1 Introduction

During the twentieth century in Mexico, as in many other developing countries from the global south, social housing was created by a socio-economic, historical process that supported the bourgeois model of single-family dwellings due to rapid migration from rural areas to industrialized cities in conjunction with government policies that encouraged homeownership (Ward, 2015). The Institute of the National Housing Fund for Workers (INFONAVIT) was created in 1972 to promote and build houses, as well as provide credit facilitation (Coulomb & Schteingart, 2006; Puebla, 2002). In 1992, due to neoliberal reforms and pressure from the World Bank, INFONAVIT reduced its role to only a credit facilitator, leaving housing production to the private sector (Boils, 2004). However, since its conception more than 50 years ago, it remains a dehumanizing and mechanical response of modern logic to collective housing in which its houses' designs reflect the essentialism towards the social constructions of ideal families and still reflects more the interests of the producers rather than that of the inhabitants (Kerr, 1995). Collective housing production in Mexico has not adapted to the postmodern logic of personalization and desire.

Moreover, while the main focus of the INFONAVIT has been on resolving the housing deficit during these 50 years, it has done so for only 25% of the population because it is directed only at the "formal" population or right holders, that is, for all workers who have a formal job and, therefore, are beneficiaries of the social protection system provided by the State (Boils, 2004; Coulomb & Schteingart, 2006; Puebla, 2002). On the other hand, according to the research conducted by Herbert et al. (2012), a significant majority of the housing available today has been constructed by individuals themselves, accounting for over 60% of the total housing stock. This indicates that self-construction is an important component of housing production in the region and one which should not be underestimated like it has been. It is commonly called the Social Production of Housing (PSV for its initials in Spanish).

INFONAVIT produces a finished product called a “turnkey” house. These are privately mass-produced standardized houses in massive neighborhoods that provide all necessary services whose purchase is financed, in the majority of cases, through the Institute. The houses are acquired through a mortgage that is amortized in 20–30 years with a monthly payment varying from 20% for those with the lowest salary to more than 30% for those with the highest income (http://portalmx.infonavit.org.mx). It should be noted that, in the Mexican case, social housing was instrumentalized, first, as a tool for the political cooptation of the hegemonic party, in an approximate period from the forties to the eighties; and starting in the 1990s, when the democratic transition and neoliberal reforms began, housing became a commodity, a market product governed by its exchange value (García Peralta, 2010).

On the contrary, PSV housing is progressive, heterogeneous, and located in informal neighborhoods, on a smaller scale and initially lacking services. Houses are constructed without formal credit mechanisms, on the other hand, they rely on all sorts of parallel financial systems like “tandas” (collective neighborhood financing), microcredit from the local materials supplier, family savings or the most coveted Christmas bonus. Many of these neighborhoods were established unlawfully through invasion by possessors who subdivided and sold the vacant land at low cost, a phenomenon known colloquially as “paracaidismo” (parachuting). Subsequent land regularization, detailed later, was also an instrument of political cooptation. Private property is a common ground between both forms of production.

Undoubtedly, one of the main differences between these forms of production is that self-help housing allows people to make their own decisions during construction, which, manifested in various priorities, leads to more comfortable living conditions (Turner, 1976). In other words, in PSV, appropriation is inherent to the construction process and is specific to the domestic unit and its territory (Tames, 2004). On the other hand, INFONAVIT houses are based on a predetermined living model enforced by the institute's authorities and interested parties. However, residents have made transformations and customizations over time. Analyzing and contrasting both different forms of housing production can shed light on the implications on how modeling your own environment through appropriation can have on residents. In a way, the process of appropriating the house, either from the beginning as in PSV or by customizing it as in INFONAVIT, has in some ways been an uprising against standard modernization imposed on presupposed dwelling practices.

Although housing is a widely studied subject, the appropriation theme offers a rare chance to analyze both residents and houses in an integral manner. Therefore, to understand and contrast the experience of living in both types of neighborhoods and the role that appropriation plays in their development, it was proposed to question the relationship between the appropriation of housing with its results in identity construction and place attachment of its inhabitants in popular housing complexes. The material and formal objects of study—housing and appropriation, respectively—were characterized through the transdisciplinary lens of Science, Technology, and Society studies (STS) that assume the complexity of the inhabitant/house dynamic without dichotomizing it.

The chosen site of analysis was the city of Monterrey, Mexico. It was chosen not only for being the industrial capital of the north and leader in housing provision nationwide but also because a noteworthy feature of the city is that, unlike other Mexican cities, the local government created responsible housing public bodies when urban migration was particularly significant during the sixties and seventies. The Fomento Metropolitano de Monterrey (FOMERREY) was established in 1973 to normalize hundreds of squatter settlements and is still operating. As well, the agency offered lots for sale in installments without services in land plots of progressive urbanization for low-income self-help builders (Villarreal, 2010a). Later, the Housing Promotion Agency in Nuevo León offered affordable PSV land to non-salaried workers. Of the 450,000 homes produced in Monterrey between 1945 and 1987, 240,000 were self-built (Villarreal Gonzalez, 1991). In light of these distinctive features of the city's urbanization, it provided an ideal setting for examining and contrasting the two forms of social housing production and their consequences for its residents.

The first section of this paper presents the state of the art around appropriation and the house; the following section describes the methodology that seeks to collect the owners' experiences. The developed practices of appropriation and their effects on the residents and the housing complex are then analyzed, and the results are compiled under a model of “dwelling by appropriation.” Finally, discussion of the results and conclusions are drawn.

2 The appropriation of the house

The house is the ideal vehicle for exploring how humans shape space and time, imprinting them with a legacy of practices, values, and behavioral traits while also revealing the extent to which those same practices, values, and behaviors impact them. Therefore, the relationship between an individual and her domestic space is ecological, meaning that both are mutually constituted (Yaneva, 2016). The house's meaning for its inhabitants originates from this mutual constitution (Clapham, 2005; Coolen, 2006, 2014). In other words, the meaning of a house for its inhabitants is not intrinsic to the object itself but rather to the form of its interaction with its residents. Its meaning is relational, dynamic, and multifaceted, never fixed (Appadurai, 1986). Consequently, a house is not an end in itself. Instead, it serves as a means to achieve other objectives (Clapham, 2005; King, 2003), such as personal fulfillment (Johnson, 2015).

It is possible to perceive the dynamics of living (individual-environment) in the home through Gibson’s (2015) concept of affordance, which is defined as the possibilities for action or suggestions for use conferred by the properties of objects or environments in relation to each specific individual. In other words, we perceive the built environment through affordances, that is, in the resources offered to us that we can actively use through our sensory and motor systems and their capacity for action. Moreover, “environmental features are experienced in terms of their affordances, i.e. their meaning, for the individual” (Coolen & Meesters, 2012). Yet, a dwelling's affordances, in accordance with its attributes, may or may not correspond to the needs and values of its inhabitants, so these attributes are subject to constant revision and appropriation on their part (Jusan, 2010).

Appropriation is a way of highlighting and revealing the interaction between the human being and his environment in a specific stance. Feldman and Stall (2004, p. 184) define appropriation as "the act of creating, selecting, possessing, modifying, caring for and/or simply using a space to make it one's own." Its objective is self-expression, with the ultimate intention of constructing the subject, granting a personal sense of refuge. As such, housing appropriation is not only a by-product of living but "the very adventure of living" (Serfaty-Garzon, 2003, p.23).

Vidal and Pol (2005) developed a dual model of appropriation in order to understand how it is used:

…a dialectical process by which people and spaces are linked, within a sociocultural context, from the individual, group, and community levels to that of society. This process is developed through two complementary pathways, action-transformation, and symbolic identification. (2005, p. 291)

Through action on the environment, people transform space, marking it physically and symbolically and incorporating it in an updated way into their affective and cognitive processes. As a result of appropriation, individuals can construct their identity via the places they inhabit based on a set of constitutive principles: distinction, continuity, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Gustafson, 2001; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). Using distinction, an individual distinguishes himself from others by identifying with a particular place. Living in the exact location for an extended period gives him a sense of continuity. Self-esteem is generated by the pride of living in the place, and self-efficacy arises when the place facilitates his daily activities.

A second result of appropriation is attachment, which can be defined as positive cognitive and affective connections between an individual and a place (Low, 1992), with the main feature being a tendency to remain close to that place (Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001). According to Scannell and Gifford (2010), there are two dimensions of attachment: social and physical. The psychological components of attachment are affect, cognition, and behavior (Scannell & Gifford, 2010). The attachment to a place is generated through several generative processes that, at the same time, serve to explain the origin of the place as well as its evolution: interaction in the place, the identity of the place, place release, place realization, place creation, and site intensification (Seamon, 2013).

Now, there are several ways to appropriate a place. The most evident is material appropriation, which consists of distributing and placing material objects and establishing limits (Haan, 2005). Social appropriation is based on practices and their social spacing, including processes of social inclusion and exclusion (Haan, 2005). On the other hand, spatial appropriation is the practice of delimiting spaces that can sometimes be motivated by the imaginary of fear (Bamba Vicente & Costa Sepúlveda, 2017) or the aspirations to the individualization of practices and desires (Tapie, 2014). As a final point, symbolic appropriation is latent in all of the above due to the interactions generated by transformation and adaptation (Zamorano, 2013). This type of appropriation leads to identification and attachment to a place. At the same time, it is "a factor of stability of the identity and cohesion of the group" (Vidal & Pol, 2005, p. 284). It is through the significance of the environment that it becomes understandable (Sanín Santamaría, 2018).

The process of appropriation is carried out in the home gradually (Tapie, 2014) and, most importantly, in Latin America, it is associated with the pattern of family evolution, i.e., a house grows when the family grows (García-Huidobro et al., 2010). As Pallasmaa (1992) points out, a house does not come into being in a single moment; or as Wise (2000) suggests, there is no such thing as a house, only the process of forming one. Therefore, the purpose of inhabiting the house is never finished (Rose, 2012). Given this dynamic, appropriation is a means through which living becomes manifest. In an essentialist view of the house, the social construction of it as a place would be ignored.

3 Methodology

In order to understand how and why residents appropriate their homes, it was imperative to break the dichotomy inhabitant-house and assess it from an integral perspective. As a starting point, the dynamics of appropriation between residents and their homes was analyzed through perceptual psychologist J.J. Gibson’s (2015) ecological lens, which considers the relationship between individuals and their environments to be dynamic and complementary, particularly through his concept of affordance already described on the second section. This view aligns with Yaneva's STS architecture studies (2016), in which architecture and people are mutually constitutive. This lens is fitting because it highlights and points to specific house attributes that were incoherent or unfulfilling of residents' needs and were subject to appropriation and change. Moreover, the research has a qualitative approach and is a multi-method descriptive case study. Six low-income neighborhoods were selected for the investigation: three from INFONAVIT and three from PSV, as seen in Table 1, with varying longevity, and from various municipalities in the Monterrey Metropolitan Area (ZMM), as represented in Fig. 1. Five houses were selected in each neighborhood, resulting in thirty cases over a time frame of more than 50 years (1967–2020), which allowed analyzing varying degrees of appropriation at different times of housing policy. As part of the case selection process, we looked for single-family homes that had been inhabited since their construction and that were privately owned. Fieldwork was carried out from October 2019 to February 2020.

Table 1 Neighborhood’s characteristics
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Monterrey Metropolitan Area Map and selected neighborhoods with distance markers from city center to neighborhoods. Author elaborated with image from Google Earth ©

Full size image

The units of analysis were the appropriation process of the residents in its different forms: material, social, spatial, economic, symbolic, identity, and attachment (meaning and effects). Several data collection methods were used: a questionnaire, in which socio-economic information was collected; semi-structured in-depth interviews, aimed at gathering people's perceptions and experiences; graphic documentation of houses' plans before and after appropriation; photographic documentation that included 360° images of the interior of the houses and conventional photographs of the exterior and neighborhood; and finally, direct observation in order to complement what was said with what was seen, looking for consistency and inconsistencies.

The data analysis was conducted using the NVIVO program. First, a structural coding method was applied to the interview transcripts, which, according to Saldaña (2016), consists of deductively constructing the preconceived categories of the study. In the second phase, several additional codes, such as Versus, Values, and In Vivo, were derived inductively from the interviewees' voices. Finally, in a post-coding phase, the empirical results were structured in a study's trinity that resulted in the "dwelling by appropriation" model to structure the results that will be detailed in the next section.

INFONAVIT neighborhoods (Fig. 2) or neighborhoods financed by it share a liminal state relative to the urban fabric when they were built and present variations. The Constituyentes de Querétaro (1974) neighborhood was constructed by INFONAVIT in Monterrey in 1974, using the Institute's urban and housing design criteria manual, with various typologies, wide public spaces, infrastructure, and essential services. In contrast, the market housing development Colinas del Rio (2000), built after INFONAVIT's reform, contains only two one-story housing models in a linear, monotonous urban arrangement. Likewise, market housing Los Encinos (2015) includes five different housing models, an urban design with rows of houses in a north–south direction, a main road in the center, and a longitudinal park on its south side.

Fig. 2
figure 2

INFONAVIT neighborhoods’ plan, house models and pictures. From top to bottom: 1. Constituyentes de Queretaro 1967, 2. Colinas del Rio 2000, and 3. Los Encinos 2015. Aerial pictures by Google Earth and house pictures taken by author

Full size image

Except for the Lázaro Cárdenas neighborhood (1967), the PSV in Monterrey is particularly tied to institutions that have supported it. La Ermita (1995) was developed by FOMERREY, while Ciudad CROC (1984) was promoted by the Revolutionary Confederation of Workers and Peasants union. Due to the above, this resulted in neighborhoods with well-planned urban designs, infrastructure, and public space. However, public services such as electricity, drainage, and water supply were introduced through a bipartisan government/residents’ program called “Half and half,” in which the former donated the materials and the residents their labor to introduce them (Villarreal, 2010b). Lázaro Cárdenas, on the other hand, resulted from paracaidistas, urban social movements of the sixties and seventies that consisted of alliances of migrant settlers who unlawfully seized vacant land without services with the encouragement of a union leader (Aparicio et al., 2011). In addition, the PSV land area is 40% larger than that of INFONAVIT (150.2 vs. 106.8 m2 on average) and the construction area by 39% (94 vs. 67.7 m2 on average) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

PSV Neighborhoods’ plans, house models and pictures. From top to bottom: 1. Lázaro Cárdenas 1967, 2. Ciudad CROC 1984, and La Ermita 1995. Aerial pictures by Google Earth and house pictures taken by author

Full size image

Residents’ profiles differ according to the form of housing production, demonstrating two realities of the same city. The residents of the INFONAVIT neighborhoods participate actively and formally in the city’s processes. Although they are state natives, the formalities of acquiring a home with an INFONAVIT credit will require them to move from the municipality where they grew up to acquire a home in the periphery, where they are always offered for the cheap land cost. In most cases, both husband and wife must work to complete the payment. The extended family also inhabits the home due to the initial difficulties of financing a purchase on one’s own. Consequently, there is a higher degree of overcrowding than in PSV.

Alternatively, PSV’s residents are an informal migrant population that arrived in the city in order to get ahead and progress. As a result of these progressive values, every resident seeks to possess their own space, which is why the household unit is nuclear. For that reason, there is less overcrowding than in INFONAVIT. Women play a crucial role in obtaining land and building homes. They remain within the same municipality to maintain contact with their extended family. Having a close relationship with their children is paramount to women, and since they are not required to take on financial obligations or carry debt, they are able to do so. Over time, residents attain civil formality as their occupation reflects, and some even acquire second homes from INFONAVIT primarily for investment purposes (Table 2).

Table 2 Residents’ characteristics according to housing production form
Full size table

Depending on the year the neighborhood was built, residents' desire to own a home is motivated by different objectives. Residents of neighborhoods with the longest lifespans, such as Ciudad CROC (1984) and Constituyentes de Querétaro (1974) from INFONAVIT, as well as Lázaro Cárdenas (1967) from PSV, have a strong desire for their own home because of the idea of protection, of "having a roof for old age" and "that no one can throw them out," as established by Francisca: "I always tell my husband that we do not have to be thrown out." As opposed to this, the residents of the most recently built neighborhoods are motivated by economic autonomy, family heritage, and social stability, as Katia establishes: "I wanted to establish my children in one place and not move them from school to school so that they would have their same friends from their early age until they were grown up like me."

4 Results

After conducting fieldwork, a “dwelling by appropriation” model was created to better understand how communities appropriate, use, and relate to their dwellings. This model explains the practices and outcomes of appropriation and its impact on the community. It involves identifying, taking advantage of, and transforming the environment's affordances. Thus, dwelling by appropriation is entering into the dynamics of action-transformation and symbolic identification of appropriation that has its fruits in identity and attachment to the place and the community.

The model (Fig. 4) structures the empirical results around the three main categories of the study: appropriation, identity, and attachment. Three practices have emerged in their intersections: dwelling by building, dwelling by appreciating, and dwelling by socializing. The practice of dwelling by building was found at the intersection of appropriation and identity. This practice involves everything related to the materialization of the house or its changes, the forms of appropriation, and how, through building their house, they develop their identity at the same time. Against this practice is passive inhabiting, which involves acclimating to prototypical spaces, no matter how unoptimal they are (Boils, 1995; Espinosa Ortiz et al., 2015; Goldhagen, 2017). At the intersection of appropriation and attachment, dwelling by appreciating occurs. It deals with everything related to attachment to the house, how places are formed through it, and its meaning for the residents. In opposition to this practice is detached dwelling, in which property is only valued as an economic asset, inhabited by possession rather than belonging. Finally, the practice of dwelling by socializing was found at the intersection of identity and attachment, and it concerns everything related to the community, pointing out what identifies and distinguishes them. An opposing practice is alienated dwelling, where residents are isolated in their own homes due to mixophobia (Bauman, 2007). The second is atomized dwelling characterized by valuing the house but not the community at large, a phenomenon developed by the secularization process of the last century (Carmagnani, 2011). The following subsections describe the results presented for each of the three practices.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The Dwelling by appropriation model is structured around the three main categories of the investigation: identity, attachment, and appropriation. The model describes three dimensions of the practice of dwelling by appropriation. The material dimension: dwelling by building; the affective dimension: dwelling by appreciating; and the social dimension: dwelling by socializing

Full size image

4.1 Dwelling by building

Dwelling by building was manifested in three dimensions: autonomy or choice, strengthening of social capital, and adapting producers' ideals to their needs.

PSV cases showed autonomy means staying close to one's family or at least in one's municipality of origin. It also means having control over the design and the pace of investment. By building as needed, they do not require much capital, but micro capital repeatedly. All PSV houses have a mono-spatial design at the beginning, within which all domestic activities unfold without distinction between duties or privacy. Many of these homes lack essential water and drainage services, so the bathroom is initially a well separate from the home; later, it is incorporated into it. As the family grows, new volumes are added to this initial space, distributing domestic functions. These buildings articulate spaces directly to each other without circulation corridors (Fig. 5). There are usually no multifunctional spaces because they encourage the separation of functions. There is a close connection between these houses and the street through a porch that serves as a transition between the public and private areas and a patio, which can be located at the front or rear of the house. They usually build across the entire land width without leaving green space.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Plans from fifteen case studies from Social Production Housing (PSV), rows from top to bottom: LC Lázaro Cárdenas neighborhood’s houses from 1967, CC Ciudad CROC neighborhood’s houses from 1984, and LE La Ermita neighborhood’s houses from 1995. Plans reveal design heterogeneity, construction on all lot width, and the articulation of spaces directly to each other

Full size image

For its construction, concrete blocks are used for walls, concrete slabs, and sheet roofing as a temporary measure. In most cases, the slabs are flat in order to build a second or third level. The PSV houses proved well built—contrary to common belief. However, although they demonstrated construction experience, their designs are far from optimal, especially regarding lighting and natural ventilation. They are expert builders but not designers. Even in the oldest neighborhoods, house consolidation varies significantly. The excuse of building the house strengthened family and community ties among PSV residents, increasing their social capital. They weaved their community as the colony was built because they identified themselves as equals and self-builders, even though their place of origin differed.

INFONAVIT homes, on the other hand, are instant living solutions that initially seem like a dream come true. They chose it not only because they have access to it but also for convenience. In the beginning, its inhabitants have fewer complications than PSV, despite its small size and unoptimized design (Fig. 6). As they distance themselves from their former municipality and their families, after a short time, what it costs to travel to see them—in both money and time—begins to weigh on them. Soon, they sacrifice other expenses to meet their credit obligation or work more hours to have extra money to spend on other items or leisure.

Fig. 6
figure 6

INFONAVIT house plans before and after being appropriated, CQ Constituyentes de Querétaro neighborhood’s houses 1974, CR Colinas del Rio neighborhood’s houses 1995, and EN Los Encinos 2015 neighborhood’s houses. The plans evidence exterior space delimitation with fences and gates and the construction of additional volumes, among other changes

Full size image

Dwelling by building reveals the disparity between what INFONAVIT housing producers presume the residents need and what they want. Typically, the first appropriation is the delimitation towards the public realm: fences are raised, gates are installed, and bars are placed on the windows (Fig. 6). The second omission is related to the lack of house growth anticipation. Space delimitation is followed by material transformations, such as separating the kitchen from the social area (originally a multifunctional space: kitchen/dining room/living room), adding bedrooms, bathrooms, and other spatial subdivisions, but unfortunately, the original rooms remain cloistered in the spatial configuration and are devoid of good lighting and ventilation. A desire for personalization permeates the entire process, whether painting the house a different color to set it apart, altering the interior paint, or installing a new interior floor, as the initial finishes are shabby and dusty. Producers also ignore the patio's position within the spatial configuration, discouraging its use. By redesigning the backyard patio centrally within the spatial configuration, ventilation and natural lighting could be improved.

House appropriation influenced identity development differently in both forms of production. First, PSV houses became a means for residents to build themselves. The uniqueness of their house design expressed distinction, as Sandra and Oscar used the open plan in LE6 or distinguished their neighborhood area by painting the light poles with the local soccer team's colors. Continuity was demonstrated in preserving rural practices, including mono spatial design in houses, fruit trees, and raising farm animals, and in the wall displaying family memorabilia and neighborhood murals honoring community members and drug war victims. The participants demonstrated self-efficacy by improving their living conditions, even when space was limited, turning fallen leaves into "compost" for their gardens, or creating a transitional outdoor space to protect children. These incursions boosted their self-esteem, expressed with pride in their well-finished homes and the plants they display (see Fig. 7 for all dimensions).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Identity development through construction in PSV houses. From the top: distinction expressed in plan design and exterior motifs; continuity in family mementos, murals, and fruit trees from the place of origin; self-efficacy in construction, sustainable practices, and ingenious design; and self-esteem through displaying their plants and well-finished homes

Full size image

INFONAVIT homes, however, are standardized, so identity is mostly established through modifications. Considering the limited housing choices, housing choice should not be viewed as a source of identity. The personalization they do in their homes fills them with pride and distinction, and residents recover their agency and control over their inhabiting. They expressed their distinction by transforming their house so it "did not look like INFONAVIT," like Mary's remodeled entrance in CQ3 or Luisa's remodeled kitchen in CR3. Their continuity, like that of PSV, is expressed through murals commemorating aged residents and the arrangement of decorative plants at their home's entrances, some of which were sourced from their native land. Self-efficacy is showcased in how spaces are also converted to house other highly lucrative enterprises, such as restaurants, stationery shops, sewing workshops, or areas where children can safely play. As a result of the construction or modifications to the house, their self-esteem is heightened. On the other hand, their self-esteem is burdened when they begin changes they cannot finish, as in the CR2 house that has not been completed in 10 years (see Fig. 8 for all dimensions).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Identity development through construction in INFONAVIT houses. From the top: distinction expressed in unique exterior decorations; continuity expressed through murals and plants from their place of origin; self-efficacy in transformed spaces for business; and self-esteem in plant display or lack of self-esteem when they cannot finish a modification they began in a long time

Full size image

4.2 Dwelling by appreciating

This practice manifested in three dimensions: place attachment, place formation, and meaning. The results of the attachment category revealed one of the most significant differences between the two forms of housing production. In comparison, 93% of PSV interviewees express attachment against only 67% of the inhabitants of INFONAVIT. Home attachment in PSV is primarily affective, resulting from the effort required to build the house and the difficulties they faced, as stated by Norma: "I would not change my house, as one becomes attached to what one does, to what one struggles to accomplish, and I still struggle because I did not finish, but, having the house, and since I began to put a block, the rod… you feel love in your heart."

INFONAVIT residents, on the other hand, value possession over experience—a manifestation of their exchange value for their house. Attachment in INFONAVIT homes was also displayed towards the community in neighborhoods with a more extended history, such as Constituyentes de Querétaro. Their primary motivation is to avoid starting over in another neighborhood, as Sabina indicates in her response to whether she would relocate: "Well, I did think about it at some point, but now, to think that I would have to meet new people… I would no longer feel safe. From here, I have nothing more but to join the pantheon." Detachment translates into indifference towards the territory. As such, they expressed that they would move to another home they consider better or better located at the first opportunity. Consequently, public places were abandoned, deteriorated, and nobody took responsibility for them.

Another relevant result was how places were created. There were two ways this occurred: a positive one when individuals carried out the projects and a negative one when the municipality managed and carried out the projects. The creation of public spaces in the neighborhoods, encouraged by social organizations, were successful such as the pedestrian crossings in Lázaro Cárdenas or Constituyentes de Querétaro; on the other hand, municipal projects, such as the skate park in the CROC or the soccer field in Lázaro Cárdenas—where the majority of the population is elderly—were not valued by its inhabitants since they do not respond to their direct needs. This shows that commitment to a community project is generated when the inhabitants are considered in making decisions about what should be done and how it will be carried out.

Finally, when it comes to the meaning the house has for its inhabitants, we can distinguish three dimensions: the individual, the economic, and the family (Fig. 10). INFONAVIT and PSV share the view that the family house provides stability and a means for integration, either by providing a roof when the children are starting their own households or by taking them in. From the perspective of INFONAVIT residents, a house is seen more as a commercial asset, valuable as patrimony, and an income generator. A self-built home has a more personal meaning for self-builders, as evidenced by the value they place on their own home, the memories it holds, and the effort and sacrifice required to build it. Permeating in the latter's conscience is the belief that what "does not cost is not worth it," referring to the physical effort involved in its construction and the sacrifices made to get a house. By those standards, a turnkey house will never be worth the same as a house built with their own hands. In short, many of the inhabitants of PSV are more focused on the present, on the house as a construction and safeguard of identity. In contrast, those of INFONAVIT are more focused on the future, on the economic insurance that the house generates.

Fig. 10
figure 9

Residents of PSV and INFONAVIT attribute three main dimensions of meaning to their houses: economy, family, and/or individual

Full size image

4.3 Dwelling by socializing

This practice identifies and addresses everything related to community formation and what distinguishes them or how they identify with one another. Firstly, residents identify a neighborhood as a single unit when it's 25 ha or less, rather than just their sector if it's larger. Contrary to this, current developments tend to create large urban islands on the periphery that are much larger than this extension, complicating community development. Furthermore, both types of neighborhoods illustrate the challenges associated with forming territorial communities. There is a cordial relationship between residents in both neighborhoods, but they are distant, characterized by "only good morning and good afternoon."

However, the necessity to solve a common problem and identify with one another fostered solidarity between the diverse population. This solidarity was manifested spatially and in the degree of trust between them. The vast majority of PSV residents answered that they trusted each other, whereas those of INFONAVIT did not. If there was any trust, it was limited to a small number of individuals. On the other hand, evasive attitudes prevailed among them, and everyone rather looked out for their own interests.

The PSV communities proved to be more solid in community and social engagement than the INFONAVIT communities due to trust. What allowed this trust to emerge? First, collaboration networks embedded in self-building and community management enabled residents in PSV to feel connected with each other as self-builders. Sometimes it was the development of the neighborhood itself, as in La Ermita and Lázaro Cárdenas, and in others, the installation of services, as in the CROC. A negative stigma from adjacent neighborhoods also led to coordination, as when the CROC and Lázaro Cárdenas residents stopped them from blocking vehicular and pedestrian access to their own neighborhoods. People's negative perceptions of them became social glue.

On the other hand, when residents of INFONAVIT bonded, it was due to the resolution of common conflicts through the implementation of improvement projects sponsored by non-governmental organizations in their neighborhoods, such as the pedestrian passageway in Constituyentes, or through the implementation of a preschool in Los Encinos.

5 Conclusions

This study aimed to contrast two dominant forms of housing production that have shaped the Monterrey Metropolitan Area: housing financed by the state’s institution INFONAVIT and social production of housing. To do so, a qualitative study that considered the house and its inhabitant integrally was performed through the analysis of the residents’ appropriation of the home. The research results on housing and appropriation were presented based on three practices found around dwelling by appropriation: dwelling by building, dwelling by appreciating, and dwelling by socializing. The results highlight that the most relevant affordance that the house offers is the possibility of making or modifying it due to the repercussions that this practice has on the development and well-being of its inhabitants. According to the study, the experience of making a home rather than the house as an exchangeable material object generated a greater sense of attachment. Finally, it was revealed that trust emerges between community inhabitants when they share a tangible project. While this pillar may seem insignificant since it is not physically visible, it is the first step toward developing a community, which can later progress and translate into a better physical environment.

This investigation aligns with authors like King (2003), who defines the house as a medium, or Turner (Turner, 1976; Turner & Fichter, 1972), who establishes that what the house does for its occupants is of greater importance than its appearance; however, the dwelling by appropriation model acknowledges that what people do for their homes is even more critical. As the results attest, this method of inhabiting produces a sense of fulfillment for the individual and sows the seeds of responsibility for the territory in which they reside. In the model, the house and its inhabitation are understood as a process, acknowledging its dynamic temporality and assuming that we are continually in the process of becoming. In this regard, dwelling by appropriation honors Nussbaum's (2013) notion of positive freedoms, which enable us to develop into what we can be and do. Moreover, these results acknowledge that dwelling by appropriation transcends Heidegger's notion of "dwelling by building" (1997) because appropriation in this model implies a more profound connection not only with the place but also with others, which Heidegger overlooked. The results also align with De Lomnitz’s (2016) assertion that marginalized urban groups are forced to create social networks of reciprocal exchange to survive. However, these findings differ in that the author asserts that trust is a prerogative for cooperation, whereas trust results from solving a shared problem in these cases. Networks were organized due to a common project and enacted due to a need. These practices of relationship and recognition of the other through a joint project constitute the ethics that civilizes (Senett, 2018) and a relationship of this nature provides a territory more likely to be appropriated and cared for.

A limitation of this study is that only low socioeconomic housing was observed, so these findings cannot be extrapolated to other income levels. Another limitation is that public space or infrastructure also affecting living conditions could not be considered and analyzed. Further research could be conducted to compare the findings of this study with those of Latin American cities with similar demographics and to determine whether the model is scalable across social classes or if it is merely a means of empowerment for lower-class individuals. Research on how this model works on different housing typologies that would hinder modifications, such as apartment buildings or medium-density collective housing, should also be considered.

In conclusion, on its three practices of construction, appreciation, and socialization, dwelling by appropriation proved to be a valuable tool that allowed low-income residents to accomplish what the government had failed to do. The designs may need to be more optimal, but at least they meet what the users require, and even more importantly, they did it when they wanted to, preserving their autonomy in the process. Dwelling by appropriation has proven to be an effective method of combating indifference towards the territory, as its inhabitants are attached to it. That attachment fosters higher levels of social commitment, which is sorely needed. Finally, dwelling by appropriation has filled them with dignity and pride. Their house is everything, including themselves: much more than four walls and a slab interchangeable to the highest bidder.