, they speak about the fact that they work with the forgotten people and the forgotten spaces of this borough.
And what they found is that participatory methods and also co-designing with the people who live in the
area has proven quite powerful in terms of empowering people and making people heard in a different way.
In a sense, in the Norwegian context, I think this kind of co-design and participatory led project is in itself a disobedient practise,
especially if you compare it with, as he was saying in the intro,
with the ideals of modernism and these ideals from from the post-war era, when the buildings we're looking at were built in the seventh episode,
I speak with with Tom Davies, who is working on a Ph.D. in conservation and works at the Olso School of Architecture and Design.
And I think he's he's stressing that in processes of preservation and maintenance and rehabilitation of these buildings,
we need to not only think about the material elements of rehabilitation and preservation,
but also communities and social relations should be preserved.
And it's interesting then to see how maybe also disobedient practises and disobedience need to be included in in these approaches to preservation.
That's a very interesting idea.
And also, Gabriela, to look at how in the different cultural context, in a way disobedience was approached quite differently, I think, in London.
I was quite intrigued that people really were quite fascinated by the title, and many participants actually, I mean,
joked about it and they enquired whether their flat was disobedient enough to participate even in the project.
And I think one of the reasons for this is that they they felt that somehow it was linked with civil disobedience and activism,
that that's what the project was interested in.
Quite a few people actually asked me if the project could help them in their fight against redevelopment plans or regeneration projects in the area,
but a bit like what Gabriela was saying earlier in London.
Also, people highlighted that other people in their blocks we're not obeying rules or regulations
that was quite strong of feeling people had about what disobedience was or could be.
And the examples given to me were things like fire safety, for example, people leaving buggies, but also shopping.
Cards and other things,
DIY modules in the hallways that are also fire escapes that was often mentioned or waste collection where people would leave rubbish in
the corridors or actually breaking corporate rules that was mentioned many times during my fieldwork with people not wearing masks.
But it's perhaps interesting to think more generally about rules and regulations,
and this actually became quite central to our project in many ways because we were supposed to start our fieldwork in all three countries in May 2020.
But then, of course, COVID happened and we had to rethink our research.
And in a way, our own project became disobedient, which is quite hilarious in a way.
So we had to rethink and how could we do in-depth research from afar?
How could we collect materials for exhibitions when we were not able to meet people
even for a long period of time or not even able to leave our homes if you want?
So we designed and circulated research backs that contained a number of tools,
and these tools were again disobedient in that they were not the digital online methods that many people were using,
but they were paper based and low-tech tools like postcards, disposable cameras,
maps that allowed participants of all ages and backgrounds to study their own homes in their own space and time.
So during the podcast, we asked the experts participating in our interviews to engage with some of these packed materials.
And so I thought it would be interesting if you and I and Gabriella could tell
us how the packs were actually received by your participants in the field.
Yeah, I mean, it's been very intriguing to to get these packs,
but it's always exciting to see postcards arriving in the post or when the pack being returned.
And I think one of the things that I found quite incredible is that when when you do receive a pack and you complete it in your home at your own pace,
at least from my participants, I do feel that they are being quite honest and, you know, sharing, you know,
intimate stories and about their own lives, which has been quite wonderful to see in terms of the tasks.
I think my personal favourite is the disposable camera, and I've gotten feedback from many of the participants who enjoyed it,
but also felt quite frustrated because we're so used to taking pictures with their cameras now on the phone.
Then we could just delete. We could look at them, we could change small things.
Whereas a disposable camera,
you have one attempt and you could look at it until after the film has been processed and we're not used to taking photos in that way.
Most of us. So people felt a bit like they were uncertain.
Did they, you know, manage to make the flash work? Did they frame what they wanted to frame when with the camera?
But I think the result when we got it back was something that was quite raw and unedited and sometimes, you know, filled with, let's say, mistakes.
And to me, that but also again, like gave a great insight, I think, into the everyday life of people's homes.
And and the result is something that is highly, highly subjective.
Some participants, they've been curious of why we are asking the questions that we are asking.
Others experience the Packs as a bit unconventional. I think we're used to participating in research studies.
You get a form to fill out the boxes to tick and then we have very, very open questions.
And for some, that was refreshing and fun.
But others felt that the openness actually was a bit frustrating because then they started wondering, what is it actually that we're looking for?
And they thought it was difficult to answer the questions.
But I think what I really enjoyed with the podcast is that we received the packs and then we do follow up with conversations.
If we were able to meet outdoors, we could go for walks and walk the route of the map.
People dream of the neighbourhoods or we would bring photographs they've taken and then based pages would be conversation starters.
And the material we go back definitely shows what the participants are interested in.
And then that could kind of guide the questions and then lead us into understanding more about the everyday lives of people living in books and plots.
I felt that the packs were a wonderful tool, especially in this in these times of of the COVID pandemic,
and I think that generally participants in Bucharest responded well to the parks.
They took time and invested a lot of energy and creativity into taking good images,
into making nice maps, writing postcards and collecting different items for our possible exhibition.
Participants in the social bloc told me that he did not clean on purpose his
flat before taking pictures because he wanted me to see his modest income.
But she said she's an exception.
Most of the people invested a lot of time into cleaning their flats before taking pictures, and I think I was talking to one participant,
and she said that one day she spent one day to clean the flat and at the end, take the pictures, write the card.
Eight hours. She spent two to do everything that she was.
She wanted to do fill in amongst Romanian participants.
Many people were not sure that they completed the tasks correctly, and they were asking me, Did I took the picture right?
Do they have enough light? What a pity. I didn't do the pictures and very often they.
Continued to take other pictures with their own mobile and send me other images through via WhatsApp for the podcast.
I have used, for example, materials I draw on on dust bags because Bucharest is one of the most polluted capitals in Europe.
And indeed, the discussion with Stefan Ghenciulescu from episode three went into that direction.
So after discussing the dust bag with Stefan Ghenciulescu, we started to talk about the number of cars in Bucharest and how polluted the city is.
Then I also wanted to draw on the letters that participants wrote.
Many of them have a common fear, and they express it through through the letters.
It is related to earthquakes, and it's it's interesting to see how from a letter and from the fear of one of the participants about earthquakes.
Asked if I could get earthquakes has been a very interesting topic that not many of us would imagine.
For example,
was that exist inside people's homes if one person cuts one important wall in their flat to the entire structure of the bloc is compromised.
And for the Romanian context, this is it's very important because earthquakes happen quite often, but they are not very strong.
But when they are stronger, they have had huge impacts and many people died.
I think I would very strongly agree with both of you that the packs were a positive.
If you want a positive surprise, I'll say that because I've conducted lots of previous research in people's homes.
I always saw the packs as an emergency measure.
I think, as Anna said,
that we would follow up with fieldwork that this was just something to to get us through the pandemic and the lockdowns initially.
But I was surprised to see how well the packs worked. So it was a bit of an experiment, I think, where we weren't sure what was going to happen.
So where we tried to salvage as much as we could from the project and use this new methodology.
But again, like I mentioned me myself as well,
I was intrigued by how intimate the packs or the level of intimacy of the packs better
and how they enable me to get to know the people without even meeting them if you want.
But also the other way around.
I think it's the first time I've conducted research with people about their homes where they were very open from the start.
Normally, it would take me much longer for people to open up like that and tell me stories,
quite personal stories about their homes and their lives within.
Perhaps another thing that occurred in London with the packs was that people really love handmade nature of them, and I actually made them myself.
All the packs, actually 120, have counted in my kitchen in London, so it was a labour of love, I can say.
And then of course, there had to be shipped to Bucharest and Oslo,
and at that time there were only two courier services and the very trusted post office that enabled us to continue our research in that way,
I think, which is also fascinating if one thinks about it.
But I think in London, this stress on the handmade is very much linked with a real boom in craft and making, particularly during lockdown one.
I think so. People really took in a positive way to adapt.
Then another point I think in London with the packs was that a lot of the people actually that I could reach with the packs were living on their own.
Many of them elderly. And I think it was a really welcome distraction for many reasons when they were stuck alone at home.
And people have really mentioned that, that it kept them focused or it gave them something to do if you want.
But also, as lockdowns diminished or things opened up,
people talked about doing the task together with children and grandchildren and the packs becoming the kind of social activity,
which I think is something I hadn't expected that would happen.
So that's positive things about the packs.
But I also think, as Anna mentioned already, we should think a little bit about the limitations of the pack.
We talked already about the photographs and the people's frustration with not being able to edit, but other limitations.
For example, I'm very aware that there were many people that we could not reach with the packs,
minorities, migrant populations, but also people that were less used to the the way the pack.
Were like there were art, craft based tasks like taking photos, making maps,
but all the also issues with language because quite a few of the tools were text based, like writing postcards, writing letters.
So I think from the feedback I got that people felt uncomfortable or unfamiliar with how it impacts worked, and often packs got lost.
They were never returned. The thing menu for that reason, but also participants later when I contacted them and we could meet,
they were happy to participate, but they didn't want to do the packs, for example.
And finally, perhaps dimensions, of course, during a time of such serious crises as we had with the pandemic,
many people might have thought this is not a thing, an important thing to do at this time.
And I think this raises questions about even doing research during a disaster, I think,
which is something that anthropologists have been thinking about a lot recently and whether people
are at all ready to do this kind of research during the pandemic itself while it's happening.
Thank you for listening to the Disobedient Buildings podcast, edited by Anna Andersen and produced by Jack Soper.
If you want to hear more, go to our website at WWw Dot Disobedient Buildings dot com or search for a podcast where you normally find your podcasts.
In the next episode, I will take you to London to speak to Danny Dorling, Professor of Geography at the University of Oxford.
What are the most pressing housing issues in London today?