. Group D. Self-Produced Dwellings
Houses preceded by ranchos were 7 out of 10 in this group. The smallest rancho before the construction of the house was 34.0 sqm, and the biggest was 76.0 sqm. The rancho area for this group was the largest of the sample being the average 56.4 sqm.
Four cases deserve particular attention due to their special pattern of evolution. The first of these cases kept the whole rancho after the permanent dwelling was built. Each structure was being used by one family of the same household. The other three cases started building the permanent structure while living in the rancho. As the permanent dwelling increased, the rancho was dismantled. However, two of them kept some areas of the rancho. For the purpose of this study, these areas were included as areas of these houses because they were actually part of the dwelling.
When the first permanent dwelling was built, the average initial area was111.2 sqm. This average was far larger than any other group at this stage. The smallest initial area was 75.5 sqm, and the largest 128.5 sqm. The construction of the permanent dwelling represented an improvement of the living area of 101.7% over the previous area in the rancho. For most of the dwellings, completion of this stage was made within the 7 years following the time last seen in the aerial data.
All dwellings were enlarged in a second stage. The smallest dwelling was 101.5 sqm, and the largest 237.5 sqm (145.6% average). This represented a slight increase of 26.8% over the previous dwelling area. The time to complete this stage varied from 3 to 10 years since dwellings were seen in the last stage.
A third and last stage involving only 3 dwellings was observed. The smallest area was 150 sqm, and the largest 213.5 sqm; the relative area increase was 30.6% over the previous structure. For two dwellings the area increase was made within 11 years after the last stage and 4 years for the other. Table 5 presents the area increase of Group D, self-provided dwellings.
Table 5. Area Increase by Stages of Evolution. Group D.
| growth stg. | RANCHO ST | 1st STAGE | 2nd STAGE | 3rd STAGE | 4rd STAGE | |||||
| dwelling g. | sqm | year | sqm | year | sqm | year | sqm | year | sqm | year |
| house #178a | 76.0 | 1980 | 94.5 | 1987 | 105.0 | 1991 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| house #178b | 59.0 | 1980 | 116.0 | 1987 | 147.0 | 1991 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| house #180 | -- | -- | 124.5 | 1967 | 148.0 | 1987 | 187.0 | 1991 | -- | -- |
| house #226 | 41.0 | 1967 | 92.5 | 1980 | 108.5 | 1983 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| house #226a | 73.0 | 1980 | 168.0 | 1983 | 237.5 | 1991 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| house #229 | -- | -- | 100.0 | 1967 | 159.0 | 1974 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| house #236b | 68.0 | 1980 | 75.5 | 1983 | 101.5 | 1987 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| house #253 | 45.5 | 1967 | 128.5 | 1974 | 177.5 | 1980 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| house #343 | 34.0 | 1964 | 84.0 | 1967 | 121.5 | 1980 | 150.0 | 1991 | -- | -- |
| house #448 | -- | -- | 128.0 | 1974 | 150.5 | 1980 | 213.5 | 1991 | -- | -- |
| AVERAGE | 56.4 | -- | 111.2 | -- | 145.6 | -- | 183.5 | -- | -- | -- |
Thumbnail('cr-fig13-sm.jpg','cr-fig13.jpg'); ?>
Summary of Area Increase.
Ranchos were built in about 3/4 of sampled plots in groups A, B and D, while almost all group C directly built the permanent dwelling. The smallest rancho was 14.5 sqm (group A), and the largest was 73.0 sqm (group D). All ranchos averaged 45.4 sqm. Rancho size varied widely between households of the same group, and there was no apparent relationship between rancho size and time living in the rancho. What did exist was a relationship between groups and their average rancho size. Group A had the smallest ranchos (32.6 sqm on average), group B followed (45.8 sqm on average), and group C had the largest (56.4 sqm on average).
After the permanent structure was built, all dwellings went on to a second stage. However, only 14 dwellings completed a third stage, and 6 dwellings a fourth stage. Contrary to what happened with ranchos, there was a relationship between the stages of area increase of the permanent dwelling and its size. Dwellings that went through more stages achieved bigger areas. This was always true for all groups, and the relationship becomes evident comparing average areas in each stage (see Table 6).
Cross comparison of averages between groups also shows that group B has the lowest area average in all stages of the permanent dwelling. The highest averagedwelling area was that of group D for all stages. The dwelling growing activity slowed down over time. This can be seen in dwellings that stopped growing in the second and third stages and that spent a long time without further area increases (7 to 13 years). Also supporting this, the amount of area added had continuously dropped from stage to stage. Thus, it would be assumed that eventually dwellings would stop further growth. Table 6 summarizes the findings for each group of dwellings.
Table 6. Area Increase.
| growth stg | RANCHO STAGE | 1st STAGE | 2nd STAGE | 3rd STAGE | 4rd STAGE |
| dwelling g | sqm | sqm | sqm | sqm | sqm |
| GROUP A | 32.6 | 59.0 | 113.0 | 143.8 | 164.0 |
| GROUP B | 45.8 | 62.0 | 104.3 | 126.1 | 133.0 |
| GROUP C | 55.0 | 80.7 | 116.3 | 150.3 | -- |
| GROUP D | 56.4 | 111.2 | 145.6 | 183.5 | -- |
| TOTAL | 45.4 | 78.2 | 122.2 | 149.4 | 148.5 |
Thumbnail('cr-fig14-sm.jpg','cr-fig14.jpg'); ?>
3.5b Extension of the Spatial Structure of the Dwelling
This section deals with the physical changes of the dwelling. Patterns of change to the spatial structure showed the incremental process of dwelling construction.
Because ranchos became temporary structures, the addition of new spaces in these structures were rarely seen. At El Gallo, the rancho served to satisfy basic needs for shelter, while attention and resources went toward the construction of the permanent dwelling. This, at least, was the concept used by the El Roble pilot program in order to provide permanent housing at El Gallo. However, there was not substantial documentation supporting the pattern of shack replacement as the pattern followed by most squatters in Ciudad Guayana.
Considering the above explanation, in the present and next sections, the analysis of the non-permanent structure is separate from that of the permanent structure for three reasons. First, initial non-permanent structures are not common to all cases. Second, the growth of these structures is limited to a few cases. Third, the rancho is similar and evolves similarly in these cases. The first description of ranchos is extended to plots where ranchos were built. An analysis of permanent structures follows. As complementary information, the number of previous ranchos in each group is indicated at the beginning of each analysis.
Initial Structures. The Rancho
A large number of households built an initial non-permanent structure which was occupied immediately. As previously stated, these initial structures were called "ranchos" in Venezuela, but known as "barracas" in Ciudad Guayana. The rancho or barraca was the first investment in shelter usually made by land invaders and illegaldwellers in Venezuela.
The rancho is a simple wooden structure with walls and roof primarily made of tin. However, materials such as asbestos, wood planks and cardboard are also used, though they are less seen in Ciudad Guayana. Ranchos are located in the front area of usually rectangular plots. Plots in invasion settlements are arranged back to back, forming blocks and having the smallest dimension as frontage. A rancho has a rectangular plan to accommodate separate living and sleeping area. However, four separate rooms are also laid out in a square plan (see Fig.15). Floors are compacted earth, and windows are few if any. Light and ventilation are provided from two opposite doors, one facing the street or public side, and the other facing the enclosed backyard. Extra ventilation is obtained by a 10- to 50-cm gap between walls and ceiling. Roofs are single sloped toward the backyard, but other combinations can be found. Internal partitions are made of tin, wood or cardboard sheets, but often a simple curtain is enough. Materials are reused from old ranchos or from scrap, but if they can be afforded, new materials are a secure investment because ranchos are disassembled and transported with household belongings. Moreover, the tin walls and roof can eventually become the roof of a more durable and bigger house.
Improvements to ranchos are carefully considered while the land is not secured. For instance, a solid door can be used in another house and therefore is likely to be found. A concrete floor cannot be taken away; thus it is seldom used in ranchos unless permanence is assured. At El Gallo, inhabitants made some improvements to their ranchos shortly after building them. Fencing the plot, painting the exterior, setting up front gardens and even ornamentation of doors and windows were improvements performed within ten months after building the ranchos (Silva J. 1964:9). Although ranchos at El Gallo were considered temporary structures, families spent up to fourteen years in them before they built their first concrete-block house. Some neighbours even kept part or even the whole original rancho that was integrated to the permanent dwelling (i.e., the front porch, a back veranda or an extra dwelling).
Thumbnail('cr-fig15-sm.jpg','cr-fig15.jpg'); ?>Nevertheless, the general perception of ranchos as temporal shelters rather than primary forms of dwelling to be improved, can explain why very few ranchos at El Gallo increased their size.
Permanent Structures
. Group A. Formally Produced Units of Type 1
Of 7 households of this group, 6 were living on the plot when the permanent dwelling was built. Ranchos were removed after households moved into the new unit, although in several cases this was not immediate. During the first stage, the dwellings were built by the housing agency. According to a local regulation, dwellings were set back 5m from the front limit. The proposed unit also left small 1.5-meter spaces at both sides of the plot (the unit was 9m wide and plots were 12m wide). The inconvenience to use these narrow spaces was worsened when users built separation walls between adjacent plots. The largest open area was the backyard, which was expected to have the functions of the traditional urban "patio". The layout was efficiently assembled in a 59-sqm plan, although there were limited possibilities for expansion, keeping light, and ventilation of the existing spaces. However, it was possible to extend the laundry area toward the backyard (see Fig.5).
During the second stage (see Fig.16), 9 additions were built in the 8 dwellings of the sample, 7 of these toward the backyard and 2 toward the front yard. Additions toward the backyard were attached to the rear façade of the dwelling and occupied it either partially (2 cases) or totally (5 cases). The connection to these additions was made either by removing the rear wall of the kitchen, or by using the existing rear door. Three of the 5 full-width additions also added a row of one or more enclosed rooms using one of the lateral walls of the backyard. Thumbnail('cr-fig16-sm.jpg','cr-fig16.jpg'); ?> These rooms seem to have been built as subsequent additions, but these changes were not recorded in aerial pictures. Additions toward the front yard at this stage were also made to the main façade of the dwelling. One of these occupied the whole width of the façade, and it was connected to the dwelling through the previous front door. The other was a simple roof extension to park the household's taxi cab, although the front bedroom was given as part of the same extension. Other modifications of existing spaces were made by 5 households, which incorporated one of the bedrooms in the living room, and another one that removed the exterior wall of the front bedroom to open a shop.
In the third stage of evolution, 8 new additions were built in 6 dwellings of the group. Four of these additions were again toward the backyard, 1 toward the front yard, 2 toward the side yards and the last was a room in a second floor. Two of the 4 new additions toward the backyard were attached to the previous main structure.The other two were either against the rear wall of the plot or one of the sides that also faced a street (corner plot). The addition in the front yard was also attached to part of the façade. Lateral additions were made to gain area in the adjacent internal spaces rather than to add a new space. The second floor addition was made only on top of the previous rear addition and was accessed through an exterior stairwell.
A fourth stage was reached only by 2 dwellings. From 3 additions made, 1 was made toward the side yard and the other 2 toward the front yard. Like the other additions in the side yards, this was made by roofing over the area between the dwelling and the lateral wall of the plot. One of the front additions was an independent structure occupying only part of the front yard. The other was the enlargement of a previous addition to the front yard.
. Group B. Formally Produced Units of Type 2
Although all dwellings of this group were preceded by ranchos, they were totally removed after the basic unit was built. The unit's rectangular plan was also set back 5m from the front limit, and placed approximately in the middle of the plot width, leaving about 2.5m free on each side (the unit was 7m wide). In addition to the laundry area open to the backyard, there was a small front porch. The side yards of this unit were wide enough to be used as parking areas although few households ever had vehicles. The unit separated public and private blocks at both sides of the rectangular plan. Further growth was possible toward the backyard, keeping light and ventilation of the old areas (see Fig.5).
Thumbnail('cr-fig17-sm.jpg','cr-fig17.jpg'); ?>During the second stage of growth (see Fig.17), 10 additions were made in the 7 dwellings. Most of them were toward the backyard (6 cases), while the others were equally distributed between front additions and lateral additions. Most of the additions toward the backyard kept the dwelling width, but the width of one of them was also extended to the plot's side limit. All rear additions were connected to the existing structure through the previous rear door. Additions in the front yard were extensions of the porches in both cases. Finally, one of the lateral additions enclosed the whole side yard, while the other was a simple roof between the porch and the lateral wall of the plot as a parking place. Internal spaces were also modified. Almost all of the households had removed the wall that separated the kitchen from the living room to enlarge the latter. One of the dwellings opened up a window in the frontbedroom to create a shop.
In the third stage, 6 new additions were built in 4 dwellings, 4 of these toward the backyard, 2 in the side yard and 1 in the front yard. Additions toward the backyard were similar to those made in the second stage, except for one dwelling, which also added a separate enclosed structure for renting. The same was true for side extensions, which consisted of the area between the dwelling and the lateral wall of the plot. The extension in the front yard was an extension of the existing porch, although the living area was also enlarged with this addition.
Two dwellings had further extensions, both of them toward the backyard. One was like the other full-width additions attached to the back of the dwelling. The other was the enlargement of a detached rooming structure and the construction of another independent structure for bathroom purposes.
. Group C. Formally Prescribed Dwellings
Only one of the six cases of this group was living on the plot before the dwelling was built. However, this is one of the few cases that kept part of the rancho as part of the dwelling. The two sampled cases of the less popular design choices made few extensions. One of them, just roofed the internal courtyard to have an extra bedroom (see Fig.5, design b). During construction, the original design was also modified when the front bedroom was changed from one side of the house to the other. The other dwelling also made changes during the initial construction (see Fig.5, design a). The kitchen and the bathroom were not built to gain an extra bedroom. The only recorded change afterwards was the addition of these functions in the rear. The most used plan from the choices given to participants was the one that easily allowed further extensions (see Fig.5, design c). During construction, these households also changed proposed dimensions and altered openings. Three of the sampled households never built the partition between kitchen and living room, and two of these dwellings also transformed the proposed living area into an extra bedroom.
Thumbnail('cr-fig18-sm.jpg','cr-fig18.jpg'); ?>During the second stage (see Fig.18), the 4 dwellings made additions toward the backyard, as suggested by the original design. The dwelling that kept part of the rancho built brick walls under the rancho to be used as kitchen area. Three of the dwellings also roofed the side yard all along the original house.
The same kind of lateral addition was made in two other dwellings in the third stage. New additions toward the backyard were made in 2 cases. One of them was as wide as the existing structure and attached to it. The other was an independent structure against the rear wall of the plot. Two dwellings also made small additions in the side yards, and one made a second-floor addition on top of the porch.
In the fourth stage, only one dwelling added an open veranda in the backyard.
. Group D. Self-Produced Dwellings
Thumbnail('cr-fig19-sm.jpg','cr-fig19.jpg'); ?>Of a total of 10 cases studied in this group, 7 were living on the plot when they built the permanent structure. As in groups A and B, ranchos were built on the rear half of the plot. However, 3 cases placed the rancho in the front half of the plot (see Fig.19). For several households the rancho played a different role during and after the construction of the permanent dwelling than that observed in the other groups. The rancho served as a shelter while the dwelling was built, and in 3 cases sections of the rancho or the whole rancho were conserved as part of the permanent dwelling (i.e., a porch, a kitchen living area for tenants, and an extra dwelling for relatives). Even if the rancho was totally removed, the other 2 dwellings progressively substituted it with the permanent dwelling instead of removing it at once.
In the first stage, most of the households built a very complete unit, except the two cases that built the dwelling in phases. The layout and physical appearance of the new dwellings clearly resembled publicly produced and prescribed dwellings, specifically those of Groups B and C. The basic plan used in all cases was a central axis dividing the block of public areas on one side from the block of private areas on the other. As in the other groups, dwellings were set back approximately 5m from the front. Dwellings were also separated from the sides of the plot; however, most of the space left was given to one of the sides, about 2.5m or more. The other side became just a physical separation of house and plot limit, generally about 1m wide.
During the second stage 13 additions were made to the 10 dwellings. Of these, 8 were additions toward the backyard, 3 toward the front yard and the remaining 2 in the side yard. Extensions toward the backyard were as wide as the dwelling, except for 2 cases. One of these was also attached to the existing structure but partially occupied the façade. The other was a detached structure built against one of the lateral walls of the plot. Additions toward the front yard were porch extensions intwo cases, and the other was the front area of one of the houses built progressively. Extensions in the side yards were parking areas in both cases.
A third stage was reached only by 3 dwellings. One of them made a separate addition against the rear wall of the plot, another made an extension to the front porch, and the last added a roof between the dwelling and the lateral wall of the plot to make room for a car-repair workshop.
Characteristics of Added and Leftover Areas
Rear Additions and Backyards
Since the backyard was the largest open area within the plot, most of the additions were made on it. Additions were either attached or detached to the previous structure. Most of the attached rear additions were as wide as the dwelling, especially in groups B, C and D. Partial additions were produced only in group A in any of the stages of growth. The reason was that consecutive attached additions to the backyard affected the light and ventilation of existing spaces in dwellings of group A (see Fig.20). Instead, dwellings of the other groups were able to build continuously towards the back, keeping light and ventilation in existing and new spaces (see Fig.21). Detached additions were generally built against one of the walls of the backyard (see Fig.22).
| Thumbnail('cr-fig20-sm.jpg','cr-fig20.jpg'); ?> | Thumbnail('cr-fig21-sm.jpg','cr-fig21.jpg'); ?> | Thumbnail('cr-fig22-sm.jpg','cr-fig22.jpg'); ?> |
Rear additions could be either totally enclosed by walls (see dwelling #80, Fig.21) or semi-enclosed roofed areas (see dwelling #410, Fig.21). Enclosed additions contained one or more rooms that were used as extra-bedrooms, kitchens, dining rooms, bathrooms, rooms for renting and storage. Semi-enclosed and open additions were used as open corridors or verandas, laundry areas, dining and living areas and for storage of construction materials. In several instances, added spaces were being temporarily used for one purpose, but intended for another in the future (i.e., future rooms for renting were being used as storage places).
The leftover area of rear additions was the backyard itself. Already in the rancho stage, the backyard was demarcated with poles and wires. Plot walls were usually raised after the permanent dwelling was built and before first extensions were made. The territority defined by plot walls was such that several side-to-side neighbours built their own separation wall. Backyards at El Gallo became large open spaces planted with a variety of trees and plants. Thumbnail('cr-fig23-sm.jpg','cr-fig23.jpg'); ?> Sometimes domestic animals wereraised, or construction materials such as concrete bricks, clay slabs, tin sheets or scrap material accumulated in them (see Fig.23). An area close to the dwelling was usually cemented and defined with pots and containers for plants, low walls, and even wires between trees and the rear façade. This area was used for laundry and drying in the open as well as for informal gathering and chatting. Despite the backyard's important role, some households built up almost its entire area.
Front Additions and Front Yards
Front additions were seldom made, probably due to the possible consequences of violating local regulations. The most common extensions towards the front yard were open porches (see Fig.24). Only one household in the sample attached an enclosed extension to the front façade to relocate the social areas of the dwelling (see dwelling #73, Fig.25). Otherwise, extensions were small attached enclosures occupying part of the front yard for commercial purposes or simple roofed areas for parking (see dwelling #101, Fig.25).
| Thumbnail('cr-fig24-sm.jpg','cr-fig24.jpg'); ?> | Thumbnail('cr-fig25-sm.jpg','cr-fig25.jpg'); ?> |
Thumbnail('cr-fig26-sm.jpg','cr-fig26.jpg'); ?>
Front yards as outdoor areas were separated from the street with low walls sometimes with high fences on top. A small number of these were planted with trees and small gardens and used as meeting areas in the evenings. Still others were temporarily used to keep sand or stone piles and other construction materials (see Fig.26). However, most of them were just land or cemented extensions without a particular purpose.
Lateral Additions and Side Yards
Lateral additions were built when side yards were wide enough to allow an extra space (2.5 to 3.0 m). Few cases built on the narrow side yards of dwellings of group A (see dwelling #301, Fig.27). Dwellings of group D generally had one side yard, the other being just a physical separation between the dwelling and the limit of the plot. Enclosing the side yards was an easy way to add extra dwelling area. Nevertheless, these kinds of additions reduced light and ventilation to adjacent spaces. Half of them (7 out of 13) were simply roofed spaces to protect a parking place or a laundry area (see dwelling #180, Fig.28). A small number were enclosed rooms that occupied part of the side yard, leaving the rest open (i.e., a kitchen or a bathroom). Enclosed lateral additions that were all along the dwelling had openingsto the front (bedrooms or extensions of the existing bedrooms, see dwelling #50, Fig.27) and even independent accesses (rooms for renting, a grocery store, etc. See dwelling #71, Fig.28).
| Thumbnail('cr-fig27-sm.jpg','cr-fig27.jpg'); ?> | Thumbnail('cr-fig28-sm.jpg','cr-fig28.jpg'); ?> |
Thumbnail('cr-fig29-sm.jpg','cr-fig29.jpg'); ?>
Side yards as outdoor areas were not more successful than their enclosed counterparts. Because they were needed to shed light on and ventilate adjacent dwelling areas and to give tenants access to the backyard from the street, the uses for these open areas were limited to washing and drying, keeping the gas bottles, and storing materials. Very few side yards were treated as gardens, and others were enclosed to raise domestic animals (see Fig.29).
Second-Floor Additions and Internal Modifications
Second stories were built in just two cases of the sample, in groups A and C. Rooms were built on top of existing areas with solid roofs, which were not common in El Gallo. Access to these rooms was kept independent which made it possible to rent these areas.
Thumbnail('cr-fig30-sm.jpg','cr-fig30.jpg'); ?>Internal modifications occurred in most of the formally provided dwellings, modifications were made to adapt existing spaces to the spatial requirements of the household. This was usually done by joining adjacent areas or by giving a commercial use to these spaces. Front bedrooms were the most frequently modified spaces, either to open a shop or to join them to the living room (see Fig.30)
Summary of Extensions of the Spatial Structure
In the sample, 21 of the dwellings were preceded by ranchos, while the remaining 10 were built directly. In several cases, ranchos were used in conjunction with the permanent structure before any additions were made (see dwelling #301, Fig.6, section 3.3a). Also in two cases, the rancho was removed progressively while the permanent dwelling was replacing it over a period of several years (see dwelling #178b, Fig.9, section 3.3c).
Eventually, ranchos were torn down in all cases with one exception, in which the rancho was entirely kept as an extra dwelling for relatives. The other two ranchos were partially kept and became areas of the new dwelling. In one case part of the tin roof of the rancho was the front porch of the permanent dwelling. In the second case the roof and some walls of the rancho were kept to be used as a living/kitchen areafor tenants of the dwelling.
Nevertheless, these 3 households that kept the rancho or part of it, and the two households that progressively removed the rancho, were the only sampled dwellings that did not follow the pattern suggested by planners about the rancho location and removal once the permanent dwelling was built.
There is no doubt that the pattern of positioning the initial dwelling within the plot given by the formal models A and B influenced the choices of groups C and D. As a result, all dwellings left yards in front, sides and back of the plot, the last being the largest. However, the way that the plot became "filled up" by additions did not comply with the pattern of the detached dwelling. The separation walls between adjacent plots were raised, and the dwelling was expanded into backyards and side yards. Front yards were less used for dwelling expansion, although many were enclosed with low walls and fences. Of a total of 69 additions made in all stages of all sampled dwellings, 40 were made toward the backyard, 12 toward the front yard, 15 toward the side yards and 2 on second floors.
Additions toward the backyard were the most common. They represented 65% of extensions in the second stage, 47.8% of extensions in the third stage, and half of the extensions in the last stage. Most of the structures added on the backyard were attached to the rear façade of the dwelling (31 out of 40), occupying it totally, except for 2 dwellings of the group A, which made partial additions. These structures were enclosed by walls containing one large room or several smaller rooms. These spaces were used mainly as extra bedrooms and to locate or relocate the kitchen. In 5 cases the rooms of these additions kept independent accesses for rental purposes. Additions as described were made mainly during the first and second stages of growth. However, attached structures could also be open corridors or semi-enclosed verandas for varied uses such as dining areas, laundry areas or simple outdoor expansions. These open extensions happened when further growth toward the back was unlikely to happen again.
The sequences of attached additions toward the backyard were made more frequently in groups B, C and D because the dwelling layout in these groups made possible natural lighting and ventilation of successive additions. In contrast, even if open verandas were added as second extensions in group A, the light and ventilation of existing spaces became considerably affected.
Detached additions made to the backyard (4 dwellings) were enclosed structures of one or more rooms built against the rear or one of the lateral walls of the backyard. If these structures were not enclosed by walls (2 cases), it was because they were unfinished or were being temporarily used for different purposes (i.e., storage of belongings or construction materials). However, as declared by the households themselves, these areas were built for renting as a source (or future source) of income.
Additions on the side yards were less frequent: 17.5% of the first extensions, 30.4% of the second extensions, and 16.7% of the third extensions (1 out of 6 cases). Additions were made after the walls between plots were raised, and in 8 cases the area was totally enclosed to be used as a kitchen, an extra bedroom or for commercial purposes. However, in 4 other cases, the area was just roofed to protect a laundry area or a parking place. Building on these areas was more frequently done if the side yards were about 2.5m wide or more. Four dwellings of group B, 3 of group C and 4 of group D made this kind of extension. In contrast, only 2 dwellings of the group A made extensions on their narrow side yards.
Despite the available space of the front yard, additions on it were least frequent. Only 7 were made as the first extension (17.5%), 3 as the second extension (13.0%) and 2 as the third extension (33.3%). One of them was as wide as the dwelling and totally changed the exterior appearance of the house. The other two were also enclosed areas for commercial use and another was an extension of one of these areas. Only one was a roofed parking area. All the extensions toward the front were made by dwellings of group A and B; however, as seen in other dwellings of the settlement, this was not an exclusive characteristic of these dwellings.
Second-floor additions were the last extension made in two dwellings. Both were rooms made in part of the roof area and with an exterior access through a staircase.
Internal changes were produced in dwellings of groups A and B during the completion of first additions. Two general changes were observed. Living rooms were enlarged and front bedrooms were transformed onto commercial premises. No changes were produced in existing spaces of groups C and D.
3.5c Additions and Changes in the Use-Layout of the Dwelling
This section refers to the changes produced in the functional layout of the dwelling as a consequence of adding nonexisting uses together with new structures or freeing functions from existing structures to incorporate them into the added one. The use-layout was also modified when changes of use occurred within existing spaces. The sequence in which new uses were added or existing uses were relocated suggested household functional requirements and priorities. The criteria of analysis are as in the previous analysis. Differentiation was made between ranchos and the permanent structures because the rancho's use-layout was not modified, but it was substituted by the use-layout of the permanent dwelling.
Initial Structures
As mentioned in section 3.6b, planners at El Gallo allowed ranchos as initial shelters while the permanent dwelling was being built. In their characteristic form, ranchos were invariably divided in two functional blocks. The public block on one side contained a living room, dining room and kitchen in one or two separate spaces, and the private block on the other side contained one or two bedrooms. The living room of a rancho was a sitting area, and it was furnished with chairs and essential household items. The living room was used for social gatherings and formal encounters. Sometimes the living area was also used for dining, although the dining table would be in the kitchen if it was big enough. The kitchen was usually equipped with a counter or table for preparing food, some sort of closed chest or tall cabinet for storing food, and the stove. Traditionally kerosene stoves were used within the rancho and wood stoves, if any, were kept in the open. However, gas stoves and other domestic kitchen equipment such as refrigerators and small electrical appliances are commonly seen today in ranchos. A couple would have one bedroom when they had no children or young children. But if the family grew and resources allowed, a separate room would be built for children and even a third to separate girls and boys (see Fig.15). For sleeping, the traditional hammocks were rarely seen, except for a baby's use. Instead, bedrooms were stuffed with two or three beds, cardboard boxes with personal belongings and wires laid between walls to hang clothes. Contrary to what could be expected, outdoor extensions such as porches or verandas were seldom built in ranchos.
Instead of locating the rancho in the front of the plot, as they usually were in squatter settlements, ranchos at El Gallo were set back to allow for the construction of the permanent dwelling. Backyards became considerably reduced; however, many household activities took place in backyards. An area for washing dishes and laundry was located in the open, next to the back door of the rancho, this was generally defined by cans and pots of plants, and small trees. Small enclosures for pit latrines were built in a rear corner of the plot close to this area and, usually beside it, households installed a small unroofed enclosure for bathing. Wires were usually laid in several directions around this area to dry the laundry. Although the urban character of El Gallo discouraged activities such as cultivating small crops and raising domestic animals, even today they are common practices among few neighbours. Ranchos rarely included shops within their structure except for some services, such as hairdressing, which were done in the living area. However, stands or small enclosed structures were built in the front of the plot already in early periods of ranchos.
Permanent Structures
. Group A. Formally Produced Units of Type 1
Uses assigned to the spaces of the type 1 unit reflected conventional standards of formal housing. In the first stage households were provided with the basic unit. Building plans showed a living room furnished with a medium-size sofa set and a center table. The master bedroom was furnished with a double bed, and the other two bedrooms with two single beds each. The bathroom was spacious and equipped with a basin, toilet and shower. In the dining/kitchen area, plans showed a dining table for six and a counter that included sink, stove and working space efficiently organized against the rear wall of the room. Finally, a small porch for doing the laundry connected the kitchen to the backyard.
During the second stage, modifications to the use-layout were produced in all the dwellings of the sample almost immediately after the unit was built. The following lists the uses added and changes due to these modifications:
. New kitchen spaces were built in 4 of the 7 sampled dwellings of the group, leaving the previous space for exclusive dining use.
. One, two and three extra bedrooms were added in 5 dwellings.
. A living room was added in one dwelling. However, the existing one was modified in 5 of the remaining dwellings.
. A new dining room was added by 3 households, leaving the kitchen/dining room as a kitchen exclusively in 2 cases.
. A large laundry area was added in 2 dwellings.
. A bathroom with separate toilet and bathing area was built in two dwellings.
. A small shop was opened in the front bedroom of the dwelling by making a wide opening in the front wall.
. A garage was added in one case to park a taxi cab.
In the third stage, new changes in the use-layout occurred in 5 of the units. All these changes were produced by new uses given to added structures.
. A new kitchen was added in one dwelling to leave the kitchen/dining room for dining only.
. Laundry areas were added in 2 dwellings.
. A new bathroom was added in 1 case.
. Rooms for renting were built in 2 dwellings.
. A small convenience store was added in the front of one dwelling.
Another change in the use-layout was produced during the fourth stage of growth. Only two dwellings reached this stage.
. Commercial premises were built in both dwellings.
. A garage for a delivery truck was added to one of the shops.
. Group B. Formally Produced Cores of Type 2
During the first stage, finished units included a program similar to that of type 1 units. According to plans, a small front porch led to a living room, dining room and a small kitchen integrated in the main social area. There was no separation between these three functions, except for a low wall between the dining room and the kitchen. The bathroom had a toilet and shower, but the basin was outside at the entrance of the bathroom, in a small hall. Like in type 1 units, a small porch for laundry opened to the backyard. The private area of the unit included three bedrooms of equal size.
Additions also started almost immediately after units were built. Uses givento additions in the second stage are listed below:
. The kitchen was moved to a different space in 6 dwellings integrating the cleared kitchen area to the living room.
. The dining room was also changed in the same 6 dwellings together with the kitchen, although some households left a formal dining area in the same place and added a dining table in the kitchen.
. Living rooms were not added, but in 6 cases they became enlarged when the kitchen was taken out of this space.
. One or two extra bedrooms were added in the other 6 cases. This addition was part of the same structure of the kitchen/dining space in 5 cases.
. A small shop was opened in the front bedroom of one of the dwellings.
. An extra bathroom was built in 2 dwellings.
. Front porches were enlarged in 2 dwellings.
. A parking area was created, roofing the lateral setback in one dwelling.
The third stage was reached by 4 households. Changes of the use-layout in this stage were as follows:
. A kitchen became relocated again in the new addition built at the rear in 2 dwelling.
. An extra bedroom was built in 2 dwellings.
. One or two rooms for rent were built in 2 dwellings either within the same dwelling structure or in a separate structure in the backyard.
. A rear porch was built as an outdoor extension for the tenants' use in one of the dwellings.
. An extra bathroom to be used by tenants and the household was built in 1 case.
. Laundry areas were built in 2 dwellings.
Two dwellings reached a fourth stage. Similar to type 1 units, additions in this stage were mainly spaces to generate income.
. A veranda was added where construction material was being stored.
. An enlargement of a room for renting to a two-room unit was built in onedwelling.
. The same dwelling added a bathroom to serve tenants and the family owner.
. Group C. Formally Prescribed Dwellings
All sampled households within this group moved into the plot during or after the house was built, with the exception of one household that was living on a rancho. Construction was either managed or done by the user according to plans and specifications. During the first stage, when dwellings were built, the only changes affecting the use-layout were made in 2 dwellings that used the proposed living room to create an extra bedroom and integrated the living room into the dining area. The partitions that divided the kitchen from the dining area were not built in 3 dwellings, although the kitchen remained in its position during this first period. Finally, a large grocery store was made by building a roof over the side yard of one of the dwellings.
New changes were seen later in a second stage of growth in all cases. Unlike the first two groups, changes did not happen immediately after the first permanent dwelling was built, but there was a longer period of time without any construction activity. Changes are listed below:
. Kitchens were relocated into a new room in 3 cases.
. A dining area was included within the new kitchen in 1 case. In the other 2 cases the dining/kitchen space was freed for exclusive dining use.
. The living room became enlarged in the dwelling that separated kitchen and dining areas.
. A room for renting was built in the lateral setback of the remaining dwelling. It was accessed directly from the outside.
Other changes were made during a third stage of growth by all dwellings.
. Extra bedrooms for household use were built in 2 cases.
. Another kitchen was added in the back of the house together with a laundry area.
. A room for renting was added in one dwelling.
Another change, made only in one case, consisted of an open veranda in the back of the house, which was also used as a laundry area.
. Group D. Self-Produced Dwellings
In cases where the rancho was not removed after the permanent structure was built, it was kept totally or partially as part of the new house. Although houses had a similar spatial structure, the functional layout varied in some cases. In all cases use-layout included living and dining room space (sometimes these spaces were separated by partitions), a kitchen, three bedrooms and, in several cases, a front porch. There was only one house that included a laundry area within the dwelling, and 4 dwellings were initially built without bathrooms. Two households included small business areas within their plots. The two cases that did not build a complete first permanent dwelling also reached a similar functional layout when the dwelling was completed.
In the second stage, 9 dwellings made modifications to the initially built permanent dwelling. The remaining two kept building their dwellings progressively. Uses added or changed are listed below:
. New bedrooms were added in 3 dwellings.
. Kitchens were relocated to the new addition in the backyard in 3 households.
. A living room as well as dining room were added as new areas in one dwelling.
. A grocery store was built in one case.
. One, two or three rooms for renting were built in three dwellings.
. Extended laundry areas were built in two dwellings for generation of an income.
. Bathrooms and extra bathrooms for the tenants' use were built in 6 dwellings.
. Front porches or extensions to them were built in 4 dwellings.
During the third and last stage for this group, only three dwellings were involved in additions to the dwelling. Changes to the use-layout were as follows:
. An extra bedroom was built in 2 dwellings.
. A laundry area was added in one dwelling.
. Roofed areas as parking areas were added in 2 dwellings; one of them was also used as a workshop by a car repairman.
Table 7 summarizes the described changes by group, indicating the uses given to added or modified spaces. Numbers on cells indicate dwellings per group thatwent through each change.
Table 7. Changes in Use-Layout.(numbers within cells are frequency of dwellings adding the use)
| Stages | 1st STAGE | 2nd STAGE | 3rd STAGE | 4th STAGE | ||||||||||||
| Groups | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D |
| dwgs/group | 8 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Bedrooms | 7 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| Kitchen | 7 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Dining-rooms | 7 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Living-rooms | 7 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Small shops | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Stores | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||
| Rooms t/ rent | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Laundry are. | 7 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Bathrooms | 7 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Porch/Verand | 7 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Characteristics of Added Functions
Extra bedrooms were added to provide room enough for the growing household. Added bedrooms were furnished with three beds and even two double beds, wardrobes, chests and boxes to store the household's clothing (see Fig.32). Households of group C increased dimensions indicated in plans for the bedrooms while dwellings were being built. However, already-built bedrooms of groups A and B hardly allowed for more than two single beds. Few households decided to increase their dimensions. A large majority added more and larger bedrooms. Table 8 shows the average area of initially built and added bedrooms. In the table, groups C and D built large bedrooms from the beginning.
Table 8. Average area of bedrooms per periods of growth.
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | 8.19 sqm | 8.00 sqm | 10.75 sqm | 12.64 sqm |
| Added later | 12.34 " | 9.71 " | 9.42 " | 10.28 " |
Kitchen areas built by households were larger than those formally provided or planned (see Table 9). But also kitchens directly built by households were laid out differently. The integration of kitchen activities within a counter area as proposed in groups A, B and C was adopted by some households. However, due to the traditional differentiation of these activities (see initial structures in section 3.5c), separate areas were arranged for washing, and food preparation and cooking within the new kitchens. The washing area was separated from the working area and often occupied a large portion of new kitchens, sometimes accommodating more than one sink. There were even dwellings that initially kept the washing activity outdoors, in the rear porch or in the open. Large kitchens also included a dining table for daily use and several other activities (i.e., family chatting, sewing or school homework). The kitchen was always placed in the rear area of the dwelling in direct relation with the backyard. Thus, each time that dwellings grew toward the backyard, the kitchen was relocated within the new area.
Table 9 shows the kitchen areas initially provided by formal housing programs and the changes made to them by households.
| Thumbnail('cr-fig31-sm.jpg','cr-fig31.jpg'); ?> | Thumbnail('cr-fig32-sm.jpg','cr-fig32.jpg'); ?> | Thumbnail('cr-fig33-sm.jpg','cr-fig33.jpg'); ?> |
Table 9. Average area of kitchens per periods of growth. ( * as proposed on building plans)
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | 3.08 sqm | 3.22 sqm | 5.29 sqm * | 11.05 sqm |
| Added later | 10.57 " | 10.74 " | 13.94 " | 9.42 " |
Thumbnail('cr-fig34-sm.jpg','cr-fig34.jpg'); ?>
Table 10. Average area of dining-rooms per periods of growth. ( * as proposed by building plans)
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | 6.80 sqm | 5.30 sqm | 7.00 sqm * | 12.96 sqm |
| Added later | 14.50 " | 12.36 " | 11.36 " | -- " |
Thumbnail('cr-fig35-sm.jpg','cr-fig35.jpg'); ?>
Table 11. Average area of laundry areas per periods of growth.
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | 2.61 sqm | 4.29 sqm | -- sqm | -- sqm |
| Added later | 14.48 " | 14.91 " | 15.76 " | 16.43 " |
Thumbnail('cr-fig36-sm.jpg','cr-fig36.jpg'); ?>
Table 12. Average area of commercial premises per periods of growth.
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | -- sqm | -- sqm | -- sqm | -- sqm |
| Added later | 22.50 " | -- " | 29.75 " | 14.80 " |
Thumbnail('cr-fig37-sm.jpg','cr-fig37.jpg'); ?>
Table 13. Average area of rooms to rent per periods of growth.
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | -- sqm | -- sqm | -- sqm | -- sqm |
| Added later | 10.34 " | 13.07 " | 10.93 " | 12.82 " |
Table 14. Average area of living-rooms per periods of growth. ( * as proposed in building plans)
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | 10.50 sqm | 11.47 sqm | 10.20 sqm * | 15.27 sqm |
| Added later | 18.26 " | 19.68 " | 16.12 " | -- " |
Table 15. Average area of bathrooms per periods of growth.
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | 3.90 sqm | 3.08 sqm | 3.50 sqm | 4.13 sqm |
| Added later | 4.61 " | 4.86 " | 3.61 " | -- " |
Table 16. Average area of front porchs per periods of growth.
| Period \ Groups | GROUP A | GROUP B | GROUP C | GROUP D |
| Init. built | 3.00 sqm | 3.00 sqm | -- sqm | -- sqm |
| Added later | 5.20 " | 10.70 " | 15.76 " | 16.17 " |
Table 17. Total number of Bedrooms built on each group. ( * construction of permanent dwelling)
| 1st STAGE * | 2nd STAGE | 3rd STAGE | Bedrooms/dwell. | |
| GROUP A f= 8 | 21 bedrooms | 9 bedrooms | --- bedrooms | 4.28 |
| GROUP B f= 7 | 21 " | 5 " | 4 " | 4.28 |
| GROUP C f= 6 | 10 " | --- " | 3 " | 2.50 |
| GROUP D f=10 | 28 " | 4 " | --- " | 3.20 |
Living rooms became spacious areas for formal gathering. Living areas werefurnished with upholstered living room sets, considered important household assets. These living rooms were reserved for special occasions while family gatherings occurred in other parts of the dwelling, such as porches, kitchens or verandas. Most households of group C enlarged the proposed living room during construction. In group A, households enlarged the existing living room, incorporating one of the bedrooms into it. In group B, living rooms were also enlarged to relocate the dining and kitchen areas. Most of the time, these enlarged living areas were too big for their intended use; however, they were badly proportioned to be furnished in the usual way. The result was long and narrow rooms with leftover areas often filled with extra furniture. There were even extreme cases in which, after a new living room was built, the original small living area was left with no particular use.
Dining rooms underwent similar changes. In groups A and B dining rooms were either relocated in new areas or enlarged after the kitchen was removed from the space. However, new dining areas were not clearly identifiable in all dwellings. Households did not conceive the dining room as a special, separate area. Several households adopted the idea of a formal dining area proposed by groups A and B, but also included a dining table within the kitchen, which actually was the dining area. Furthermore, though not frequently, some households kept the formal dining area beside the living room, added a dining room and kept the dining table within the kitchen. In table 10, the area that was considered as the dining room, was the one more frequently used for this activity.
Bathrooms built in groups A and B remained basically the same. However, added bathrooms were built separating bathing and toilet area. Despite the resemblance that new bathrooms had with the separate latrine and bathing area in ranchos, the layout had an obvious practical use of large households. Table 15 shows that, in general, the areas of added bathrooms were on average similar to the original ones.
Laundry areas were a potential source of income. Washing and ironing for better-off people were common activities in Venezuelan barrios. Entrepreneurial laundry areas as income generators were large roofed extensions that made itpossible to dry clothes even while it rained. Several dwellings of groups A and B were enlarged for this purpose.
Commercial premises were also a main source of income. In a first instance, front rooms became small shops to sell goodies and sodas. Few changes were required to open a small shop, a bigger window, an additional door or a roof towards the street side. If business did not work out, or was not needed any more, the shop could always be used as a bedroom again. Some households added structures for this particular use, but, contrary to what could be expected, few households added them in the front yard. Probably due to the setback regulation, people preferred to build toward the sides wherever it was possible. Table 12 shows the area of commercial premises added for that only purpose; it does not include existing bedrooms that were transformed into small shops.
Rooms for renting were the most common additions to generate income, although they required very specific characteristics. The isolation of rental rooms from the rest of the dwelling was almost a "standard" valued by tenants and landlords. A separate access from the street was required, but also a certain degree of visual and acoustic privacy was considered convenient. These characteristics were best met in rooms facing the front either in lateral setbacks or on second floors. However, in group A side yards were too narrow, and even in group B dwellings relied on these spaces for light and ventilation. Thus, restricted by the available space, most of the rental additions were built as separate structures in the backyard, leaving independent access from the street through the side yards. Services provided for tenants' use were also important. The strategic layout of kitchens and location of new bathrooms allowed their use by both household and tenants. Table 13 shows the average area of rental rooms which, compared to Table 8, demonstrates they were bigger than household bedrooms.
Front porches became the areas for informal social interaction. The importance of these areas is reflected in the dimensions given to them in dwellings of groups C and D. Porches were often enclosed by low walls and fenced with steel bars so they became protected outdoor areas. Nevertheless, only three householdsof groups B enlarged the small porch, and only one of the dwellings of group A added a front porch. It is also true that not having these areas did not stop people from gathering in front of the dwellings in the evenings or in the shade of trees. Table 16 shows the average area of porches for the different groups.
Parking areas were the simplest extensions made, being generally just a tin roof between the dwelling and the lateral wall of the plot. Six dwellings built these roofs to park a taxi, a delivery truck and to cover the working area of a car repairman. Garages were directly related to income-generating activities or indirectly by preserving an income-generating property of the household, such as a taxi cab or a delivery truck.
Summary of Additions and Changes in Use-Layout
Changes in the functional layout by adding already-existing uses were made when existing spaces did not meet household requirements for these functions (i.e., location, layout and size of kitchen and living areas). Existing uses were added when they became insufficient for household needs (i.e., size or number of bedrooms). Additions of non-existing uses to the functional layout were made to satisfy new needs or individual requirements of the households (large laundry areas, commercial premises, and rooms for rent).
Dwellings of all groups were initially built with similar use-layouts, including living room, dining room, kitchen area (not necessarily separated in different spaces), and two or three bedrooms. In addition to this, groups A and B included a bathroom and a small laundry area. Bathrooms were also built in dwellings of group C, but not all households of group D did so. However, during the first stage, some households of these two groups already had small shops, stores and laundry areas to generate extra incomes.
During the second and third stage, the majority of households of groups A and B added more bedrooms, and separate kitchens and/or dining areas (see Table 7). In contrast, only 3 out of 10 households of group D underwent similar changes. None of the households of group C built extra bedrooms in the stage after construction of the dwelling either. However, they did add a new area to relocate the kitchen as was proposed.
There were several motivations for these changes, and some of them can be identified by reviewing the numerical data. For instance, 5 out of 7 households in group A and 6 out of 7 in group B built together a total of 18 extra bedrooms. Considering that these dwellings had already 3 bedrooms (see Table 17), both groups ended up with an average of 4.3 bedrooms per dwelling. If this figure is compared with 3.2 bedrooms per dwelling for group D, the difference suggests that it was necessary for groups A and B to have, on average, more than 1 extra bedroom thangroups C and D in order to accommodate the household. Consistent with what was suggested in Table 8, groups A and B needed larger and more bedrooms to match the bedroom area of "average" bedrooms of groups C and D.
The bathrooms of groups A, B and C seemed to have met household needs better than the other areas since only 2 households added a second bathroom during the second stage. Several households of group D added extra bathrooms at this stage, although 3 of them were building their first bathroom.
While groups A and B were installing small shops in their front bedrooms or enlarging the laundry areas to generate income during the second stage, grocery stores and laundry areas kept being added in group D. These last additions started during the third stage for groups A and B, becoming less frequent for group D. Rooms to rent were built in groups C and D during the second and third stage. However, they were built for the first time in the third stage for groups A and B.
3.6 Summary of Dwelling Evolution at El Gallo
The following section summarizes relevant observations regarding the three dimensions of the analysis, area increase of the dwelling, changes in its spatial structure and changes of its functional layout. Information is presented according to stages of development.
Initial Structures
Only 32,3% of the first permanent dwellings were directly built in similar proportions in all groups. Many dwellings were preceded by non-permanent structures or ranchos that served as shelters until a permanent dwelling was built. Ranchos at El Gallo were the same type of shelter built in illegal settlements by land invaders. However, the settlement patterns of ranchos were different from those of informal settlements. At the request of the housing agency, the rancho was set back from the front of the plot to allow the construction of a permanent dwelling in the front area. People improved certain aspects of these temporary shelters, but their size increased in very few cases even though people spent long periods of time living in them. The smallest rancho of the sample was from group A. It was 14.5 sqm and was used for about 3 years before the basic unit was built. The largest rancho was of group D. Itwas 76 sqm and was used for about 7 years. It was also one of the three that was removed progressively while the permanent dwelling was built. On average, group A dwellings also had the smallest rancho area and were used for shorter periods of time. Group D had the largest average area for ranchos and were used for longer periods.
With one exception, non-permanent structures were removed after the permanent dwelling was built. Other two dwellings left parts of them as areas of the current dwelling.
The Permanent Structure
Households of all groups moved into a very complete first permanent structure. To summarize, formally prescribed dwellings were built first (most were begun between 1964 and 1967). They were followed by the formally produced dwellings of groups A (7 of them were built between 1965 and 1967) and B (built in the early 1970s). The final group were the self-produced dwellings of group D (most of them built in the middle to late 1970s). It is likely that households were willing to prolong their stay in the rancho in exchange for a first structure, bigger and better adapted to their particular needs. The permanent dwellings were built by continuous additions to the existing structure throughout the time that were known as stages in the dwelling evolution. These additions affected area, spatial configuration and use-layout of the dwelling.
. First Stage
In groups A and B, this time was when the basic unit was finished. For groups C and D, the first stage was the moment when the permanent dwelling was built. The average area for all dwellings at this point was 81.8 sqm. The smallest area average of the sample was for units of group A (59 sqm) and the largest was for dwellings of the self-produced group (111.15 sqm).
For 6 dwellings of group A (dwellings preceded by ranchos), the permanent dwelling was built within the next three years (between 1964-67) after the rancho was recorded last in the aerial data. For most of group B (4 out of 6 cases), the first stage was completed within the seven years after their last aerial record (between 1967-74). For the only household of group C that was living on the plot, it also took less than seven years to build the permanent dwelling. Most dwellings of group D were builtwithin 7 years (6 out of 7 cases) after the rancho was recorded for the last time.
Dwellings of groups A, B and C were designed as detached units and located within the plot, leaving 5-meter front yards, large backyards and side yards going from 1 to 2.5m. The pattern of building an isolated unit was imitated in self-produced dwellings. However, most of these dwellings left a narrow strip on one of the sides for ventilation, while the other side became 3 to 4m wide. Dwellings of group D also resembled the layouts of those of groups B and C, these three groups being the easiest dwellings to extend in later stages.
In general all dwellings had a similar functional layout in this stage, not only because two thirds of the dwellings were formal models, but also because self-produced dwellings imitated patterns of the formal models. Either way, dwellings at this stage came to satisfy shelter needs (i.e., living, eating and sleeping). However, already in this stage, groups C and D included small shops and workshops to generate extra income (see Fig.31).
. Second Stage
All dwellings made additions to the permanent dwelling. On average, sampled dwellings increased to 122.2 sqm. Within this figure group B was the smallest (average 104.3 sqm), and group D was the largest (average 145.6 sqm).
The second stage occurred within the following 13 years after the first stage in most of the dwellings of group A (6 cases out of 8), less than 6 years for most dwellings of group B (5 cases out of 7), less than 7 years for dwellings of group C (4 out of 6 cases), and less than 8 years for most dwellings of group D (8 cases out of 11)
Most dwellings made additions toward the backyards (26 out of 31), directly attaching the new structure to the rear façade of the dwelling (24 cases) or adding a separate structure in the backyard (2 cases). Backyard additions were used to add new bedrooms in 15 dwellings, relocate kitchens in 18 dwellings and relocate dining rooms in 13 dwellings. The other 5 dwellings added rooms for renting, and 3 added laundry areas to generate income.
Additions toward the side yards were made in 7 dwellings including all groups, excepting group A. Generally side yard additions were made after walls were built on the plot limits. Many of these additions were not totally enclosed to retain light andventilation to adjacent spaces. Side yard extensions in this stage were used to add extra bedrooms in 2 cases, rooms for renting in 1 case, and parking areas in another case.
Additions toward the front yard were made only in three cases of group A. The local regulation of the 5-meter setback discouraged this kind of intervention during the first years. These kinds of additions were made to add a living and dining room in 1 case, a parking place in the other and an extension of the existing porch in the last.
The relative higher use of backyard additions as private areas can be culturally explained. However, the fact that backyards concentrated most of the available area and were away from public view also influenced household choices.
In several basic units (groups A and B) internal transformations were made in existing spaces. In group A, 5 dwellings integrated one bedroom to enlarge the living room, one dwelling transformed the front bedroom into a shop and another integrated the same bedroom to the parking place in the front of the dwelling. In group B, 6 dwellings removed the kitchen from the kitchen living space, and 1 dwelling opened a shop in the front bedroom.
In general, additions and changes made in this stage responded basically to the need for extra bedrooms due to household growth, the inappropriateness of the existing spaces to household needs (formally produced dwellings) and income-generation activities.
. Third Stage
The number of dwellings that reached the third stage dropped to 14. Almost half of them (6) were cores of type A. The rest of the group was composed of 3 dwellings of group B, 2 dwellings of group C and 3 dwellings of group D. Dwellings averaged 149.4 sqm and again the largest area average was for group D (183.5 sqm) and the smallest was for group B (126.1 sqm).
The third stage happened within 7 years after the second stage for group A (4 out of 6 cases), the same time period for group B (the 3 cases that reached this stage), 6 years for all group C and 11 years for group D.
A total of 11 dwellings made new additions toward the backyard. Physical characteristics, as well as the use given to these additions, were similar to those of the second stage. Within these additions, bedrooms were added in 4 dwellings, kitchensrelocated in 3 and the dining room in one. Also an existing room for tenants was extended to a two-room unit and the roof of future rooms in another, second bathrooms were added in 2 dwellings, laundry areas in other 2 and a two-room commercial space was added in the backyard of a corner plot.
New side yard additions were made in 7 dwellings. Within these areas, bedrooms were added in 1 dwelling, a kitchen was relocated in another, laundry areas were added in 2 dwellings, a second bathroom was added in one dwelling and parking places were created in 2 dwellings.
Front yard additions were built in 3 dwellings, 2 of them were extensions of the existing porch, and one was a store built for the first time as an independent structure.
Second-floor additions were made for the first time in two dwellings, both to room tenants.
Many of the additions in this stage were made either to generate an income or to rent the space in the future. The workshop of the car repairman and rooms with independent access clearly indicated this. The most interesting fact was that these structures were either unfinished, unused or being used for other purposes. For instance, a small shop was being used as bedroom by a visiting son of the family when the house was surveyed. Open roofed areas were used for laundry and drying linen, an activity frequently performed in barrios by housewives to generate income.
. Fourth Stage
Only 9 dwellings reached this last stage. They were 2 dwellings of group A and 2 of group B. The average of area increase is lower than the average area for the third stage. The reason for this apparent decrease is that dwellings that went to a fourth stage were under the average area. Considering only the areas of the dwellings involved, area actually increased in all cases.
This last stage was reached within 4 and 11 years in cases of group A, and 4 years in both cases of group B.
Additions toward the backyard were both made by dwellings of group B. One was the extension of a room for rent to a two-room unit, and a bathroom was also added for tenants' use. The other was a veranda, although it was being used to store construction materials during the survey.
Additions toward the front yard were built in two dwellings of group A. One was the extension of an existing commercial premise, and the other was a new structure for the same purposes. An addition toward the side yard was made by this dwelling in which also a roof to park a new truck delivery was installed.
. Notes for Chapter III
1 Using the exchange rate of Bs4.50 per U$1.00 existing in 1964.
2 There is no formal documentation, only the inhabitants' anecdotes about how services were formalized. However, in the most recent site and services that was being developed in Ciudad Guayana at the time of this study (UD 337), the settlers said that the Electricity Department inspected the irregular connections to the energy lines correcting any failure and installing a meter in order to receive a regular service. In relation to the water supply, it was observed that rubber hoses were not being used any more. Users installed a very efficient network of PCV and galvanized pipes that ran from the standpipes to each house. Some of the pipes were buried in the ground, making the network almost permanent.
3 Up to then, human waste disposal was solved using latrines that were built by a sanitation program of the Ministry of Health at affordable prices under the request of the household.
4 Dodge S. Charles 1968:220.
5 The "zaguan" is a narrow corridor that accesses the main patio in traditional urban houses. It is a typical element in the courtyard colonial dwelling, and people of El Gallo used the name to refer to any passageway that connected the exterior of the house with the backyard.
6 The front setback regulation is a common practice of Ciudad Guayana planning. This space is reserved for eventual expropriation due to widening of roads, sidewalks or other public works. The space is expected to be used as front yard garden and outdoor expansion. Contrary to the traditional continuous fa^Gade right on the plot front line inherited from colonial towns, this idea was rooted in the suburbs western cities.