Content uploaded by David Pereira-Martínez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Pereira-Martínez on Aug 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
EAAE – ARCC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
June, 10-13,2020 | Valencia
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/EAAE-ARCC-IC-2020.2020.XXXX
2020, Universitat Politècnica de València
Understanding built (ine)quality in peripheries
through Bourdieu’s distinction:
the case of Porto’s urban area (Portugal)
David Pereira-Martínez1 2, Virgílio Borges Pereira1 2, Plácido Lizancos2, Isabel Raposo3
1 University of Porto (UPorto), Center for Studies in Architecture and Urbanism (CEAU), Portugal
2 University of A Coruña (UDC), Group of Territorial Studies (GET), Spain
3 University of Lisbon (ULisboa), Research Centre for Architecture, Urb. and Design (CIAUD), Portugal
ABSTRACT: Sociological distinction explains how certain subjects (individuals and groups) gain an
advantage using their social, economic, cultural, and symbolic capitals according to Bourdieu. In the
same way, elements in urban areas use their qualities to distinguish themselves in an analogous
competition within both the physical and social space.
The clearest of these qualities is centrality, which describes the benefits of location and precisely
creates the classic distinction between core and outskirts (nowadays measured in time as well).
Urban elements (buildings, for instance) also possess material quality – related to their technical
properties such as size, habitability, or performance – which gives them advantages in material
competition. In the same way, they have cultural-symbolic quality – referring to the interpretation of their
elements such as social appreciation, value, or coherence – which makes them stand out in
representative aspects. These two qualities of distinction are used as axes to develop a two-dimensional
space to study the elements’ positions.
This scheme is applied to housing developments in Porto’s urban area (Portugal) in order to analyse
their qualities (and inequalities). Each ensemble of residential buildings is characterised separately by
its centrality (in distance and time) and by its material and cultural-symbolic quality. The cases of low
centrality, material, and cultural-symbolic quality do not necessarily coincide and then the different types
of peripheries do not necessarily overlap.
As explained and exemplified, urban elements have a certain centrality, material, and cultural-symbolic
quality, which are properties related to respective social, economic, and cultural/symbolic capitals of
their users. This scheme enables discussion of the constructions’ and residents’ problems at the same
time. Thus, research can theoretically circumscribe three types of inequalities: segregation, (energy)
poverty, and marginalisation.
KEYWORDS: Bourdieu’s distinction; Peripheries; Inequalities; Architectural quality; Porto (Portugal).
INTRODUCTION
Inequality is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as an unfair situation in society created by a difference
in social status, wealth, or opportunity. In contrast, quality is in singular a high standard, whilst qualities
(in plural) are the characteristics or features of someone or something. These concepts have a different
etymological evolution, but a related origin (from ‘in-aequalis’ and ‘qualis’). Thus, their relationship
enables research to understand inequality as a process when some qualities are missing, or when a
certain lack of quality exists, in the case of the built environment, architectural quality.
This approach is also relevant to understand peripheries in a broad sense, not only as a location
separated from the centre, but a territory with a lack of certain qualities, for instance, centrality in the
case of geographical peripheries. Similarly, the economic peripheries could be defined by their lack of
economic assets and the social peripheries by their integration problems. For these reasons, the
characteristics and features of the elements emerge as a critical factor to understand inequalities,
especially in territories defined by their differences, like peripheries.
EAAE – ARCC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
June, 10-13,2020 | Valencia
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/EAAE-ARCC-IC-2020.2020.XXXX
2020, Universitat Politècnica de València
To study these complex and unequal situations, this research takes advantage of a methodological
framework based on the differences: Bourdieu’s sociological distinction. Firstly, this paper explains
Bourdieu’s theory and its relevance to architecture. Secondly, a theoretical adaptation is developed to
analyse the qualities of social distinction in architecture. Thirdly, this framework is applied to housing
developments in Porto’s urban area, discussing the empirical results. Finally, this paper analyses the
general implications of this approach and explains its main conclusions and lines of research.
1.0 BOURDIEU’S SOCIOLOGICAL DISTINCTION AND ADAPTATION TO ARCHITECTURE
Sociological distinction explains how certain subjects (individuals and groups) gain an advantage using
their economic, cultural, symbolic, and social capitals, which constitute the interdependent axes of
distinction (Bourdieu 1979). The capitals employed in the social struggle are materialised in several
objects of distinction: possessions – among them buildings -, activities, education, etc. This objects act
on one or several of the abovementioned axes, creating differences in society.
According to Bourdieu, social differences are not only structured by a one-dimensional linear scale, but
rather occur in a social space mainly structured by two composed axes (Fig. 1). Firstly, there is the total
volume of capital, the amount of economic and cultural capital that an agent possesses. Secondly, there
is the composition of capital, which takes into account the differences between them, mainly in terms of
economic and cultural capital. In addition, social and symbolic capitals also act in the same social
scheme. Social capital is not just the number of people that a person knows, but rather the sum of these
people’s capitals, which constitutes the network to which a person has access and can eventually
mobilise. Similarly, the symbolic capital requires some other capitals and a certain position to exert its
influence, namely in terms of social recognition. The positions in the social space thus defined are also
affected by the length of their permanence in the same place and by the trajectory of the subjects (and
their ascendants) in the social space.
Thus, Bourdieu’s theory overtakes the simplistic approach based on economy, to build a complete
system to understand positions in society with their effets de lieu (effects of place). Not only do the
upper classes (++) have money (economic capital): to maintain their hegemonic situation they also have
a high cultural level (cultural capital), relationships with other influential people (social capital), and the
iconic character of their status (symbolic capital). Moreover, they usually get more advantages,
acquiring exclusive pieces and patronising professionals of high cultural capitals. In the same way,
medium and lower classes are characterised by their total volume of capital, but with important
differences according to their capital composition, and also, their habits, tastes, and ideologies (habitus).
This variation of habitus can be illustrated by industrial bourgeoisie (+-) vs. intellectuals (-+) and urban
workers vs. peasants, which was highlighted in several empirical studies in France (Bourdieu 1979).
Lately, this same approach has been used in other countries with relevant results. In Portugal, the
populations of Porto’s neighbourhoods were characterised by their capitals and built environment,
finding a strong correlation between their habits and their economic, cultural, social, and symbolic
capitals (Borges Pereira 2018 and 2016). In Spain, Bourdieu’s distinction has served to explain how
social capital and other characteristics are shared between rural and urban territories (Lamela 2014).
Figure 1, 2: Bourdieu’s social space to study people, proposed social space to study buildings. Source: Authors
EAAE – ARCC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
June, 10-13,2020 | Valencia
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/EAAE-ARCC-IC-2020.2020.XXXX
2020, Universitat Politècnica de València
As mentioned, Bourdieu’s distinction is a complex and holistic framework to understand reality that is
applicable to many approaches: from the sociology of people themselves, to the space they occupy and
the elements they use, issues with an intense relationship with architecture and urban studies. Thus,
buildings are one of the most significant elements of social distinction. Residences, for instance, are
probably the biggest investment that many subjects make in their life (Lizancos 2000). This is why they
carefully decide if a building’s elements give the appropriate (social) representation of them (Villanova,
Leite, and Raposo 1995). As constructions have and use different features for distinction, they also
become subjects of these social processes and play the same role, struggling in social space as a
representation of their users. This is very interesting because then, research can describe buildings by
their characteristics, emphasising high qualities and also claiming against their inequalities. In the same
way as people do, the constructions in urban areas use their qualities to distinguish themselves in an
analogous competition within both the physical and the social space.
This study about built elements changes the terminology to ‘quality’ and ‘qualities’ because these terms
are more appropriate and widely used in the architectural field. This also coincides, as mentioned, with
what is known as quality in design and, more precisely, architectural quality. Bourdieu’s distinction uses
the term capital because it refers to power relationships in society, which would not be exactly the case
of buildings (even if sometimes this metaphorical use can be found). In other words, the buildings’
qualities constitute important capitals for their users; there is an evident and strong connexion between
them, but ‘capital’ remains in the sphere of people and ‘quality’ in the field of architecture.
Quality is an essential discussion in architecture. For instance, it was the topic of the Davos Declaration
of 2018 Towards a high-quality Baukultur for Europe, adopted by the European ministers of culture
(Forte 2019). This topic is especially crucial in peripheries which have a significant lack of architectural
values. As Bourdieu’s distinction focuses on the differences and relationships, it is particularly suitable to
characterise peripheries. Firstly, because they are characterised by their difference from average and
central areas and, secondly, due to their particular lack of homogeneity. In these spaces, distinction’s
theoretical framework can better appreciate and process the variations between elements (for instance,
in comparison with a typological approach).
1.1. Proposed social space for buildings
Taking into account the abovementioned Bourdieusian framework and its multiple implications, an
analogous analysis matrix has been developed to study buildings in an equivalent social space (Fig. 2).
This proposed scheme uses two simple axes, instead of composed ones, for a simpler and more
straightforward explanation. Thus, the new scheme is practically a copy of the original one rotated 45º.
The two main axes are the material quality - related to users’ economic capital - and cultural-symbolic
quality - related to users’ cultural and symbolical capital. These two axes are fully explained in the next
section, but they can be respectively presented as related to physical nature (in a materialistic approach,
mainly quantitative and geometric) and social interpretation (in a cultural and symbolic approach, mainly
qualitative).
This two-dimensional quality space is easy to understand if extreme cases are explained. In housing,
they would be: palaces (++), mansions (+-), artists’ shelters (-+), and shanties (--) (Fig. 2). The proposed
scheme does not make a difference in the lower positions in the composition of quality – which made
sense for people -, because no consequences were detected in built results. Precarious constructions
are so limited that the composition of quality does not seem to introduce variations.
It is also essential to know that many elements are contributing to both axes at the same time, but in
different manners ( i.e. a stone wall is a materialistic asset by its durability and thermic performance and,
at the same time and for other reasons, it is a cultural-symbolic asset because of its semiology and
social appreciation). This two-dimensional scheme about the quality of the built element itself can be
completed by a third axis: centrality. This geographical quality of the place - related to the social capital
of users - completes the proposed scheme of quality.
2.0. QUALITIES OF SOCIAL DISTINCTION IN ARCHITECTURE
This relationship between architecture and social distinction has been previously highlighted in scientific
literature. Several studies have shown how returned migrants (once belonging to the lower classes) take
into account processes related to Bourdieu’s distinction in Northern Portugal (Villanova, Leite, and
Raposo 1995) and in Galicia, Spain (Lizancos 2000). The elements, symbols, and composition of these
EAAE – ARCC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
June, 10-13,2020 | Valencia
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/EAAE-ARCC-IC-2020.2020.XXXX
2020, Universitat Politècnica de València
migrants’ houses are, apart from obvious cultural and necessity issues, consequence of the effets de
lieu (effects of place) in social space. The results are affected by the promoters’ current social position,
as well as their previous one, their path in the social space, and the time spent in each position (Borges
Pereira 2018). Other studies use Bourdieu’s distinction to explain social influence in architectural design,
like the preference for neoclassical design among the upper classes in Brazil (Pulici 2016).
In all these cases, there is a far-reaching discussion about style, taste, and what is and how to measure
architectural quality, a controversial issue since nowadays. The fact that the buildings’ quality is normally
measured on an academic one-dimensional scale hides a more complex reality, which this research
tries to unveil. To achieve this, some preliminary considerations have to be made. Firstly, the proposed
scheme serves to explained erudite academic architecture – the one with significant material and
cultural-symbolic quality. This is a non-especial part of the social space, then comparable to other
categories of buildings and, evidently, the one in a privileged position. Secondly, this research is
focused on the understanding of general and average qualities; in this way, it formulates a basic but
sufficient composition of variables for its objectives.
This approach aims to preliminarily explain the main inequalities between constructions. It can still be
developed with more variables to better characterise other cases: specimens nearer in the social space,
other buildings with other functions apart from housing, or public spaces (which are secondarily taken
into account now). Logically, these general and average qualities do not study issues of composition or
creativity which are essential in art and the history of art. Similarly, neither do they pay attention to
security and structural integrity, which are relevant issues in the analysis of precarious constructions.
This formulation has to be understood then in its general purposes, in a compatible coexistence with
other approaches and possible specific evolutions. By taking these considerations into account, the
different qualities can be now characterised to understand how the lack of them creates inequalities.
2.1. Centrality
The clearest of these qualities is centrality, which describes the benefits of location and, precisely,
creates the classic distinction between core and outskirts. Apart from the geographic approach based on
a distance between each point to the centre, centrality should be nowadays measured in time as well,
according to the different means of transport available for each itinerary: walking, bicycle, car, public
transportation, etc. This property is defined concerning a specified centre: the nearer, the better; but
other similar features like general accessibility could be more adequate in the case of polycentric
systems.
A deeper analysis of this location’s quality should also be complemented with the difficulties and barriers
(disabled access, slopes, stairs, lack of frequency, insecurity, etc). It also has to take into account the
symbolical effects of the (social) barriers to understand the perceived centrality.
2.2. Material quality
Urban elements, residential buildings for instance, also possess material quality which is related to their
technical properties, which give them advantages in the social competition in materialistic terms. These
characteristics are based on the physical nature of the elements and are mainly quantitative and/or
dependant on their geometry. This makes them quite objective and stable. The basic approach to
housing quality in this study is carried out using size, habitability and energetic performance as
variables.
Size refers to the total area of dwellings which includes the usable and constructed area, both with
advantages for users. Dwellings with a certain amount of rooms should be compared to equivalent
dwellings, but more rooms and auxiliary spaces also normally represent an advantage, as well as higher
ceilings. As size analyses part of the habitability, the latter variable refers mainly to the shape and
functionality of the spaces, their relationship with air, sun, and views at the façade, the dimensions of the
exterior adjacent spaces, and their accessibility. Basic assessment of energetic performance provides
an idea of its potential to reduce expenses, energy, and carbon emissions.
Some of these three variables which form material quality are mutually contradictory (e.g. size and
habitability tend to decrease energetic performance). Thus, a high material quality requires a balance
between them and smart strategies. Moreover, for a deeper analysis, components like energy
consumption, annual expenses, and carbon emissions should be studied separately and other
properties like construction costs, sustainability, thermal comfort, utility, and durability should be taken
into account.
EAAE – ARCC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
June, 10-13,2020 | Valencia
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/EAAE-ARCC-IC-2020.2020.XXXX
2020, Universitat Politècnica de València
2.3. Cultural-symbolic quality
In the same way, buildings have cultural-symbolic quality which makes them stand out in representative
aspects. These characteristics are based on the social interpretation of their elements and are mainly
qualitative and dependant on value judgements. This makes them relative to the society and sometimes
partially subjective. Cultural and symbolic fields are conceptually different (and related to different
capitals of their users), though they are difficult to separate from each other. In architecture, they usually
act at the same time, which is why this study maintains the double designation of the axis.
The basic approach of this study is carried out using social appreciation, value, and coherence as basic
variables to measure cultural-symbolic quality. Social appreciation is analysed taking into account
elements widely valued by society, which can be qualitatively revealed in opinions, news, and narratives
about buildings. Value is a theoretical selling price on the market, calculated following the rules of real
estate valuation: an average or proportional approximation of a similar property’s price in the same area.
Coherence analyses the symbols, signs, and composition which generate meanings and define (or not)
a coherent style.
In a deeper study, social appreciation should be divided into different groups or classes to take into
account the respective tastes. In addition, the composition and aesthetics (coherence) should be
analysed in comparison to previous and current fashion and trends in design.
2.4. An analogous social space of buildings using Bourdieu’s theories
As explained previously, this research proposed a two-dimensional social space (Fig. 2) to study
buildings using the explained material and cultural-symbolic qualities as its main axes, which
encapsulate several variables of measurement themselves. The site’s centrality could be added to form
a three-dimensional space to study built qualities – which has problems of visualisation -, or analysed at
the side for a clearer representation.
In this scheme, each building or group of buildings is represented by a point according to their properties
of distinction. The points are placed in more or less privileged areas of the social space. This allows
researchers to define and characterise geographical, economic, and social peripheries according to their
lack of a specific property: respectively, centrality, material, or cultural-symbolic quality.
Moreover, as each case is a point according to these three qualities, any improvement (a new
infrastructure or service that increases accessibility, a refurbishment of the physical conditions, or an
aesthetical renovation) or deterioration produces a displacement of the point, which can be studied as a
vector of change with a certain direction and intensity.
This study of the positions through the social space was extensively developed by Bourdieu, as well as
the effect of time on each position, which affects the recognition and acceptance of a certain position
(Bourdieu 1979). In an analogous application, this effect of time means, for instance, that old landmarks
usually have a greater symbolism than new built icons, even in the case of an equivalent exceptional
design, taking advantage then of a greater cultural-symbolic quality. In contrast, the same effect of time
could be seen in some historically precarious areas which, after a process of requalification with
elements theoretically appreciated by society, are still connoted and considered to be of low cultural-
symbolical quality. The limited space of this paper makes it impossible to deepen these discussions, but
some of them are noted at the end as lines of research.
3.0. APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF PORTO’S URBAN AREA
In order to illustrate and validate this theoretical development to study territories’ built (ine)qualities, this
scheme is applied to housing developments in Porto’s urban area (Portugal). It is important to highlight
that this is a preliminary and basic application of Bourdieu’s distinction. This study is effective and useful
enough to be an introduction to the use of this theoretical framework in built quality assessment, and it is
open to further developments. The means are adapted to the main purpose of the research: studying if
urban elements’ qualities and inequalities correspond to an old but still canonical one-dimensional
centre-periphery distribution; or, on the contrary, the introduction of the other axes improves the
understanding of their patterns and nature.
For this exemplification, a small number of case studies (10 housing developments) have been chosen
in a sector of the Porto’s urban area. The city of Porto is a well-known example because it has been
widely studied in its built and social conditions, especially about gentrification (Alves 2016) and social-
class structure using Bourdieu’s theories (Borges Pereira 2018). This medium-sized city occupies a
EAAE – ARCC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
June, 10-13,2020 | Valencia
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/EAAE-ARCC-IC-2020.2020.XXXX
2020, Universitat Politècnica de València
central position in its urban area, which is highly affected for it, following a natural urban process of
growth by rings (naturally modified by geography and pre-existences) like many other cities in Europe.
The case studies belong to different municipalities (Porto, Maia, and Valongo) and they illustrate
different urban contexts - the central compact city, the peripheral neighbourhoods, the secondary
centres, and the spaces between them. They do not try to be exhaustive of all situations or a
representation or summary of the urban area. They only have an illustrative character to apply the
methodology, as well as to study if some of them are examples which do not follow a canonical centre-
periphery distribution of quality.
Some of the case studies are well-known and deeply studied examples, such as the Bouça
neighbourhood by Álvaro Siza (Vale 2018), the Cardosas Square (Alves 2016) and the social
neighbourhoods of Amial and Paranhos (Borges Pereira 2016 and 2018). Though all these approaches
and information have been taken into account, the aim of this research is the preliminary
characterisation according to some basic variables. Thus, information about the housing developments
has been homogenised on the rest of cases using open sources: e.g. cartography, press, and
advertisements.
As mentioned, the research is focused on general and average qualities. Due to this, quite separate
cases in the social space have been chosen to illustrate the methodology. Extreme examples (like
luxury houses on the seafront and ilhas, precarious working-class settlements inside blocks) are
avoided in order to not eclipse the less intense but more interesting inequalities between the examples.
Every ensemble of residential buildings is characterised separately by its centrality, material, and
cultural-symbolic quality, each of these properties measured in turn by several secondary variables, as
previously mentioned. Each case is ranked among the others according to both secondary variables and
main qualities, a simple and effective technique, which is sufficient and valid for this introduction. This
binary comparison between specimens means a loss of accuracy (which is not needed) but avoids the
difficult task of defining exact units and scales in the case of qualitative variables, making the research
feasible. Criteria for each property and variable are explained hereafter, as well as the process and the
empirical result. Naturally, other criteria could produce different results in the detail, but the general view
is maintained if a secondary variable is deleted or changed in a further development, because the
variables are quite interdependent (e.g. centrality measured in time depends on speed and distance).
Table 1: Housing developments in the NW sector of Porto’s urban area. Ranked by centrality. Source: Authors
2.1. Centrality
This property only depends on the site’s location in comparison to a central point. Porto has a clear
centre in terms of symbolism, tourism, and functionality: the area between the guildhall, the cathedral,
and the points of maximum accessibility (Trindade e São Bento stations). One of the cases is in the
middle of this area. For the others, the distance has been calculated using the tool Directions of
GoogleMaps, with the option ‘walking’ and taking the first option. This distance is almost representative
to the time by walking and on a bicycle. For the time in a private vehicle and on public transportation,
these two options have been chosen in Directions on an afternoon on a weekday. Every case is ranked
using the three variables (Tab. 1) and centrality (Fig. 4), using decimals to solve parities. Note that,
evidently, the cases’ positions by walking, on car, or on public transportation have variations.
Case Studies
Centrality C
(1) Car, (2) Bus/Metro/Train
Nº
Distance
km
Time
1
min
Time
2
min
A. Cardosas Square
1º
A
0
A
0'
A
0'
B. A Bouça SAAL
2º
B
1,5
B
8'
B
15'
C. Magalhães
3º
C
2,4
C
15'
C
20'
D. Velasques Square
4º
D
3
D
15'
I
22'
E. Paranhos
5º
E
3,7
E
16'
D
23'
F. Amial
6º
F
3,9
G
18'
E
27'
G. Casas Oliveiras
7º
G
5,5
F
19'
F
30'
H. Corim
8º
H
7,6
J
25'
G
34'
I. Ermesinde
9º
I
9,8
H
27'
J
45'
J. Macieiras
10º
J
10,3
I
30'
H
48'
EAAE – ARCC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
June, 10-13,2020 | Valencia
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/EAAE-ARCC-IC-2020.2020.XXXX
2020, Universitat Politècnica de València
Figure 3: Views of case studies in Porto’s urban area. Source: GoogleMaps
2.2. Material quality
The technical qualities depend on buildings’ spaces and characteristics (Fig. 3). A representative type of
dwelling is used to measure size, habitability and energetic performance. The size has been calculated
using its footprint area. The relative position in habitability is obtained by a comparison of spaces
according to their shape, functionality, air, sun, and views. Finally, buildings are ordered by an indirect
analysis of energetic performance: orientation, exposure, form factor, glazing ratio, window quality, and
typical insulation. Every case is ranked using the variables (Tab. 2) and the material quality (Fig. 4).
Table 2: Case studies ordered by size, habitability, performance, appreciation, value, significance. Source: Authors
Material quality Qm
Cultural-symbolic quality Qcs
Nº
Size
Habitability
E. Performance
Nº
S. Appreciation
Value
Coherence
1º
D
D
G
1º
A
A
A
2º
A
G
H
2º
G
G
B
3º
C
A
D
3º
D
D
G
4º
G
C
A
4º
C
B
C
5º
B
B
C
5º
B
C
D
6º
H
H
I
6º
H
H
H
7º
I
F
J
7º
I
F
F
8º
J
E
B
8º
J
E
E
9º
F
J
F
9º
F
I
I
10º
E
I
E
10º
E
J
J
2.3. Cultural-symbolic quality
This property was studied on the available information from visits, the external view (Fig. 3), the news,
articles, and advertisements. In a representative type, the research studied social appreciation, value,
and significance. The social appreciation has been analysed using public valorisation of the elements
(news, articles). Value is a price on the market, according to real estate valuation (adverts). Coherence
analyses the symbols, signs, and composition which generate meanings and defined a style. Cases are
ranked using the three variables (Tab. 2) and this property (Fig. 4), solving parities by analogy.
2.4. Discussion of the results
The results presented together in the social space (Fig. 4) show the complexity of reality. Cases E/J/F
are in the lower positions, cases D/A are in the upper ones, and the rest are on average around the
diagonal, except case B, with non-material priorities. Thus, clusters can be found. The majority of cases
do not occupy the same place on the three axes: specimens with high qualities also have regular results
in some variables. Specimens with low qualities do not coincide either, neither the different peripheries.
A
B
C
D
E
G
H
I
J
F
EAAE – ARCC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
June, 10-13,2020 | Valencia
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/EAAE-ARCC-IC-2020.2020.XXXX
2020, Universitat Politècnica de València
Figure 4, 5: Case studies placed in the quality space, superposition with sociological space. Source: Authors
DISCUSSION OF QUALITIES’ IMPLICATIONS IN SOCIAL SPACE AND CONCLUSIONS
As explained and exemplified, urban elements have a certain centrality, material, and cultural-symbolic
quality, which are related to the capital of their users. Centrality contributes to social capital because it
facilitates their users’ relationships, especially with powerful people. Material quality of buildings is an
economic asset for their users. Cultural-symbolic quality is evidently related to the homonymous capitals
as explained before. Thus, constructions’ and users’ problems can be studied together and buildings’
requalification (improvement of its qualities) can be linked to people’s social ascension (Fig. 5).
This research can then evidently circumscribe three types of theoretical inequalities, such as
segregation, (energy) poverty, and marginalisation. Thus, respective solutions appeared: accessibility
improvement (infrastructures or services), material requalification (energetic rehabilitation), and cultural-
symbolic requalification (symbolic renovation and interpretation). These three dimensions should not be
neglected to get a real and holistic improvement. Architects should be aware of their social responsibility
and limitations: buildings are major objects of distinction for their users, for good and for bad; but they
are not the only one: other social measures must be implemented to reduce inequalities.
In conclusion, this theoretical and empirical research shows the applicability and relevance of Bourdieu’s
distinction in architecture and urbanism to study inequalities, especially in peripheries. Firstly, it validates
this methodology based on buildings’ qualities, unveiling social processes in architecture. Secondly it
offers a clear representation of the results. Thirdly, it enables the discussion of buildings’ and users’
inequalities at the same time. And fourthly, it defines their problems - segregation, (energy) poverty, and
marginalisation – and solutions - accessibility, material, and cultural-symbolic requalification.
Finally, further developments should be made in several lines of research: quantification of the qualities
per axis, the use of more variables, a deep analysis of the contradictions and effects of time, a deeper
discussion of distinction’s implications in architecture, and more case studies in different contexts.
REFERENCES
Alves, S. 2016. Requalificação e gentrificação no centro histórico do Porto. Scripta Nova, v. XXI, n. 557.
Borges Pereira, V. 2016. Classes sociais e simbolização na cidade do Porto: Elementos teóricos e
resultados de pesquisa empírica. Tempo Social, revista de sociología da USP, v. 28, n. 2:183-206.
------. 2018. Urban Distinctions: Class, Culture and Sociability in the City of Porto. IJURR, v. 42:126-137.
Bourdieu, P. 1979. La distinction, critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.
Lamela, C. 2014. Capital social y territorio. In Dinámicas territoriales en España, Problemas y
tendencias en la estructura y ordenación del territorio, edited by Lamela, C., Cardesín, J.M. and García-
Docampo, M., p115-140. Madrid: Editorial Biblioteca Nueva.
Forte, F. 2019. Architectural quality and evaluation. Valori e valutazione, n.23: 37-45.
Lizancos, P. 2000. As migracións na conformación da casa. PhD diss., University of A Coruña.
Pulici, C. 2014. Visões do gosto arquitetônico passadista: problematizando o “estilo neoclássico” de
São Paulo em perspectiva internacional. Anais do Museu Paulista, v. 22, n.1: 219-248.
Vale, C. 2018. The social rise of a housing intervention: Álvaro Siza Project for Bouça neighbourhood. In
42nd IAHS World Congress Proceedings, 10-13rd April 2018, Naples, Italy.
Villanova, R. De, Leite, C. and Raposo, I. 1995. Casas de sonhos. Lisboa: Salamandra.
