Group 1 | G01

Ideological and political framing of the built environment

• Can you identify an example, in other contexts/countries, where ideology or political
  agendas significantly influenced the design, production, or spatial organisation of
  housing? What social or political narratives were these urban forms intended to
  express or reinforce?

Built form functions and economic reasons as material scripts: choices of scale, layout, access and visibility throughout the 20th century materialised Western and Eastern national powers’ relations and ideology. Techniques such as monumental axes and standardised units embedded narratives of collective identity, technological progress, moral order or social hierarchy directly into residents’ movements and perceptions. Because these messages were experienced bodily, through which one may live, gather or even look, they transformed propaganda into an ambient, unquestioned background of many contexts’ urban life in Europe.

Keywords:  Monumental, Influence, Collectivism, Module, Heritage, Urban Form, Regularity

Group 2 | G02

Sustainable urban regeneration and historical continuity

• In what ways did the industrialisation of the housing sector contribute to the creation of urban landscapes? What are the main challenges and opportunities in reusing and integrating large-scale prefabricated housing neighbourhoods into contemporary urban development?

Industrialised prefabrication stamped cities with vast, standardised slab blocks whose speed, scale and repetition solved quantitative housing shortages yet produced ring-like belts of monotonous concrete that now define many European cities' skylines. Reusing these estates is often hindered by ageing structure, poor energy performance, rigid layouts and the social stigma of peripheral mono functionality. Nevertheless, their generous open space, sunk embodied carbon and robust prefabricated frames create opportunities for deep retrofit energy upgrades, mixed-use infill, greening and participatory redesign that can knit them back into contemporary mobility and service networks while advancing low-carbon urban agendas.

Keywords:  Unfinished Design, Knowledge, Refabrication, Improving, Transforming, Preserving

Group 3 | G03

Sustainable building retrofitting and informal transformations

• How do current residents perceive, adapt, and modify prefabricated housing units, and what do these practices reveal about resilience, identity, and memory in post-socialist contexts?

Local residents routinely “re-personalise” the anonymous concrete shells—glazing or enclosing balconies, repainting façades in bright patchworks, knocking through panels, or annexing ground floor space for micro shops—turning state-issued standard units into markers of household status, livelihood and taste. These incremental hacks signal resilience (people solve thermal, spatial and economic shortcomings without waiting for top down renewal), reclaim identity (colour, ornament and informal additions differentiate once identical blocks) and curate memory (some upgrades express pride in socialist modernity, others deliberately overwrite it with new materials and styles, revealing a negotiated, layered sense of the past). Collectively, such bottom-up retrofits transform prefabricated estates into living palimpsests where personal agency, market opportunity and ambivalent nostalgia coexist inside the rigid frames of post socialist urbanism.

Keywords:  Communities, Living Heritage, Informal Heritage, Contexts, Extension, Informality, New Layers

Group 4 | G04

Heritage debate and value attribution

• Can prefabricated housing stock be reinterpreted as architectural heritage? If so, what criteria can be identified to support the reinterpretation? What values (historical, architectural, social, etc.) should be preserved or reactivated?

Many prefabricated estates qualify as heritage when they tangibly encapsulate a pivotal socio-political moment (e.g., post-war welfare or socialist modernisation), still exhibit their prototype construction technology, and remain sufficiently intact to illustrate that shift. Assessment should therefore test historical significance, state of preservation, social cultural impact, architectural uniqueness and rarity; on that basis, retrofits can foreground values such as collective memory and identity, educational testimony to industrialised progress, the embodied carbon and functional adaptability of the concrete frames, and the austere aesthetic that has itself become an artefact of twentieth century urbanism.

Keywords:  Layers, Innovation, Balance, New Values, Modernism, Preservation

Group 5 | G05

Discussion on the architectural typology

• How can mass prefabrication offer an efficient and high-quality solution to today's housing challenges in urban contexts? What are the potential disadvantages and benefits of prefabricated panel housing technology in contemporary societies?

Mid‑20th‑century schemes showed that factory‑built panels could quell post‑war shortages quickly, but their rigid typologies often ossified into monotonous, socially brittle belts. Today, digital manufacturing and lighter composites let prefabrication again tackle affordability and carbon goals through rapid, precise and mass‑customisable production. To avoid repeating last century’s pitfalls, projects must marry industrial efficiency with adaptable design codes, mixed‑use ground planes and participatory façade/fit‑out options so standardisation becomes a platform for local identity rather than a straightjacket.

Keywords:  New Standards, New Values, Architectural Typology, Sustainability

_{This project has received funding from the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) - Mission 4 “Education and Research” - Component 2 “From Research to Business” - Investment 1.2 “Funding projects presented by young researchers” and the European Union's Next Generation EU Recovery Plan - Project no. 100027-2022-FP-PNRR-YR_MSCA_0000005"}

_Disclaimer

_{The responsibility for the content published on the Land-In-Pro website lies with the author/s. The Italian Ministry of University and Research and the European Commission are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.}