Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (2024) 39:473–492

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-023-10083-5

ARTICLE

Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment

in low‑income housing in Monterrey, Mexico

Lucia Elizondo1

Received: 23 March 2023 / Accepted: 22 September 2023 / Published online: 16 November 2023
© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
Mexico’s housing policies and institutions have focused on increasing the housing supply
over the past 50 years. Despite this, most of the population has been unable to afford it
and has been forced to fend for themselves through self-construction in socially produced
neighborhoods. This research compares the difference between inhabiting a "turn-key"
house provided by the state and a self-constructed house through the lens of appropriation
and its effects on identity and place attachment that evidence the co-constitutive nature
of the house/resident dynamic. As case studies, thirty houses were analyzed in six
neighborhoods, three state-financed and three socially produced. The empirical data
collected through the qualitative study was structured through the development of a
theoretical model called "dwelling by appropriation" that attempts to describe the practices
surrounding the appropriation of the home. The research found that individuals who
construct their own homes are prouder of them, more satisfied with them, have a higher
sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy, and are more trusting of their neighbors as they are
in control of critical decisions regarding their living environment.

Keywords Social housing · Self-help housing · Appropriation · Dwelling · Place

attachment · Identity

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

* Lucia Elizondo
[email protected]
1
Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Architecture, Art and Design, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada
2501, 64849 Monterrey, N.L., Mexico

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
474 L. Elizondo

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://​porta​lmx.​infon​avit.​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

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 475

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

13
476 L. Elizondo

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

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 477

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 start-
ing 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 complemen-
tary, particularly through his concept of affordance already described on the second sec-
tion. 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, result-
ing 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.
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 cod-
ing method was applied to the interview transcripts, which, according to Saldaña (2016),
consists of deductively constructing the preconceived categories of the study. In the sec-
ond phase, several additional codes, such as Versus, Values, and In Vivo, were derived

13
478 L. Elizondo

Table 1  Neighborhood’s characteristics

Neighborhood Lázaro Constituyentes Ciudad La Ermita Colinas del Los Encinos
Cárdenas de Querétaro CROC Río

Year 1967 1974 1984 1995 2000 2015

Form of produc- PSV INFONAVIT PSV PSV INFONAVIT INFONAVIT
tion
Neighborhood 24.4 40 19.75 26.5 12.1 28
area (ha)
Number of 907 2280 873 983 494 1800
houses
Lot area ­(m2) 90–200 90–160 105 90 112 90
House area 94 80.6 99.5 89.7 56 55
average ­(m2)
Type “Paracaid- INFONAVIT Labor FOMER- INFONAVIT INFONAVIT
ismo” producer union REY market market

Author elaborated with information from Inventario Nacional de Vivienda 2019 https://​www.​inegi.​org.​mx/​
app/​mapa/​espac​ioyda​tos/?​app=​inv

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 Con-
stituyentes de Querétaro (1974) neighborhood was constructed by INFONAVIT in Mon-
terrey in 1974, using the Institute’s urban and housing design criteria manual, with vari-
ous 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.
Except for the Lázaro Cárdenas neighborhood (1967), the PSV in Monterrey is par-
ticularly tied to institutions that have supported it. La Ermita (1995) was developed by
FOMERREY, while Ciudad CROC (1984) was promoted by the Revolutionary Confed-
eration of Workers and Peasants union. Due to the above, this resulted in neighborhoods
with well-planned urban designs, infrastructure, and public space. However, public ser-
vices 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 Cárde-
nas, 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 m ­ 2 on average) (Fig. 3).
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

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 479

Fig. 1  Monterrey Metropolitan Area Map and selected neighborhoods with distance markers from city
center to neighborhoods. Author elaborated with image from Google Earth ©

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).
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."

13
480 L. Elizondo

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

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; Espi-
nosa Ortiz et al., 2015; Goldhagen, 2017). At the intersection of appropriation and attach-
ment, 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

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 481

Fig. 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

Table 2  Residents’ characteristics according to housing production form

INFONAVIT PSV

Household type Nuclear and extended Nuclear

Place of origin Instate (Nuevo León) Out of state (Coahuila,
Tamaulipas, San Luis, and
Zacatecas)
Number of people per dwelling 4.4 3.6
Previous location Different municipality Same municipality
Education 57% Elementary, 10% Highschool, 33% University

Author elaboration through data gathered on fieldwork

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 social-
izing 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 oppos-
ing practice is alienated dwelling, where residents are isolated in their own homes due to

13
482 L. Elizondo

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.

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 invest-
ment. By building as needed, they do not require much capital, but micro capital repeat-
edly. All PSV houses have a mono-spatial design at the beginning, within which all domes-
tic 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

Fig. 4  The Dwelling by appropriation model is structured around the three main categories of the investiga-
tion: identity, attachment, and appropriation. The model describes three dimensions of the practice of dwell-
ing by appropriation. The material dimension: dwelling by building; the affective dimension: dwelling by
appreciating; and the social dimension: dwelling by socializing

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 483

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.
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 for-
mer 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.
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 pro-
duction. First, PSV houses became a means for residents to build themselves. The unique-
ness 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, includ-
ing 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 gar-
dens, or creating a transitional outdoor space to protect children. These incursions boosted

13
484 L. Elizondo

Fig. 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

their self-esteem, expressed with pride in their well-finished homes and the plants they
display (see Fig. 7 for all dimensions).
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 inhab-
iting. 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 con-
struction 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).

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

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 485

Fig. 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 con-
struction of additional volumes, among other changes

13
486 L. Elizondo

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

Fig. 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

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 487

Fig. 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

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 distin-
guish three dimensions: the individual, the economic, and the family (Fig. 10). INFON-
AVIT and PSV share the view that the family house provides stability and a means for inte-
gration, 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

13
488 L. Elizondo

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. Permeat-
ing 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.

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.

Fig. 10  Residents of PSV and INFONAVIT attribute three main dimensions of meaning to their houses:
economy, family, and/or individual

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 489

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 oth-
ers, the installation of services, as in the CROC. A negative stigma from adjacent neighbor-
hoods 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

13
490 L. Elizondo

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.

Funding No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The author declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement All participants were interviewed voluntarily, recorded with their consent, and written
permission was granted to photograph their homes.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Aparicio, C., Ortega, M., & Sandoval, E. (2011). La segregación socio-espacial en Monterrey a lo largo de
su proceso de metropolización. Región y Sociedad, 23(52), 173–207.
Appadurai, A. (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in a cultural perspective. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.

13
Dwelling by appropriation: identity and attachment in low‑income… 491

Bamba Vicente, J. C., & Costa Sepúlveda, A. (2017). Apropiaciones, delimitaciones, negociaciones en el
espacio colectivo. Caracterización multiescalar de la vivienda social en Guayaquil (1940–1970). Dearq
Revista De Arquitectura/journal of Architecture, 10, 10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18389/​dearq​19.​2016.​02
Bauman, Z. (2007). Tiempos líquidos: vivir en una época de incertidumbre. Editorial Planta Mexicana, S.A.
de C.V.
Boils, G. (1995). Diseño y vivienda pública en México: prototipos habitacionales de cuatro organismos
gubernamentales de vivienda. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
Boils, G. (2004). EL Banco Mundial y la política de vivienda en México. Instituto De Investigaciones
Sociales, 66, 345–367.
Carmagnani, M. (2011). El otro Occidente: America Latina desde la invación europea hasta la globali-
zación. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Clapham, D. (2005). The meaning of housing: A pathways approach. Policy Press.
Coolen, H. (2006). The meaning of dwellings: An ecological perspective. Housing, Theory and Society,
23(4), 185–201. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14036​09060​09094​69
Coolen, H. (2014). The relevance of the concepts of affordance and behavior setting for housing research.
In Proceedings of ENHR 2014: Beyond globalisation: Remaking housing policy in a complex world,
Edinburgh, UK, 1–4 July 2014; Preprint.
Coolen, H., & Meesters, J. (2012). Editorial special issue: house, home and dwelling. Journal of Housing
and the Built Environment, 27, 1–10.
Coulomb, R., & Schteingart, M. (2006). Entre el estado y el mercado - La vivienda en el México de hoy.
Miguel Angel Porrúa.
Espinosa Ortiz, F., Vieyra, A., & Garibay Orozco, C. (2015). Narrativas sobre el lugar: Habitar una vivienda
de interés social en la periferia urbana. Revista INVI, 30(84), 59–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4067/​s0718-​
83582​01500​02000​03
Feldman, R. M., & Stall, S. (2004). The dignity of resistance: Women residents’ activism in Chicago pub-
lic housing. Women Residents’ Activism in Chicago Public Housing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​CBO97​
80511​734977
García-Huidobro, F., Torres Torriti, D., & Tugas, N. (2010). PREVI Lima y la experiencia del tiempo.
Revista Iberoamericana De Urbanismo, 3, 10–19.
García Peralta, B. (2010). Vivienda social en México (1940–1999): actores públicos económicos y sociales.
Cuadernos De Vivienda y Urbanismo, 3(5), 34–49.
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. Pyschology Press.
Goldhagen, S. W. (2017). Welcome to your world: How the built environment shapes our lives. Harper Col-
lins Publishers.
Gustafson, P. (2001). Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal
of Environmental Psychology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​jevp.​2000.​0185
De Haan, H. (2005). Social and material appropriation of neighborhood space: Collective space and resist-
ance in a Dutch Urban Community. October, 1–122.
Heidgger, M. (1997). Building, dwelling and thinking. In Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural the-
ory. Routledge.
Herbert, C., Belsky, E., & DuBroff, N. (2012). The state of Mexico’s housing: Recent progress and contin-
ued challenges. Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University.
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​jevp.​2001.​0221
Johnson, M. L. (2015). The embodied meaning of architecture. In Mind in architecture: Neuroscience,
embodiment and the future of design. MIT Press.
Jusan, M. B. M. (2010). Means end chain, person environment congruence and mass housing design. Open
House International, 35(3), 76–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​OHI-​03-​2010-​B0009
Kerr, J. (1995). Patching the future: The evolution of a post-war housing estate. In Architecture and the sites
of history. Whitney Library of Design.
King, P. (2003). A social philosophy of housing. Ashgate Pub. Co.
Low, S. M. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind. In Place attachment (pp. 165–185). Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​978-1-​4684-​8753-4_8
Nussbaum, M. (2013). Creating capabilities. Harvard University Press.
Pallasmaa, J. (1992). Identity, intimacy and domicile. The Concept of Home: An Interdisciplinary View.
Puebla, C. (2002). Del intervencionismo estatal a las estrategias facilitadoras. Cambio en la política de
vivienda en México. El Colegio de México.
Rose, M. (2012). Dwelling as marking and claiming. Environment and Planning d: Society and Space,
30(5), 757–771. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1068/​d6809
Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (No. 14). Sage.

13
492 L. Elizondo

Sanín Santamaría, J. D. (2018). Hogar en tránsito: apropiaciones domésticas de la vivienda de interés social
(VIS) y reconfiugracioens del sentido del hogar. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​7440/​antip​oda7.​2008.​03
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvp.​2009.​09.​006
Seamon, D. (2013). Place attachment and phenomenology: The synergistic dynamism of place. In Place
Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​97802​03757​765
Senett, R. (2018). Building and dwelling: Ethics for the city. Farrar.
Serfaty-Garzon, P. (2003). L’Appropriation. In Dictionnaire de l’habitat et du logement (pp. 27–30). Edi-
tions Armand Colin.
Tames, E. (2004). Use, Appropiation and Personalizarion of Space in Mexican Housing Projects and Infor-
mal Settlements. TDSR, XV(II), 33–48.
Tapie, G. (2014). Sociologie de l’habitat contemporain vivre l’architecture. Parenthèses.
Turner, J. F. C. (1976). Housing by People (2009th ed.). Marion Boyards.
Turner, J. F. C., & Fichter, R. (1972). Freedom to Build: Dweller control of the Housing Process. The Mac-
millan Company.
Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​jevp.​1996.​0017
Vidal, T., & Pol, P. (2005). La apropiación del espacio:una propuesta teórica para comprender la vincu-
lación entre las personas y los lugares. Anuario De Psicología, 36(3), 281–297.
Villarreal, D. (2010a). Cambios en la política de regularización del suela y en la producción de vivienda
de interés social del gobierno federal y estatal y efectos en el proceso de expansión de la Zona Met-
ropolitana de Monterrey Nuevo León México (1997–2009). XI Seminario Internacional de La Red
Iberoamericana de Investigadores Sobre Globalización y Territorio.
Villarreal, D. (2010b). Cambios en la política de regularización del suelo y en la producción de vivienda
de interés social del gobierno estatal y federal t efectos en el proceso de expansión de la zona metro-
politana de Monterrey Nuevo León México. XI Seminario Internacional de La Red Iberoamericana de
Investigadores Sobre Globalización y Territorio.
Villarreal Gonzalez, D. (1991). La política de vivienda del gobierno del estado de Nuevo León, 1970–1990
[Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana]. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
24201/​edu.​v6i3.​828
Ward, P. (2015). Políticas de vivienda en ciudades latinoamericanas. Universidad del Rosario.
Wise, J. M. (2000). Home: Territory and identity. Cultural Studies, 14(2), 295–310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
09502​38003​34896
Yaneva, A. (2016). Mapping controversies in architecture. Routledge.
Zamorano, C. (2013). Vivienda mínima obrera en el México posrevolucionario: apropiaciones de una uto-
pia urbana (1932–2004). Publicaiones de la Casa Chata CIESAS.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13