How did a half-built house change the lives of 100 families? | Quinta Monroy Complex by ELEMENTAL
- Arq. Alejandra Polanía
- Oct 7
- 6 min read
AUTHOR: Alejandra Polanía
Architect with a keen interest in architecture, landscape, and ecological restoration..
NAME OF PROJECT: Quinta Monroy Housing Complex
ARCHITECTS: Alejandro Aravena, ELEMENTAL.
PHOTOGRAPHY: Cristobal Palma / Estudio Palma, Tadeuz Jalocha.
LOCATION: Iquique, Chile.
YEAR: 2003.
SQUARE METERS: 5,000 m2.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, according to a 2022 study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), around 59 million people live in inadequate housing, built with poor materials or without access to basic services. For years, social housing has been treated as a technical and economic issue, focused on building as many square meters as possible at the lowest possible cost. This approach has neglected important aspects such as the diversity of families, their relationship with the place where they live, and their possibilities for growth and improving their quality of life. Faced with this reality, the Quinta Monroy project, by Chilean architect Alejandro Aravena and his studio Elemental, marks a turning point by proposing a new way of thinking about social housing: not only how it is built, but also for whom and for what purpose.
Located in Iquique, Chile, and developed in 2004, the Quinta Monroy project sought to relocate 100 families who had lived for decades in precarious conditions to the same site. Under Chile's Dynamic Debt-Free Social Housing program, each family received a subsidy of USD 7,500 to build their home. Faced with this budgetary constraint, the Elemental team, led by Alejandro Aravena, proposed an innovative approach: instead of delivering a finished home, they offered “half a good house,” designed for its inhabitants to expand over time. This proposal not only solved an urgent housing problem, but also opened up new possibilities around three key concepts: individuality, identity, and growth.
Through these three concepts, we will see how Quinta Monroy manages to reconcile economic efficiency with human dignity, and how it establishes a replicable model of participatory and evolutionary social housing.
1. Individuality: Architecture as a Framework for Autonomy
One of the most innovative elements of the Quinta Monroy project is its focus on individuality. Traditionally, social housing has had to standardize the needs of its residents, applying repetitive models that do not take into account the particularities of each family. In contrast, Alejandro Aravena and his team recognized that each household is different, with diverse family configurations, activities, and aspirations.
To respond to this diversity, Elemental designed a system that provided a basic framework—a solid structure, complete bathroom, kitchen, dividing walls, and the possibility of expansion—and gave families the freedom to complete and customize their homes. Over time, this strategy allowed each house to be transformed according to the decisions and capabilities of its occupants. Although all the homes started from the same design, no two ended up being the same.
This logic represents a paradigm shift: architecture is no longer a closed and imposed form, but an open system that allows for user intervention. Individuality, therefore, does not oppose the order of the whole, but coexists harmoniously within an intelligent design that anticipates and channels identity.
2. Identity: Permanence, Community, and Territorial Memory
The second key element of the project is the recognition of identity, both individually and collectively. Unlike most social housing projects, which tend to displace families to the urban periphery (fragmenting social, work, and cultural networks), Quinta Monroy preserves the roots of its inhabitants. The 100 families were rehoused on the same central plot of land in Iquique that they had occupied informally for more than 30 years. This land, located in a privileged area of the city center, had direct access to public transportation, sources of employment, schools, and services, which facilitated daily life and sustained the informal economy of many families. This location allowed the families to remain there for decades and form a consolidated community.
By choosing to keep families in place, the project not only prevented uprooting, but also strengthened their territorial identity and urban integration. This gesture, which may appear to be merely a technical decision, has profound social implications. By not being removed, residents retained their support networks, access to services, schools, and jobs, as well as their connection to a territory that was already part of their history. This permanence generated cultural continuity and helped reduce the emotional and social costs of uprooting.
In addition, the housing complex was designed in small groups of homes or sub-communities, which promote daily coexistence, mutual aid among neighbors, and the creation of trusting relationships. The scale of the project is intimate and manageable, which prevents people from feeling anonymous or isolated and instead reinforces their sense of belonging. In this case, identity is not just a symbol, but something that is built from the distribution of common spaces, the possibility for each family to personalize their facade, and the shared spaces that help keep the memory of the neighborhood alive. The architecture does not erase the history of those who lived there, but rather respects it and accompanies it into a new phase.
3. Growth: Physical, Social, and Economic Progressivity
The third fundamental concept of Quinta Monroy is its growth model, conceived as a comprehensive strategy that encompasses physical, social, and economic aspects. The starting point is the notion of incremental housing, that is, a house designed to grow over time. This logic has already been explored in different contexts, but Elemental takes it to a new level by integrating it coherently into the structural, spatial, and community design.
From a construction standpoint, the homes are designed to be expanded vertically and horizontally without the need to rebuild structures, which avoids common mistakes in self-construction and ensures that growth does not affect the safety or harmony of the complex. This planned scalability allows families to adapt their homes to their changing needs without relying on new government interventions.
Socially, the possibility of expanding one's home promotes independence and a sense of responsibility. Families who expand their homes not only improve their living conditions, but also invest in their future. For example, many build a second floor to rent out, allowing them to generate extra income, or add a room to start a home-based business, such as a shop or workshop. Others, on the other hand, build an additional room so that their children have their own space to study or rest, which contributes to better personal and educational development. These decisions reflect a long-term vision and show how housing can be adapted to the changing needs of the household.
Finally, the model also generates economic growth. By providing a solid foundation that can be improved over time, the housing subsidy—usually seen as public spending—is transformed into an investment in assets. It is estimated that, shortly after their construction, the Quinta Monroy homes doubled their initial value. This breaks the cycle of poverty associated with low-quality social housing and turns families into owners of a real asset with economic value in the formal market.
The Quinta Monroy project is much more than an ingenious solution to a low-budget problem. It is a deeply political and social proposal, in the broadest sense of the terms: it redistributes opportunities, recognizes the dignity of the inhabitants, and opens paths to active citizenship through architecture. By structuring itself around individuality, identity, and growth, the project redefines the parameters of social housing and proposes a replicable model that prioritizes human life over economic indicators.
The most remarkable thing about this experience is that it does not start from an unattainable utopia, but from real and limited conditions. With the same resources that are traditionally allocated to low-quality housing, Quinta Monroy demonstrates that it is possible to do more and better, if designed with social intelligence and territorial sensitivity.
This project does not solve all housing problems, but it offers a viable and transformative alternative. And it does so without promising magical solutions, but rather by articulating a system in which the state, the architect, and the community share responsibilities and leadership. At a time when urban inequality and the housing crisis are intensifying, Quinta Monroy reminds us that architecture can be a powerful tool for building not only houses, but also the future.
Comments