Living Democracy - Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Housing Developments in Budapest - Housing...

Bence Komlósi

Living Democracy

Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Housing

Developments in Budapest

Housing Co-operatives as Potential Tools

MAS ETH ARCH/WohnenProf. Dietmar EberleDoz. Dr. Marie GlaserGeorg PrechtETH CASE – ETH Wohnforum

MAS ThesisLiving DemocracyBottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Housing Developments in BudapestHousing Co-operatives as Potential ToolsBence KomlósiZurlindenstrasse 192, 8003 Zü[email protected]

MA

S T

hesi

s

148

Living DemocracyBottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Housing Developments in Budapest


Acknowledgments

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who provided me the possibility to complete my thesis. Without their help this thesis wouldn’t have been possible.

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Dietmar Eberle, Dr. Marie Glaser and Georg Precht whose knowledge, experience and guidance throughout the whole year motivated me and moved my research in the good direc-tion.

Furthermore I would like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of our guest professors Susanne Gysi, Jacques Blumer and Christian Schmid for their support and suggestions that deepened my research.

I would also like to thank all the participants in my research process: interviewees, residents, initiators and leaders of housing institutes. Their help made my thesis more colorful and nuanced.

Special thanks goes to my friends and to my MAS-colleagues who made my workeasier and happier.

Last but not least I would like to thank my dear wife, Zsofia Glatz for the endlesslaughs and her support that made my MAS year possible.

Bence Komlósi,Zürich, July 2013

3

Living DemocracyBottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Housing Developments in Budapest


Foreword

The current housing situation in Budapest and in Hungary is alarming. After the deeper examination of the economic, social and political circumstances it becomes clear that the citizens’ intervention and bottom-up movements are crucial in the interest of development.

In Western Europe co-operative housing has a more than 100 years old tradition. The description of housing co-operatives by CECODHAS (European Federation of Public, Cooperative and Social Housing) shows that this housing-model could be a very good answer for the current housing, social and economic crisis in Budapest and in Hungary.

“There are different co-operative housing models in different countries, but what characterizes hous-ing co-operatives compared to other housing providers is that they are jointly owned and democrati-cally controlled by their members, according to the principle of “one person, one vote”. (…) On average, 10% of Europeans live in housing co-operatives. They show that living in a housing co-operative provides many advantages in terms of economic, social and environmental sustainability.” 1

The main goal of my thesis is to define a framework that could be used to establish the first housing co-operative in Hungary.

After studying the history of housing co-operatives and analyzing three Western European and a Hungarian example, a comparative grid shows the disadvantages and advantages of this housing phenomenon. At the end of the thesis one pilot project frameworks the adaptation of the acquired knowledge and shows the poten-tials that housing cooperatives would have in Hungary.

1 Jane Cameron et al., ed., Profiles of a movement: co-operative housing around the world, (CECODHAS Housing Europe and ICA Housing, 2012), 6.

5

Table of contents

1 Introduction 9

1.1 Starting position 9

1.2 Goals of the study 10

1.3 Key-terms 10

1.4 Research questions 14

1.5 Hypotheses 14

1.6 Method of research 14

1.7 Flow diagram 15

2 General context 17

2.1 Hungary 17

2.1.1 General information 17

2.1.2 Economic level 19

2.1.3 Social level 21

2.1.4 Cultural level 23

2.1.5 Environmental level 23

2.2 Budapest 27






3 First conclusions - Bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives for sustainable housing developments in Budapest 33

3.1 Summary and problem formulation 33

3.2 Bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives as potential tools 33

3.3 Existing housing co-operatives in Hungary 33

3.4 Existing bottom-up initiatives in Budapest 34

Table of contents

6

Living Democracy

4 Housing co-operatives in Europe 39

4.1 The history of housing co-operatives 39

4.2 Housing co-operatives in different European countries 47

4.2.1 Austria 47

4.2.2 Germany 53

4.2.3 Switzerland 57

4.2.4 Hungary 61

5 Case studies in Europe 65

5.1 Catalogue of case studies 65

5.2 Selection criteria 65

5.3 Analysis grid / Questionnaire 66

5.4 Case study 1. – Sargfabrik, Vienna (A) 67

5.5 Case study 2. – A52, Berlin (D) 77

5.6 Case study 3. – Dreieck, Zürich (CH) 83

5.7 Case study 4. – Horanszky 1, Budapest (H) 95

6 Synthesis 101

6.1 General information 101

6.2 Economic level 102

6.3 Social level 103

6.4 Cultural level 104

6.5 Environmental level 105

6.6 Organizational level 106

7 Proposal - Pilot case study in Budapest 107

7.1 Pilot case study – Ideal project, Budapest (H) 109




7



7.1.6 Organizational level 114

8 Conclusions 117

9 Bibliography 123

10 Table of figures 127

11 Appendix 139

Table of contents

9

Introduction

Figure 1 Exchange rate

| | 1 Introduction

| | | 1.1 Starting position

Living in a young democratic (post-socialist) country like Hungary generates a lot of questions for the new generations and also for those who lived in the last politi-cal and economic systems. What does democracy mean? How could and should you act in this new situation? What are your possibilities and duties in this freer life? How could you participate in the development of your country? How could you initiate new developments and start bottom-up initiatives? How could you help the work of the politicians who also learn this new system? These questions are present in the everyday private life as well as in the professional.As an architectural research this thesis tries to give some answers for the above-mentioned questions.The current economic situation in Hungary has to be rethought and needs interven-tions. The global economic crisis had affects on the country’s economy and gener-ated depression. The unemployment rate started to grow, more and more house-holds have arrears and many households with CHF-based credits are unable to repay their mortgage.

The current political situation is not stable and powerful enough to start top-down developments and interventions. The political goals change in every 4 years with the new government. Bottom-up initiatives should be started to complete the pub-lic- and the market-oriented developments.Since 1989 (the fall of the socialism) the society tries to learn more and more about democracy but it is a very hard and long process. With the fall of the former regime both political and economic situation changed that needs a lot of reforms. These reforms could be newly invented or could be adapted from developed countries.

10

Living Democracy

The current housing situation in Budapest and in Hungary is alarming. The number of built flats in 2011 was as low as in the 1930’s and it is still shrinking. Hungary would need about 40.000 new flats per year to renew the housing stock. The biggest segment of the housing stock is in private hands (about 90 %) but the owners have no potential to generate new housing developments. The existing condominiums and co-operatives and their legal backgrounds are not flexible enough to react on the changes and on the new needs.

| | | 1.2 Goals of the study

The main goal of the study is to analyze the Western European bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives with their backgrounds and to define their main characteris-tics. Their historical chronology should give answers for the question of sustain-ability. The study has to define the process’ changes by the time and its current position. Important goal of the study is to examine the current economic, social, cultural and ecological situation in Hungary and in Budapest. With this step the current Hungar-ian conditions could be compared with the analyzed Western European countries and adaptable elements could be appointed. The four case studies and the pilot project are important tools to compare the analyzed countries and the defined char-acteristics. The goal of the pilot project is to describe the adaptation process and to define the main requirements and milestones in potential projects.

| | | 1.3 Key-terms

| | | | 1.3.1 Living democracy

Hungary - compared to the Western European countries - has a weak “democratic” life (in terms of citizen initiated public developments). Democracy is a new phe-nomenon in the country that exists only since 1989. The first generation has just grown up and the older generations also have to learn how does democracy work. Their common task is to develop their society together. It is not easy and it needs a lot of time and energy. Living democracy - in terms of this study - is referring to the

Figure 2 Number of built flats (1921-2011)

11

Introduction

Figure 3 Top-down and bottom-up developments

active participation of citizens in their city and country’s everyday life. Frances Moore Lappé, an American writer and activist often uses the term “living democ-racy” and in her opinion this is the future form of democracy.“While thin democracy proves itself unable to meet today’s challenges, another understanding of democracy is emerging: Democracy that is practiced as a way of life, no longer something done to us or for us but what we ourselves create. I call it “Living Democracy.” In it, democracy is no longer merely a formal government construct, but something embedded in a wide range of human relation-ships. So its values apply just as much in economic life or in cultural life as in political life. Put very practically, Living Democracy means infusing the power of citizens’ voices and values throughout our public relationships.” 2

In a young democratic country like Hungary this way of thinking would be very important to reach a continuously developing system. Housing co-operatives – a manifestation of the above-mentioned way of thinking - would be very good plat-forms to practice the tasks of a democratic citizen.

| | | | 1.3.2 Bottom-up initiative

Citizen initiated developments are basic elements for democracy and sustainability. Against a top-down processes the bottom-up initiatives have tight connection with the real users and they could react on the present needs. They are independent and generate social interactions. “Self-Organization goes beyond ideas of ’participation’, emphasizing bottom-up, locally-initiated processes through which people express themselves directly and develop community, gaining power for local structures such as housing projects.” 3

The figure below shows that bottom-up initiatives could complete the incomplete-ness of top-down processes and the two strategies could create a complex, diverse and sustainable system.

2 Tyson Miller, ed., Dream of a Nation – Inspiring Ideas for a Better America (SEE Innovation, 2011), 8.3 Michael LaFond et al., ed. and trans., CoHousing Cultures (Berlin: jovis Verlag, 2012), 21.

12

Living Democracy

| | | | 1.3.3 Sustainable housing development

The fundamental definition of sustainable development was framed by the UN and was published in 1987 in the Brundtland Report. It summarized and defined the common global goals for future sustainable developments.“1. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromis-ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:- the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and- the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technolog y and social organization on the environ-ment’s ability to meet present and future needs.2. Thus the goals of economic and social development must be defined in terms of sustainability in all countries - developed or developing, market-oriented or centrally planned. Interpretations will vary, but must share certain general features and must flow from a consensus on the basic concept of sustainable development and on a broad strategic framework for achieving it.3. Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society. A development path that is sustainable in a physical sense could theoretically be pursued even in a rigid social and political setting. But physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies pay atten-tion to such considerations as changes in access to resources and in the distribution of costs and benefits. Even the narrow notion of physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation.” 4

Over the years these definitions were modified and improved and elements like housing/living were added. The UN-Habitat defined not just the sustainable devel-opment but also its connection with the housing processes.“Housing is one of those basic social conditions that determine the quality of life and welfare of people and places. Where homes are located, how well designed and built, and how well they are weaved into the environmental, social, cultural and economic fabric of communities are factors that, in a very real way, influence the daily lives of people, their health, security and wellbeing, and which, given the long life of dwellings as physical structures, affect both the present and future generations. Housing is therefore central to sustainable development. (…) This complex web of inter-relation-ships between sustainability and housing is addressed by the policies for sustainable housing. These policies consider a spectrum of underlying conditions to achieve sustainability in housing develop-ment (along the four dimensions of sustainability – environmental, social, cultural and economic), such as: impacts on the environment and climate change; durability and resilience of homes; eco-nomic activities in housing and their links with the wider economy; cultural and social fabric of communities and impacts of housing on poverty alleviation, social development, and the quality of life.” 5 Nowadays the cultural sustainability is more and more often added to the basic three fundaments (ecological, economic and social) and tries to become the forth pillar. On this basis is it already mentioned as a fourth key aspect in the thesis.

4 ”Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development,” UN Documents, accessed March 19, 2013, http://www.un- documents.net/ocf-02.htm, 45.5 “Sustainable housing for sustainable cities, A policy framework for developing countries,” UN-Habitat For a better urban future, accessed March 19, 2013, http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3365.

13

Introduction

| | | | 1.3.4 Housing co-operative

In terms of this thesis housing co-operatives are mentioned as a legal form as well as community-oriented types of housing. “A housing co-operative is a housing business that is a consumer co-operative mutually owned by its members, which complies with the International Co-operative Alliance’s (ICA) Statement of Co-operative Identity and operates in accordance with the ICA’s Co-operative Principles and Values. There are different co-operative housing models in different countries, but what character-izes housing co-operatives compared to other housing providers is that they are jointly owned and democratically controlled by their members, according to the principle of “one person, one vote”. This has clear implications for the way they operate compared to other actors on the housing market. Co-operatives benefit not only their members but also the wider public interest. (…) On average, 10% of Europeans live in housing cooperatives. They show that living in a housing co-operative provides many advantages in terms of economic, social and environmental sustainability.Housing co-operatives often manage to provide housing at costs that are below the price of a similar home in the open housing market. The reason for this is that the prime objective of housing co- operatives is to provide good quality and affordable housing in the interests of their members, and not to maximize profit for developers or shareholders. At the same time, real estate owned by hous-ing co-operatives or associations is less subject to speculation and represents a long-term investment, which helps keep rents and prices for co-operative housing at relatively low levels. Therefore co-operative housing is important in maintaining more varied and balanced housing markets, and contributes to price stability and affordability. The community of a housing co-operative also offers various social advantages. Members of housing co-operatives appreciate that it is easier to find solutions to problems related to the maintenance of their buildings and the use of common space. Furthermore, they tend to have good relationships with their neighbors and are likely to become engaged in neighborhood initiatives because they have a secure long-term perspective of their place in that neighborhood. This can represent an important contribution to social cohesion and community sustainability.Housing co-operatives and associations are committed to sustainable development. In some countries in Central and Eastern Europe where the conditions of the housing stock call for extensive renova-tion work, housing co-operatives are strongly committed to reducing greenhouse emissions by increas-ing energ y efficiency in their buildings.” 6

| | | | 1.3.5 Participation / participatory process

Participation can be mentioned as a democratic tool where all the stakeholders could participate in the preliminary, realization and maintenance processes. All the participants have the same importance and they can discuss all the questions together. In participatory design architects act more like professional managers and not like designers. The history of this process goes back to the 1960’s into Scandi-navia where the communities became stronger and that gave the chance to partici-pate in developments. Ralph Erskine one of the first pioneers from Scandinavia defines its advantages and positive effects.


14

Living Democracy

“Already I have, as before in Britain and Sweden, observed that participation and discussions serve several ends. Firstly they give the planner and the different inhabitants themselves information on varying consumer needs and preferences, which is particularly important in situations where differ-ent cultures are involved and the architect belongs to only one of these, or is a stranger to both. Secondly it is vital for the success of the project that as many as possible of the future inhabitants willingly and knowledgeably share responsibility for the creation and therefore the consequences of the plans. Thirdly the pedagogic aspect of the exercise is most important. This is especially so with the underprivileged who need exercise in the process of abstract thinking, of analysis, problem solv-ing, and decision making, if they are ever to free themselves from their position of underprivileged and become truly valuable and valued citizens who can make effective contributions to a modern society and thereby moreover gain in self-respect.” 7

| | | 1.4 Research questions

Main questions

What are the main economic, social, cultural and environmental characteristics of the Western European bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives?How could they be adapted in Budapest?

Sub-questions

How could bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives be sustainable?What are the advantages and disadvantages of the housing co-operatives?What are the requirements and steps to establish a housing co-operative?How could an existing Hungarian co-operative/condominium be transformed into a well functioning “Western European co-operative”?What should be the first step to establish a co-operative (bottom-up initiative) or to define the legal and financial background (top-down)?

| | | 1.5 Hypotheses

Bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives could be new types of housing in Buda-pest to react on the current housing situation and to refresh the housing stock in a sustainable way.

| | | 1.6 Method of research

The main part of the thesis is a comparative research where three Western Euro-pean countries (Austria, Germany and Switzerland) are compared with Hungary. Economic, social, cultural and environmental aspects are used to get a sustainable overview. From the analyzed four countries 1 case study per country was selected that is a typical approach there. These case studies are compared with each other and with a Hungarian pilot case study.For the data collection and description of the housing co-operatives’ history litera-ture based research was used.

7 Peter Collymore, The architecture of Ralph Erskine (Great Britain: Granada Publishing, 1982), 14.

15

Introduction

| | | 1.7 Flow diagram

Figure 4 Flow diagram

17

General context

| | 2 General context

| | | 2.1 Hungary

| | | | 2.1.1 General information 8

Basic data

Population: 9,967,000 (2012 est.)Area: 93,030 km2

Density: 107.2/km2

Urban / rural population: 67.7% / 32.3% (2009)Government: Parliamentary RepublicOfficial Language(s): HungarianCapital (and largest city): BudapestMember of: EU, NATO, OECD, Schengen Agreement,GDP (nominal): $ 126,873 billion / $ 12,735 per capital (2012 est.) 9

Thanks to its historical background and unique language, Hungry is like an island in the geographic middle of Europe. Hungarian is only spoken in this small country that causes a massive isolation from its neighbors. The special historical relation-ships and conflicts with its neighbors make this isolation deeper, like the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1867-1918) with Austria or the stressful relation with all the surrounding countries (Romania, Czechoslovakia, Austria and Yugoslavia) after the Treaty of Trianon (1920) when the country lost 71 percent of its territory and about

8 ”Hungary,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed April 15, 2013, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/276730/Hungary.9 “Hungary GDP per capita,” International Monetary Fund, accessed April 28, 2013, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2011&ey=2018&sc sm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=53&pr1. y=8&c=278%2C283%2C128%2C944 &s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=.

Figure 5 Hungary in Europe

Figure 6 Hungary and its main cities and towns

18

Living Democracy

two-thirds of its population. Since then Hungary has no direct connection neither to the Adriatic Sea nor to the Tatra Mountains. The country’s democratic freedom arrived after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 and the first multiparty elec-tion was held in 1990. The new political system initiated the new, free market economy and several new phenomena in the country. These important impacts generated a special social, political and cultural life in Hungary.

History

The Hungarian tribes arrived to the Carpathian Basin around 895-902 and founded the early Hungarian state (the Principality of Hungary, founded in 895). In 1000 Hungary became a Christian kingdom and served for several centuries as a defend-er force of Western Christianity against the Turkish and Eastern invaders. The Latin became the official language in 1000 and it was the language of the culture, scholarship and the state administration – and even the language of the Hungarian nobility until 1844. After about six centuries of independent statehood (896-1526) Hungary became part of the two main political offenders (the Ottoman Empire and than the Habsburgs). Although the country had these strong impacts, it preserved its political identity and near-independence. Between 1867 and 1918 the country had a strong partnership with Austria that strengthened its power in Europe. After the Treaty of Trianon in 1920 Hungary lost not only a part of its population and terri-tory but also its power. After the World War II came the next impact. The Soviet regime brought a new political and economic system into the country and broke the traditional and historical continuity. After the fall of the socialism in 1989 people had to realize that a big part of the developments during the last 40 years were foreign extraction and the market oriented capitalism created new challenges to them. The current everyday life of the country is about these new challenges and attempts to create a well functioning and healthy democratic society.

Transport

With its central location Hungary’s land routes are very important between Western Europe and the Balkan Peninsula as well as between Ukraine and the Mediterra-nean basin. The Danube is an important northwest-southeast international water-way that connects 10 countries (Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Ukraine, Moldova). Until the late 1970’s the railway system was very developed and it was among the densest in Europe. With the fall of the industrial developments in the country the importance of the railways started to decrease. With the membership of the EU, the railway and roadway system started to be developed again with EU support. In the post-communist era the pas-senger transportation by bus and the automobile usage started to be stronger and stronger. Between 1989 and 1996 1.5 million new cars were added to Hungarian roads. The international air travel is mostly connected with the airport of Budapest but there is another small airport in Siófok (mostly to serve the tourism of Balaton) and in Debrecen.

Figure 7 Treaty of Trianon in 1920

Figure 8 The existing highway system shows the importance of Buda-pest

19

General context

| | | | 2.1.2 Economic level

History 10

Hungary was primarily an agricultural country. After the World War II the Soviet influence resulted a strong, centrally organized industrialization that changed the economic character of the country. In this process the proportion of employment in agriculture changed from more than half to about one-eight by the 1990’s. This industrialization generated millions of new jobs in the industry. With the fall of the communism the industry based economy had a deep depression and millions lost their jobs. The new political and economic system needed new strategies and sec-tors. These were the modernization of telecommunication, automobile manufactur-ing and the flourishing tourist industry in the first half of the 1990’s. The centrally organized, huge firms were also replaced by small-scale, mostly family-owned busi-nesses.

Finance

In 1987 the Soviet pattern (single-tier banking system) was changed by the marke-toriented, two-tier system. The National Bank remained the bank of issue but new Western European “consortiums” (partly foreign owned) of commercial banks were established. These banks were mostly German, Austrian and Italian because after 1989 the political and economic leaders had good relationships with the lead-ers of these countries.

Current economic situation

The current economic situation in Hungary is as alarming as in other European countries. Hungary still doesn’t have euro that’s why there is less discussion in the European media about this small country. The problems are similar: high unem-ployment rate, more and more people live under the poverty line and have arrears. This financial situation generates social and political arguments.The unemployment rate in the first quarter of 2012 was the same as one year ear-lier what was 11.7 % (about 504,000 people). 11

Indebtedness is a widespread problem in Hungary. In 2010, 21 % of the population (18 % of the households) had arrears. 12 The main causes of this indebtedness are the rise of housing costs and the foreign-currency housing loans.

The incomes couldn’t follow the rise of the housing costs (especially energy costs). Between 2000 and 2008 the incomes rose by a factor of 2.06, meanwhile housing costs overall increased by a factor of 2.36. Mostly the rise of energy costs and the poor quality of the housing stock (23% was built prior to 1945) caused the rise of the housing costs. After the economic crisis a large number of households were

10 ”Hungary,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed April 15, 2013, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/276730/ Hungary/34834/Rural-settlement.11 “Munkanelkulisegi rata,” KSH, accessed April 23, 2013, www.ksh.hu.12 “Managing household debt: Hungarian country report” 4., TARKI, accessed April 23, 2013, http://www.tarki.hu/hu/news/2011/ kitekint/20111202_ados.pdf.

Figure 9 Unemployment rate in 2012

20

Living Democracy

unable to repay their foreigncurrency housing loans mostly because the HUF/CHF rate changed so dramatically that they had to pay about two times more back than the original contract said. More than 90,000 households have more than 90 days in arrears with their mortgage loan repayments. 13

In 2011 the 13.8 % of the population lived below poverty line that is about 1,363,000 people. 14 The figure shows that the retired population is in the best situ-ation because they have their fix incomes (pension). To escape from this poverty is also harder than a year before. 15 The dependence of social allowances (social secu-rity benefits) is also much higher than the EU average. In Hungary it is 52.3 % while the EU average is just 36.7 %.

13 Ibid.14 “Egyre több a szegény Magyarországon,” Portfolio.hu, accessed October 8, 2012, http://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/egyre_tobb_a_ szegeny_magyarorszagon.173748.html.15 Ibid.

Figure 11 Poverty rate by different house-holds in 2011

Figure 12 Poverty rate in different ages

Figure 10 Exchange rate

Figure 13 “Financial dependency” and “poverty rate” in 2010

21

General context

| | | | 2.1.3 Social level

The current social, cultural and political trends are quite similar to other European countries but with the changes in 1989 they have a different background. The soci-ety is aging, the unemployment rate is growing, the social (ethnic, politic, …) argu-ments are more and more frequent.

Demography 16

The current ethnic situation is quite homogenous. From the 10th century until the end of the World War 1 the country had a very heterogeneous (multiethnic) popula-tion. The current minorities includes: Germans, Slovaks, Croats, Romanians, Serbs, Poles, Slovenians, Rusyns, Greeks, Armenians and in the biggest percentage Gyp-sies (Roma). 17 The Roma population grew from 153,000 to 315,583 between 2001 and 2011. This fact is a big social tension generating factor.

The population is aging and decreasing slowly (the immigration could compensate just the 1/3 of the natural decrease). In 2011 the population was 9,937,628, this number was 261,000 less than in 2001. Every tenth person is 70 years old or older.

The number of unmarried people has also increased in the last decade. In 2011 it was 32,6 % of the population. 18

The migration tendencies in the country are oriented mostly into the center area (mostly Budapest) and to the western part.Nearly two-third of the population lives in urban environment. The biggest city is Budapest (about one-third of the urban population lives in the metropolitan area of Budapest) and it is also the only city with a population over 300,000 in Hungary. The bulk of towns have populations of less than 40,000. There are 5 major provin-cial centers (Györ, Szeged, Miskolc, Debrecen and Pécs) and some traditional mar-ket towns (Kecskemét, Székesfehérvár, Nyíregyháza, Szombathely and Szolnok) and some industrial centers like Tatabánya, Salgótarján, Ózd, Dunaújváros and Kazincbarcika.

16 “Census 2011,” KSH (Central Statistics Office of Hungary), accessed April 21, 2013, http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/ nepsz2011/nepsz_sajto_20130328.pdf.17 ”Hungary,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed April 21, 2013, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/276730/Hungary.18 “Census 2011,” KSH (Central Statistics Office of Hungary), accessed April 21, 2013, http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/ nepsz2011/nepsz_sajto_20130328.pdf.

Figure 14 Decreasing of population in Hungary

Figure 15 Aging rate by female and male

Figure 16 Migration tendencies within the country

22

Living Democracy

Political situation

In 1989 the Hungarian Socialist Worker’s Party reshaped itself into the Hungarian Socialist Party (center-left party) and started its first 4-year period. The revision of the constitution had some 100 changes (with some quite radical ones after the changes in 1949) and introduced the free election (multiparty parliamentary system) as the first step of democracy. In this multiparty system there were about 200 smaller and bigger parties in the last two decades but only the MSZP (center-left) and the FIDESZ (center-right) could preserve its significance. The governing party (that generally has 1-2 coalition partners) changes in every 4 or 8 years without any common goals what would be important for all the competitor parties. This ten-dency generates an unstable and varying political atmosphere.The political situation in Hungary is similar to the other post-communist countries. There are 2 main parties who fight with each other and in every 4 years the gover-nor party changes. It generates a continuous instable political, social and economi-cal situation. The top-down developments and interventions shall be done in these 4 years. So there is no chance for long-term top-down developments Thanks to the youth of the democracy, bottom-up initiatives are also not strong enough to generate long-term developments. Moreover this phenomena barely exists in Hungary. There are already a few initiations but their number is irrelevant.

Health and welfare

In the 1970’s every citizen was supported with a free health care but its quality never reached the high standards, so with the transition in 1989 the importance of higher-quality private health care started to increase. At the end of the communist era the costs of the free health care took 1/5 of the GDP. After the transition this system changed but the state’s participation in it is still very high compared with the West-ern European countries.

Community life

During the socialist era the community life in Hungary was reduced to a very minimal level. It wasn’t allowed to organize bottom-up events, the top-down (political) control was very strong. With the socialist regime’s fall this has also changed. There are more and more bottom-up initiated events and the community life is also stronger, although its tradition is not so long and the new generations have to learn how to act in this new situation by themselves. In terms of housing most of the tenants have no strong and tight relationship with each other so their social interactions are very weak.

23

General context

| | | | 2.1.4 Cultural level

Culture

“The cultural milieu of Hungary is a result of the diverse mix of genuine Hungarian peasant culture and the cosmopolitan culture of an influential German and Jewish urban population. Both the coffeehouse (as meeting place for intellectuals) and the music of the Roma (Gypsies) also have had an impact.” 19

The Soviet era has to be mentioned also in this topic. The cultural life was deeply controlled during this period that also impacted not just that period but has influ-ences also for the present. After 1989 as everything else, the cultural life also changed a lot. The traditional lifestyle started decreasing, the clothing began to follow the Western European, global trends, the family structures changed. The cosmopolitan Budapest started competing with other European capitals and the touristic destinations had to grow up to the global trends.

Education

Since 1868, when the Law framed that the universal education is obligatory in Hun-gary the system was to follow the German system of education on all levels. During the communist era this ‘elitist’ German system was overtaken by a Soviet mass education. After 1989 the system returned back to the German roots but a few regulations were left also from the Soviet inheritance. The current system is basi-cally the 8+4 years but there is also possibility to do the primary and secondary schools in 6+6 years. In the Socialism the educational system was typically mass education with more institutes but no private schools. After 1989 this also changed, more and more private schools and universities appeared. From the middle of the 1990’s the education is free for every child from the kindergartens to the universi-ties and it is obligatory between the age of 6 and 16. During the last two decades the number of university students was always changing, depending on the actual governing political party and the political and economic goals. The number of uni-versity appliers also shows this unstable political background.

| | | | 2.1.5 Environmental level

Geography and climate

Hungary is a landlocked country in the Carpathian Basin. The neighbors are: Aus-tria (366 km), Croatia (329 km), Romania (443 km), Serbia (166 km), Slovakia (676 km), Slovenia (102 km) and Ukraine (103 km). The Duna (Danube) and Tisza Rivers divide the country into three large regions (Western, Middle and Eastern Hungary). The biggest and most well known lake is the Balaton (the biggest lake in Middle Europe), a very important touristic destination for Hungarians and also for foreign-ers. The Great Hungarian Plain (also known as Alföld or Great Alföld) is an impor-tant agricultural area and comprises approximately 56 % of the country. 20 The

19 ”Higher education,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed April 29, 2013, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/276730/ Hungary/261281/Higher-education.20 “Hungary,” Wikipedia, accessed April 23, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hungarian_Plain.

Figure 17 Coffee house in Budapest

Figure 18 Gypsy musicians

Figure 19 Number of appliers for the Hungarian universities per year

24

Living Democracy

highest peak is the Mátra Mountain with its 1014 meters high and the lowest point is on the Tisza River 78 meters above the sea level. The country has a moderately dry continental climate thanks to its situation in the Carpathian Basin.

Housing situation and housing tendencies in Hungary

“Housing shortages were constant in Hungary for decades after World War II, despite the million housing units built by the state in urban centres from 1956 to 1985. In the immediate postwar period, Hungary maintained an average of three persons per room, a rate that eventually dropped to one per room by the mid-1990s.” 21

Nowadays several analyses mention about 40,000 new housing per year that would be needed to secure the maintenance of the condition of the housing stock. In the last year the number of built new housing was 10,560. 22

Next to the lack of housing the ownership structure is the other characteristic fact. After the fall of socialism (where the private ownership wasn’t allowed and where all the housing stock was managed by the state) the privatization generated an imbalanced situation with more or less no public housing stock.

21 ”Rural settlement,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed April 23, 2013, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/276730/ Hungary/34834/Ruralsettlement# toc34838.22 “Az épített lakások száma,” KSH (Central Statistics Office of Hungary), accessed April 30, 2013, http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/ xstadat/xstadat_evkozi/e_zrs003.html.

Figure 20 The Danube as an international waterway through Hungary

Figure 21 The Great Hungarian Plain covers the 56 % of Hungary

Figure 22 Shepherds in 1855 on the “Alföld”

Figure 23 Number of built flats 1921-2011

25

General context

Housing privatization

Housing privatization grounded a very massive fundament for the housing estate in the early 90’s after the fall of socialism. Right-to-Buy was a common phenomenon (low prices but relatively short term) in these countries. In Hungary between 1990-94 about 40 % of the housing stock was privatized while in the other post-socialist countries (Poland 6%, Czech Republic 2 % or Slovenia 1.4%) it was much softer. 23 The privatization was typical in Budapest and in the main cities. In Miskolc it was about 70% by 1994. The public rental flats had two main types: the “old state rent-als” and the “new” mostly prefabricated panel blocks. The first could be character-ized with its good location in the city centers but with its heterogeneous quality built before World War 1, and the panel blocks with their outer city location and homo-geneous quality (standardized, prefabricated) built after 1970’s. 24 To solve the sev-eral problems in the housing stock the government and the local government started the privatization process. The “housing-give-away program” tried to relieve the local governments of the maintenance costs by selling the publicly owned prop-erties to the tenants. “Thousands of state owned apartments (usually whole buildings) were privatized by transferring ownership of an individual flat or unit together with a share in the common property (the attic, basement, the stairways, mechanical and structural systems, the garden - if there was - etc.), known as “condominium” or “condominium”. Today almost one million apartments belong to condomini-ums, which is almost one fourth of the whole housing stock in Hungary” 25

The biggest part of the privatized housing stock chose the condominium as their legal form. These condominiums doesn’t have any common goals, the Condomini-um Law is the only common statement. They don’t have real communities all the residents live in their smaller or bigger flats without any social activity. “In these special communities people are destined to live together for an unspecified period of time, therefore the “game” is not “one-shot” but “iterated”, even though some participants can decide to “quit”. People in residential condominiums - by definition - have both their private properties and share common properties and facilities. The use of these latter as well as the overall management of the condominium necessarily induce conflicts among the members of these groups, which can be resolved only by their collective decision making and action. Thus condominiums can be regarded as communities “governing the commons” on the one hand, and groups of individuals who are part of an organization with common interests and goals on the other. In both aspects, in order to pursue their common goals they have to act collectively and to reach them successfully they have to cooperate with each other.” 26 Although this privatization looked very attractive (that tenants could buy their flats for x % of the market price) from outside, a lot of tenants didn’t do it because of the bad conditions of the buildings and the lack of financial possibilities. The privatized flats had two characteristics: first they were in better conditions and second their tenants were higher educated and had less financial problems than the average to maintain their new properties.

23 Annamária Orbán, “Community action for collective goods. An interdisciplinary approach to the internal and external solutions to collective action problems – the case of Hungarian condominiums” (PhD diss., Central European University, 2003).24 Ibid., 55.25 Ibid., 56.26 Ibid., 4-5.

Figure 24 Rate of rents in the EU in 2002

Figure 25 The “Ócsa” project in 2012

27

General context

| | | 2.2 Budapest

| | | | 2.2.1 General information 27

Basic data

Population of the- city area: 1,741,041- urban area: 2,551,247- metropolitan area: 3,284,110Size of the- city area: 525.16 km2- urban area: 2,538 km2- metropolitan area: 7,626 km2Density of the- city area: 3,300/km2- urban area: 1,000/km2- metropolitan area: 430/km2Boroughs (districts): 23 (the Roman numbers indicate the district)

The story 28

Budapest physically was always close to the center of Europe and with the country’s historical background it had ups and downs in its history as a metropolis. Under the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy it was the twin capital of a dual monarchy. Under the inter-war decades (1918-1944) and the socialism it shoved off from the center and from the Western European countries but with the fall of the socialism (already from 1980’s) it started to have more and more importance again. Budapest should use its rich and colorful historical past and combine it with the values of the stress-

27 “Budapest,” Wikipedia, accessed March 11, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest.28 “Budapest,” Wikipedia, accessed April 27, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest.

Figure 26 Budapest with its 23 districts

Figure 27 A postcard from 1919 shows the Danube that divides Buda and Pest

28

Living Democracy

ful but unique socialist inheritance to define its goals and to reach them. The capi-tal with its 1.7 million (in the 1980’s in was 2 million) inhabitants is about ten times larger then the next city (Debrecen with its about 200.000 citizens). This “water-head” holds all the political, economic, social and cultural power in Hungary. Under the Soviet regime the Eastern European capitals had very strong top-down political and institutional developments so the new task should be to rethink and complete these top-down developments with bottom-up initiatives and to repair the mis-takes.


Budapest became a metropolis already in the 1910’s with the industrialization. About 45% of the population was factory workers. In the 1960’s with its 600,000 factory workers it was one of the biggest industrial centers in Europe. Metalwork-ing, textile industry and automobile industry were the main sectors. Nowadays nearly all the main companies can be found in Budapest, the main products are the communication engineering, computer appliance, electric machines, incandescent lamps (General Electric) and the pharmaceutical industry (Egis, Richter Gedeon, Chinoin, Teva). These industries can typically be found in the outer areas and in the suburbs. The city center gives place rather for the national and international ser-vices and financial services like telecommunication, banks, insurance companies, oil and gas companies, … etc. As many other metropolitan capitals Budapest also has a very developed tourism based on servicing network (hotels, restaurant, coffee houses and party places). 29


“The democratic / capitalist system can best be described with decentralization and privatization processes. (…) In the process to built up a market society two types of changes were of crucial importance: the transformation of public property into private ownership and the decentralization of political control with the empowerment of local governments. According to many analysts, in Hungary both transformations went a bit too far, leading to ‘over-privatization’ of property (e.g. the share of public housing decreased well below 10 percentage in a country where the share of people living in poverty is above 20 percent according to all estimates) and to ‘overdecentralization’ of the government system.” 30

The independent local municipalities (the districts and the agglomeration settle-ments) show little interest to co-operate with each other or with the central govern-ment of Budapest. This tendency generates a wide unregulated and individually driven development. The 23 districts have quite different characteristics, social, political and cultural backgrounds and goals that could be also a potential to sepa-rate them from each other. The different districts can be regulated by different political governments, the mayor of Budapest could be also from another party than the leading one. This political mixture with no common goals generates also a strange and tensioned climate in the political and social life of the city.

29 “Budapest Economy,” Wikipedia, accessed April 27, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest#Economy.30 Alexander Hamedinger and Alexander Wolffhardt, ed., The Europeanization of Cities – Policies, Urban Change and Urban Networks, (Amsterdam: Techne Press, 2010), 128-129.

29

General context


Culture, cultural life in the city

If Budapest could be seen as the “water-head” of Hungary than the inner city could be seen as the “water-head” of Budapest. Very high percentage of the cultural and social events, programs and institutes are situated in the city center that generates a characteristic situation. Although the city has 23 districts most of the cultural pro-grams are focused just in 3-4. The inner city functions as any Western European city center with its metropolitan lifestyle (multinational, multifunctional and vibrant).


Housing situation and housing tendencies in Budapest

The decrease of population (from 2 million to 1.7) in Budapest between the 1980’s and 1990’s was caused by the suburbanization. 31 Since 1990 this 1.7 million stag-nates. The “migratory” segment of the citizens was mostly from the higher edu-cated, well paid part who lived in the city center but didn’t want to live in the old, not always healthy fabric of the center and who didn’t want to refurbish the old housing stock (built mostly before the World War 1). This tendency generated the inner city’s abandonment process and along with that the poor housing stock condi-tion. Thanks to the housing privatization after the fall of the socialism only 3.9% of the current housing stocks is rental housing. 32

There are five main housing typologies in Budapest quite mixed with each other in the urban structure. The oldest inner city contains mostly housing with inner court-yards but in some areas one can also find single-family houses and a rehabilitated bigger block structure. These are mostly built of brick.

Types of housing

Around the inner city the typical forms are single-family areas and block of flats made of brick (between 1930-50). Outside of this ring the main type is block hous-ing from the 1950-1990. The fourth ring is the outskirt with its suburban outlook: single-family houses with poor public transport and poor service.The last phenomena parallel with the suburban developments is the subdivisions! They are located also in the city center and also in the outskirts. The sizes and housing typologies are very diverse but they have one very important common goal: the profit.

31 Péter Balázs, “Budapest területének fejlödése 1945-töl napjainkig” (BSc thesis, ELTE Budapest, 2011).32 “Lakáspiac fellendülése,” Portfolio.hu, accessed April 25, 2013, http://www.portfolio.hu/ingatlan/lakas/alom_a_lakaspiac_fellendu lese_maradnak_az_alacsony_arak.173361.html.

30

Living Democracy

Figure 28 Location of the different type of housings in the city structure.

Figure 29 Type 1 - Inner courtyard

Figure 31 Type 2 - Block of flats

Figure 30 Type 1 - Inner city multi-family houses with inner courtyard (purple)

Figure 32 Type 2 - Block of flats (red)

31

General context

Figure 33 Type 3 - Block housing

Figure 35 Type 4 - Single-family houses

Figure 37 Type 5 - New settlements

Figure 34 Type 3 - Block housing (blue)

Figure 36 Type 4 - Single-family houses (green)

Figure 38 Type 5 - New settlements (yellow)

32

Living Democracy

The most popular type of housing in 2007 (type and size) in Budapest was the mul-tifamily house (made of brick). 33 It is natural that the demand is depending on the supply. In Budapest 83% of the sold housing is condominium/multifamily house, 12% is panel blocks and 3% is single-family housing. While selling the used proper-ties is the main characteristic of the housing market, the Figure 28 could also be seen as the “Figure of the used properties”.

The average m2 in the different types

- single-family house: 80-150 m2

- semi-detached house: 100 m2 (it this type the average m2 is bigger than in the single-family house because their price is cheaper and for the same money the buy-ers could buy bigger houses)- flats in panel blocks 40-60 m2 (just a few flat typologies)- row house 80-150 m2

- multi-family house 40-80 m2

An other important topic is the number of rooms. It is noticeable that a bit bigger flat with one more (or half ) room is more popular because this additional room improves the functional quality of the flat.

Housing tendencies in Budapest

More and more houses started to be abandoned in the city center, they are too old or there is nobody to maintain them. Some of these houses are used as culture-pubs and some of them are empty. Before the crisis a lot of them started to be refurbished but the crisis stopped all the developments. The monument protection was also a big disadvantage for the rehabilitation because the investors wanted to demolish them and build much bigger and denser houses. In the last 2 decades the housing parks with some semi-private gardens, “parks”, were the most popular housing type.

Panel program

The panel program could be successful mostly because it is an EU supported devel-opment. The goal is to refurbish the physical conditions of the panel blocks and to reduce their energy use. This development deals with the economical and ecological problems but the social life of the tenants, the legal background of these living machines or the problem of the environment remain unsolved.

33 “Databank,” Otthon Centrum Real Estate Company, accessed April 23, 2013, http://mfor.hu/cikkek/Kelendo_e_ingatlana____ Keresett_lakastipusok_es__meretek.html?mobileLayoutSelected=0.

Figure 39 Sold types of housing in 2007

Figure 40 Sold used housing in 2007

Figure 41 Sold new housing in 2007

Figure 43 Block housing rehabilitation

Figure 42 Sold used housing by size in 2007

33

First conclusions

| | 3 First conclusions - Bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives for sustainable housing developments in Budapest

| | | 3.1 Summary and problem formulation

The analysis of the current situation in Hungary and in Budapest shows that this young democratic country has to look for bottom-up initiatives independently from the top-down (politic) developments. The political situation is not stable enough to answer all the housing questions. The housing incompleteness is tightly connected to economic, social, cultural and environmental questions so the solutions must be very complex. The lack of money (capital), financial crisis (mortgage), the short-term and profit-oriented housing developments, the lack of democratic and social discussions, the lack of long-tern thinking (e.g. maintenance), rents and communi-ties are all big issues that are waiting for solutions.

| | | 3.2 Bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives as potential tools

In Western Europe the housing co-operatives are dealing with the above-men-tioned economic, social, cultural and ecological questions for more than 100 years. Next to the state and the private investors the housing co-operatives have a strong influence on the housing developments. They are democratic, non-profit, commu-nity oriented, socially and environmentally sensible and culturally opened. There are top-down or bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives and there are co-pro-ductions too where the private and public stakeholders work together for a better solution. In the current situation in Hungary the bottom-up initiated projects would be more useful because they could function independently from the public repre-sentatives and influences.

| | | 3.3 Existing housing co-operatives in Hungary

Although housing co-operatives have a relative long history and a quite big percent-age on the housing stock in Hungary they are stagnating since 1990’s. In the last 3 decades no new housing co-operatives were established and the existing ones didn’t develop further. About 7% of the housing stock (about 300,000 dwellings) is co-operative in the terms of legal form but they don’t have the typical characteristics like their Western European partners. They are not community oriented, have no influence on influence the housing developments, don’t generate any social or cul-tural developments and are not looking for new ways towards further develop-ments.There are four “housing co-operative” projects / tendencies (bottom-up initiated or community-oriented) that should be mentioned from the last 3 decades.

Collective housing, Miskolc (1979-1989)

This is the only bottom-up initiated collective housing project in Hungary. A fewyoung and committed architects initiated it in Miskolc during the socialist regime.

Figure 44 The community of the collec-tive house

34

Living Democracy

Their goal was to live and work together in a world that was far away from their kind of thinking. They had a very strong support from the local government while in that time in Miskolc the lack of architects was considerable. They lived and worked together for about 10 years but after the changes in their family structures, political changes in the country, …etc. the community fell apart. Their goals, social and cultural structure wasn’t flexible enough to react on the new effects.

Building communities, Budapest (1970 - 80’s)

During the 1970-80’s the bottom-up initiated building communities in Hungary and in Budapest were beloved. They had good financial support from the state and with selfbuild and self-management they could realize and manage their own homes. Since the end of the 1980’s there isn’t any new examples and their commu-nity life is not so active any more.

“Magház” project, Budapest (2001 - )

Although it was a top-down initiated project for community oriented housing in the centre of Budapest it is very important to mention it. There were 4 steps planned but finally just the first step was realized because the investors thought that it doesn’t function well and it wasn’t profitable enough. The four projects would be realized on four different parts of the city and all of them would be for different social groups. The first building was built for people between 20-30. This is still in use and the community is stronger and stronger but the social segregation is visible.

Horanszky 1, Budapest (1935 - )

This multi-family housing in the city center was realized in 1936 by a private inves-tor. Today it functions as a condominium but its community life has to be men-tioned. The residents self-manage the building’s legal, economic, social and cul-tural life and they have several plans looking into the future. This project is going to be the Hungarian case study while it has several important characteristics that are similar to a housing co-operative. It is independent from top-down developments, it has a diverse social and cultural background and it tries to step forward.

| | | 3.4 Existing bottom-up initiatives in Budapest

A young democratic country has young democratic movements. Although during the socialist regime it was illegal to initiate anything bottom-up, bottom-up initia-tions always existed and a few one exists nowadays too. They deal with different questions on different fields like culture, public spaces, events, …etc. This part tries to introduce a few initiatives from the last 10-20 years that are new and still work. All of them were bottom-up initiated but because they became strong quite fast they got top-down support soon. Support from the state, from the local municipalities or sometimes also from private investors.

Figure 45 The “Magház” project

Figure 46 The Condominium of the Year in 2000

35

First conclusions

Critical Mass, Budapest (1990’s - )

The Critical Mass is an international initiative with big Hungarian (Budapest) suc-cess. The Critical Mass in Budapest generated an important discussion between the bikers and the local municipality to develop the bike transport system in Budapest. Their everyday work shows that the discussion between the private and public stakeholders could be fruitful.

“KÉK” – Contemporary Architectural Center, Budapest (2006 - )

The center’s main goal is to create an independent architectural center in Budapest and to bring the architecture in the front row of the public discussions. The KÉK thinks that architecture has important social and cultural aspects and it would like to bring the Hungarian and international architecture closer to the people. It talks about the built environment, about the city and several other topics connected to architecture. It has initiated several new movements in the last few years.

Urban gardening / Community gardening 34

This project was initiated by the KÉK to realize community gardens in the city. There are 2 gardens at the moment in the city but the movement is growing rapidly. A private investor (“Corvin” project) gave the ”agricultural” lands - abandonedbuilding-sites. Everybody could get 8 m2 land to use. There are also community events, lectures about agricultural topics and cultural events too.

“Vacant city” project, Budapest (2012 - )

This project was also initiated by the KÉK to map the abandoned shops, flats and office spaces in the city center and to re-think their function. It created an open-source map that anybody could develop with additional empty spaces. It organizes workshops and publishes about this phenomenon.

34 “Közösségi kertek,” accessed May 29, 2013, http://kozossegikertek.hu.

Figure 47 Critical mass in Budapest

Figure 49 The vacant city’s New York model

Figure 48 Community garden in Budapest’s 8th district

36

Living Democracy

“Collective market” project, Budapest (2012 - )

The Collective market’s goal is to create a communal platform where everyone can buy healthy food from farmers and local manufacturers. The products must be bio and shouldn’t be gene manipulated. The market is 1 or 2 times per month from spring to autumn.

“Fogasház” project, Budapest

Since the first ruin-pub appeared in 2001 there is more and more abandoned house reused in the city center not for housing. The “ruin pubs” are mostly realized by private investors but there are also a few bottom-up initiated. The “Fogasház” proj-ect is one of these few exceptions. A few committed people dreamed a cultural center in the city center. They got an empty building from a private investor for use and they realized a colorful cultural hotspot in the heart of the city.

Figure 50 “Collective market” in Buda-pest

Figure 51 “Fogasház” project in Budapest

Figure 52 The interior of the “Fogasház”

37

First conclusions

The 8th district, Budapest

The 8th district in the center of Budapest is a very colorful part of the city. Thanks to its radial position the 8th district has numerous and very different parts. The “Palace District” close to the core of the city is a typical place for the higher middle class and for several institutes (public library, universities, …etc.). The middle part is the poorest part but it is continuously under rehabilitation since the beginning of the last decade. The outer part is less built-up: there is a huge cemetery, a park and several industrial areas. In the last decade the first two parts (inner and middle) were important topics in the city’s everyday life. With the “Corvin” project (a reha-bilitation project by a private investor), the Palace District’s several public art events and movements and the serious and hard work of the local municipality to reha-bilitate the middle part’s super low conditions.The “Corvin” project and the mentioned rehabilitation (by the local municipality) was an important public private partnership program. Although the initiative and the first steps came from top-down the organizers generated a participatory process where the local residents could take part in several important developments. The global financial crisis slowed down the rehabilitation but there are still several smaller, mostly bottom-up initiated interventions that move the revitalization of the district towards.

Figure 53 The 8th district in Budapest

Figure 54 The 8th district

Figure 55 Public art

Figure 56 The “Corvin” project

39

Housing co-operatives in Europe

| | 4 Housing co-operatives in Europe

There are different types of co-operatives. Co-operatives could be for gardening, banking, … or for housing. It would be also interesting and useful to analyze the different types but in this thesis only the housing co-operatives will be discussed. It has also so many different forms and possibilities.During the last 2 centuries since this phenomenon exists it had several types, attempts and success that could be analyzed to learn from it. After a historical description, the current European forms will be collected and a few will be chosen and analyzed. The housing co-operatives have a lot of potential but have also sev-eral disadvantages. This thesis also tries to define these negative aspects to avoid them.Typically negative economic and social situations generated the discussion of this type of housing because they have the potential to develop further several aspects of life. The current situation in Europe is an exact period for these discussions.Questions like use of land, money and resources, new households, new ways of liv-ing and working, changed social life, …etc. could be compared with housing coop-eratives.

| | | 4.1 The history of housing co-operatives 35

The history of housing co-operatives started in the very beginning of the 19th cen-tury. It was mostly connected to the industrial revolution and its social, economic and cultural changes. On the grounds of the revolution in the UK the history of the housing co-operatives begun. The most common of these new types of housing were to improve the conditions of housing, living and working.

35 The text of the historical summary is based on three books: Lynn F. Pearson, The Architectural and Social History of Cooperative Living (MACMILLAN PRESS, 1988), Karen A. Franck and Sherry Ahrentzen, New Households New Housing, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989) and Michael LaFond et al., ed. and trans., CoHousing Cultures – Handbook for self-organized, community-oriented and sustain able housing (Berlin: id22: Institut für kreative Nachhaltigkeit, jovis Verlag, 2012).

Figure 57 Periods of community-oriented developments

40

Living Democracy

Community

One of the pioneers was Robert Owen who initiated several social and housingdevelopments in New Lanark (an “industrial village”) between 1800 and 1825. 36 This community model had several advantages and also some disadvantages but still became a very useful example for the following community processes.With the industrialization came the urbanization and with the urbanization came several new tasks into the cities. Housing became a very important topic because in that time the standard of living was very low. The lack of facilities (no piped water, heating, ...etc.) and the lack of space were typical problems. It was normal, that 10-12 peopled shared a single bedroom. Top-down as well as bottom-up initiatives appeared to develop the conditions. These new types of households were widely discussed in England in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Co-operative housekeeping

“Cooperative housekeeping was a system for improving the quality of home life, in which several households of one or more people combined to share the costs and labour involved in providing themselves with services as cooking, laundry and cleaning. Households retained their individual homes and privacy, but ate some meals in a communal dining room and shared other communal facilities. Ideally, cooperative homes would be situated close together, and centred on a specially-built complex of buildings containing the dining room, central kitchen and common room. (…) Outside the dwelling, the network of courts and alleys formed a semi-public space in which certain facilities such as the privy, water supply and washhouse were shared. Meals were still a communal activity in many areas in the early nineteenth century; in 1832, workers at Manchester cotton factories ate from a communal dish, while in the middle of the century in Yorkshire, soup was eaten from plate-sized depressions cut into the dining table.” 37

The new possibilities, more flexible social structures and more freedom for the women generated new aims for the society. Various political and religious groups appeared and formulated their own goals.

Collective living

One of these collective living groups was the Owenite community that tried to arrange collective living and to socialize domestic work. Between 1821 and 1845 they established 7 communities in England and in Scotland. The common goal was to create a community for 100-250 families but the final result wasn’t so successful. In one of these communities finally lived about 21 families and in another about 300 people. So the main goals were: eat together, take care of the children, share duties and facilities and to spare some free time.

36 “Robert Owen and New Lanark,” accessed May 4, 2013, http://www.robert-owen.com.37 Lynn F. Pearson, The Architectural and Social History of Cooperative Living, (MACMILLAN PRESS, 1988), 1-3.

Figure 58 New Lanark

Figure 60 Owenite community

Figure 59 Communal kitchen in a co-operative housekeeping in 1905

41


Suburb co-operative

Parallel or against these urban developments (practical difficulties of sharing facilities) a rural version has also appeared. The Chartist Land Company with 2-4 acres plots, cottages and community building (kitchen, sitting room). The main idea was that these people could maintain themselves by farming. This initiative func-tioned from 1845 to 1851 and was the first ”suburb co-operative”.“Both types of settlement offered an opportunity to escape from authority and to attempt to become self-sufficient. Although the actual number of settlers and communalists was small, there was great interest in the Owenite and Chartist movements themselves.” 38

Three alternative types

“Three alternative building types were suggested during the middle and late nineteenth century which intended to provide a more economic home for middle-class families than the villa or terrace house.” 39

The first type called the “luxury flat” that was an alternative household against the much more expensive freestanding houses. It was often just a second home for some richer persons but this need generated this new type of household. And sometimes it was the solution for particular groups like single people, young couples or poorer families.The second household form was the “country cottage” that had also some new characteristics. It was more expansive than a large villa and a resident servant ran it.The third type is the “bungalow”. It was built in the beginning on the coast and than on inland sites and it was much more economic and easy to run than a villa.These new alternatives were interesting types but they were no solutions for the actual situation. They couldn’t solve the question of the middle-class wives domes-tic duties and they didn’t give an answer how to replace the lack of servants.

Social living

W.B. Adams suggested not to arrange more than 60 private flats along a gallery with a central kitchen, laundry, shoe-cleaning, a large dining hall, baths, reading room and library. His calculations showed that the rent for this household (£80-100 per year) would be half the cost as for the same arrangement made individually (about £300 per dwelling per year). This living form not just reduced the costs but also increased the freedom of the servants while they could have their own accommoda-tion separated from their employer’s house. The lack of servants in the second half of the century also generated the research for new household forms. The women had to do more by themselves so they had less free time.Parallel with the British developments, several new types appeared all around the world. In France or in the USA the new needs generated also new answers. These new phenomenon had influence each other and created more and more new hous-ing forms and new communities.

38 Ibid., 6.39 Ibid., 8.

Figure 61 Chartist Land Company

42

Living Democracy

Familistere

Charles Fourier’s utopist Phalanster hasn’t been realized in France but it had sev-eral followers and the theory of his thinking had more importance than any other social utopias in this topic. Finally Jean Baptiste André Godin adapted Fourier’s ideas in Guise and started to realize it from 1859.“The roots of collective habitation are found in early nineteenth-century France, where a major social upheaval gave rise to efforts to bring about social harmony. An important proposal for social reform was developed by Charles Francois Marie Fourier during the first decade of the nineteenth century. Believing that individualism and competition led to imperfect and immoral social organiza-tions, he proposed the formation of a cooperative society based on social units called phalanges, consisting ideally of 1,620 members (the minimum being about 300 and the maximum about 2,000 persons) inhabiting a common building with a new domestic arrangement – centralized kitchen service. Fourier advocated the abolishment of individual food preparation mainly to eman-cipate women and to avoid the wasteful practice of simultaneous cooking inherent in private house-keeping. Conceived as a large palatial building complex, the so-called phalanstery was to consist of individual apartments complemented by series of common rooms for conversation, reading, and dining. The common dining rooms on the second floor were to be served by raising the tables (decked with food) through trap doors from kitchen below.” 40

Associated home

Another way of living is mentioned by Harriet Martineau, a political writer from London. She suggested for single women to live together in associated homes. These would be like ladies club, about 20 women each of them would have one private room, for common use a shared sitting room and library, and with commu-nal meals. This type of living can be mentioned as the original of the actual shared flats in Britain or the WGs (Wohngemeinschaften) in Austria, Germany and Swit-zerland. The main goal was the company of others. It was a similar proposal that was already existed for poor people, that’s why it wasn’t a successful one. The middle class thought that this form of living is just for the lower classes.Another associated home by E.V. Neale in the 1880’s mentioned also the impor-tance of the privacy and many other semi-public facilities.“His plan for an associated home involved a five-storey rectangular block of flats, part of the space in the centre of the rectangular being occupied by a building containing the communal facilities. He emphasised the privacy of the flats, and included a central kitchen, laundry, bathroom, dining room, library, smoking and billiard rooms and a nursery. There was also the possibility of adding school-rooms or gardens. He intended the central passage of the blocks of flats to be lit from above, although this would have been so gloomy that gas lighting might well have been added. Privacy would depend on sound insulation between flats and the number of staircases included in the final building; more staircases would have increased the cost. Facilities in the central block would cause some problems because of the stairs. Not only would the kitchen and dining room have been on different floors, but women taking their washing to the laundry also have to climb stairs unless they happened to live in the same floor. Children’s play would presumably be supervised in the day nursery.” 41

40 Karen A. Franck and Sherry Ahrentzen, New Households New Housing, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989), 47-48.41 Lynn F. Pearson, The Architectural and Social History of Cooperative Living (MACMILLAN PRESS, 1988), 28-29.

Figure 62 The plan of Phalanstere by Fourier

Figure 63 The realised Familistere by Godin

Figure 64 Courtyard of the Familistere

Figure 65 The kindergarten of the Familistere

Figure 66 Plan of the first floor of an associated home described by E. V. Neale

43


Publicity

The mentioned household typologies had wide publicity in Britain and also in the USA. Their main goals were more or less always the same: to reduce the costs and to share the duties: for single women, families, poor or rich. These proposals were so interesting and well published in that time that The Queen was also interested. Mrs E.M. King published her ideas and later her plans too.“She had asked the architect Edward W. Godwin to draw up plans for the cooperative home, and he produced a design for a large, three-storey house containing 21 family flats (two to four bedrooms), a dining room, kitchen ad children’s amenities. Mrs King suggested an extra floor with single rooms for guests or poor residents. The building was to be centrally heated from the kitchen range, well ventilated and provided with a lift. Each flat had its own bathroom and sitting room, the only communally used areas being the dining room and the room above it, presumably a library or com-mon room. The entire building – ‘neither a “huge barrack” nor a flaunting hotel’ – would house over 100 adults and at least twice that number of children. Mrs King emphasised the privacy and isolation each family could except, as a result of the high standard of construction of the building, and reminded readers of the advantages in terms of varied social life to be gained from living in close proximity to other families.” 42

The catering flats

“These flats had evolved from hotels; families could rent entire suites and be served meals in their rooms or eat in a dining hall. The object of the proprietors was to make a profit from servicing middle-class families who wanted their food prepared and their rooms cleaned without having to organise their own servants.” 43

One of the most known and biggest block was Queen Anne’s Mansions in London. The ten-storey block was built in 1875. “While catering flats were fashionable, they were connected with cooperative housekeeping by articles such as Roswell Fisher’s of 1877. He stated the case for cooperative housekeeping as the application of economic principles to domestic life, rather than a social or socialist reform. Although he men-tioned the success of catering flats, he felt that some form of cooperative management was necessary on grounds of quality and efficiency, as residents without their own kitchens could be exploited by a purely commercial firm. He saw the future of upper- and middle-class dwellings as being in cooperatively managed groups with ensured privacy, offering tenants freedom from domestic worries, economy and high standards of service. Fisher suggested that cooperative mansions would soon become one of the best property investments available, but there were still no investors prepared to mount a truly cooperative experiment.” 44

Co-operative housekeeping in garden cities

A further step in the suburb co-operative movement was in the garden cities. This household type tried to combine the calm atmosphere of the garden cities with cooperative living.

42 Ibid., 34-35.43 Ibid., 41.44 Ibid., 42.

Figure 67 A published co-operative home

44

Living Democracy

“When completed there will be thirty two flats and cottages arranged in a quadrangle, around administrative buildings which include communal dining-hall, tea-room, reading-room, smoking-room, the kitchen, and accommodation for the domestic staff. The units are with one to three bed-rooms, and the rents charged includes rates, hot water ( from a central source), heating, garden maintenance, window cleaning, use of the common rooms, and staff salaries. The charges for meals, which can be served in the central dining-room or the tenant’s own house, are low because the sala-ries are already taken care of in the rents.” 45

The advantage of this housing was the possible diversity of the residents. They could meet and have social life in the common areas, but they also had their private living accommodations with bedrooms, sitting room, a bathroom and a ‘pantry’. There were also smaller flats – with one or two bedrooms in bigger buildings or two to three bedroom units as houses. Each ground-level dwelling (flat or house) had its own garden. This and other similar projects in that time were finally popu-lar in the group of single people, the elderly, and the childless couples. For families the collective habitation was still too unusual.


After the first century of the housing co-operative (community oriented) movement in Britain and in France the phenomenon started to spread in Europe. The Scandi-navian and the German speaking countries started to copy and develop the socially sensible characteristics and the organizational elements.

Scandinavia

In the beginning of the 20th century Otto Fick developed the Danish form of hous-ing co-operative. They called it Kollektivhus. It is not clear if he knew already about the British and American versions but there were several similarities with them. The housework and the meals were the main duties. He suggested a solution where all these were done by service staff. The building had 26 flats without kitchen (3-5 rooms) and 27 common rooms (central kitchen, laundry, drying room, ironing room, …etc.). “The building site was owned by the municipality, which also held the first mortgage on the prop-erty. Because Fick could not raise sufficient capital for the construction of his building, it had to be financed as a cooperative.” 46 His “Kollektivhus” was more for bigger families than for childless people.

Germany, Switzerland and Austria

“In 1901 the German social democrat and women’s activist Lily Braun published in Berlin a book entitle Frauenarbeit und Hauswirtschaft (Women’s Work and Home Economics). In it she pro-posed the formation of housekeeping cooperatives as a means of accelerating the supply of homes for

45 “The Garden City – A Study in the Development of a Modern Town,” accessed March 21, 2013, http://cashewnut.me.uk/ WGCbooks/web-Purdom-books-1913-1.php.46 Karen A. Franck and Sherry Ahrentzen, New Households New Housing, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989), 54.

Figure 68 Letchworth co-operative hous-ing in Homesgarth by A. Clapham Lander, Architect

Figure 69 Inner courtyard

45


lower-income groups suffering from an acute housing shortage. She envisaged these cooperative societies providing apartment buildings of 50 to 60 kitchenless dwelling units in landscaped garden settings with a centralized kitchen (Uhlig 1979, 159).” 47

These ideas and the publications of the Danish “Kollektivhus” generated a new household typology: the ‘one-kitchen house society’.“To forestall any negative reaction and to resure potential clients, a promise was included in the cooperative’s prospectus asserting that by living in these new types of apartment buildings, closeness and intimacy between family members would not be endangered; on the contrary they would be strengthened because centralized kitchen and housekeeping services would free the mother from housework and enable her to devote greater attention to the healthy development of her children. Four types of collective services were proposed: centralized food service, centralized housekeeping service, child care in a “house-kindergarten” and recreational facilities for free-time activities.” 48

With the outbreak of the World War I all the developments stopped and only in the neutral Switzerland moved forward. In 1915 a new typology “Wohn- und Speise-hausgenossenschaft” (dwelling-and-boarding cooperative society) started. It con-tained 45 dwellings, communal bathing facilities, small private washroom near the entrance door of each apartment, …etc. The apartments were organized around a central courtyard with gallery access. This gallery was much wider than the general corridors in that time because the aim was to create a semi-public social space for the residents. Finally a lot of facilities haven’t been realized (e.g. the common library, a food market, offices and atelier spaces on the top floor). The dining space and central kitchen has also been transformed into a public restaurant soon.

The idea of collective living reached Vienna too. The first realized building (in 1922) was built with one kitchen – “Einküchenhaus”. It accommodated 22 dwell-ings (ranging from 1 to 5 rooms each) in the first step and later 246 more. It called “Heimhof” (House Court).“Although the new dwellings were rather small (mostly one and two rooms each), they nevertheless became very popular. Collective services made housekeeping easy and common facilities – such as dining halls, bath houses, a kindergarten, and social rooms stocked with daily newspapers – were luxuries greatly appreciated. Each floor of the apartment block was cleaned by a maid who also served meals in one’s own apartment, if requested to do so. Laundry services as well as other house-keeping services were offered at cost since this housing development was run by the occupants them-selves as a nonprofit cooperative. Each year members elected new executives whose responsibility was to manage the building.” 49

Summary

The history of housing co-operatives shows the most important steps and charac-teristics of the movement and its development process. Living in the cities gener-ated a more intensive social life that needed new solutions. This social and cultural changing are continuous so the solutions must be flexible to be able to react on them. We have to rethink our living and working conditions and we have to figure out new housing forms and develop the existing stock.

47 Ibid., 55.48 Ibid.49 Ibid., 59.

Figure 70 Plan of the “Amerikanerhaus” in Zürich-Wiedikon

Figure 71 Facade of the “Amerikaner-haus” in Zürich-Wiedikon

Figure 72 Heimhof in Vienna

47


| | | 4.2 Housing co-operatives in different European countries

| | | | 4.2.1 Austria

General information 50

Basic data

Population: 8,390,000 (2010)Total housing stock: 4,200,000 dwellingsTotal social (rental) housing stock: 23% of total housing stock (CECODHAS 2012 Housing Europe Review)Total co-op housing stock: At the end of 2010, 99 housing co-operative with 368,000 housing units representing 8% of the total housing stock and 15% of the total multi-family-housing stock divided into:- 255,000 rental units (15% of the total rental housing stock)- 113,000 owner-occupied units (21% of the owner occupation housing stock)People: 461,000 individual members (End of 2010)The limited-profit housing companies’ portfolio is also part of the Austria Federa-tion of Housing Co-operatives. At the end of 2010, there were 94 limited-housing companies for 427,000 units representing 10% of the total multi-family-housing stock divided into:- 293,000 rental units (16% of the total rental housing stock)- 133,000 owner occupied units (25% of total owner occupation housing stock).

The story

The Austrian housing co-operatives have a more than 100 years old history. The reason of their attendance was the same as in other Western European countries: the bad living and social conditions. The phenomenon arrived from the neighbor-ing countries (Switzerland, Germany, France, England). The first housing co-operative was established in 1895 without any state (public) support, initiated by a few people who wanted to develop the housing conditions. The first limited-profit housing development exists since 1907. The first public fund was realized in 1908 and two years later the “Housing Welfare Fund” was already grounded the essential components of the current Austrian housing policies. The governmental support is a long-term support. It’s important to mention that this help is not just for the low-income groups. The higher-income families, singles, elderly people have the same importance for the government as the poorest segment. The current situation in Austria needs again a more intensive discussion about housing issues. The eco-nomic and financial crisis in 2010 decreased the public funds with 25% and the high level of immigration was generated several questions too.

50 Jane Cameron et al., ed., Profiles of a movement: co-operative housing around the world, (CECODHAS Housing Europe and ICA Housing, 2012), 9-11.

Figure 73 Austria in Europe

Figure 74 W:A:B exhibition of building groups in Graz

48

Living Democracy

Key characteristics of the Austrian housing co-operatives

- They build flats for rent or for sale for their members. Their activities are limited and tied to housing projects. Their funds can be invested just into housing develop-ments.- They have to report regularly their activities: if they are effective, economic and useful enough.

Housing co-operatives

They can access to public funds but in that case the Housing Promotion Schemes determine the obligations they must comply.“- Application of income limits for future tenants and owner-occupied members.- Allocation of some units to public authority referrals (some housing co-operatives).” 51

Limited-profit housing co-operatives

The limited-profit housing activities are defined in the Limited-Profit Housing Act. “- Rents are fixed to cover the appropriate cost of land, construction, administration and financing. The rents include an amount dedicated for repairs and long-term maintenance. The rents charged must be justifiable and tenants and member-owners can request an assessment if in doubt over the appropriateness of the amount charged. Once the loans are repaid, the rents are regulated.- Sale price for owner-occupied dwellings is also regulated.- Member contribution in the case of withdrawal and liquidation is reimbursed at nominal value.- Profits are limited (ceiling for interest rates on own funds).- They have an obligation to build housing. They need explicit permission from the provincial government to interrupt their building activities.- Housing co-operatives must comply with an audit process that evaluates financial performance, profitability, management and compliance with obligations. Federal provinces approve the annual auditing report and define sanctions in the cases of non-compliance. (…)- Limited housing co-operatives are exempt from corporation tax (taxation on income).” 52

Economic level

The public funds’ intervention in Austria is significant. Through the above-men-tioned housing promotion schemes the state could secure the good quality and affordability of the housing stock. The subsidies are object-specific so the financial assistance can be directed directly to the individuals through the housing co-oper-atives. The financial and other assistances include:“- Long term and low interest rate public grants or mortgages that cover between 20% to 60% of the construction costs.- Annuity grants/loans granted either instead of the loan for the construction costs or in addition to such loan to reduce the repayments of mortgages.- Housing allowances based on income and size of household. (Only 6% of households receive hous-ing allowances in Austria – a very low figure compared to other European countries).

51 Ibid., 10.52 Ibid.

49


- A homebuyer program is available to all individuals to help toward the acquisition of a dwelling of any type.” 53

Social level 54

Although the community oriented housing co-operative movement already started in the beginning of the 20th century in Austria, the first important democratic initia-tives were realized in the 1960’s and 70’s. In that time several bottom-up initiated housing co-operatives were established and the participatory process and design has also appeared. The communities started to realize their own housing programs and with self-help and self-management they could reduce the costs that was also an important aspect in that time. The bottom-up initiated process; self-organized movement and the participatory design generated a wide public discussion about housing and social housing. These dialogues created the fundament of the current strong public supported housing processes that could influence and regulate the housing movements in Austria.

How do we want to live in the future? 55

The Austrian political and housing system react still very slowly on the new needs (needs for new household forms). The housing stock is not flexible enough to change with the social changes. This could be thanked to the current ownership structures that don’t have diverse spatial structures and the lack of discussion. The diverse types of housing cooperatives could secure the functional diversity to create more colorful neighborhoods with better qualities. If we take a look on the demo-graphic and social changes we can realize that the households (e.g. more single and smaller households), lifestyles and housing culture (e.g. immigration – different cultural backgrounds) changed a lot.These new questions must be answered and these new housing types (housing cooperatives, building- and living communities, etc.) with their participatory pro-cess and self-determination could be flexible and specified answers.

Cultural level

Housing co-operatives were always culturally sensible. Thanks to their participa-tory process they react easily on the actual social and cultural situations. Immigra-tion (immigrants with different cultural backgrounds) and cultural changes are periodic phenomenon. The flexible democratic organization and spatial structure (enables them to change) make housing co-operatives’ able to change.

Environmental level

Thanks to the strong public influence in the housing stock the housing develop-ments have very good quality in Austria. The subsidized projects have several rules. The investors have to make a competition that generates a much better quality.

53 Ibid.54 Kurt Freisitzer et al., Mitbestimmung im Wohnbau – ein Hanbuch (Wien: Picus Verlag, 1987), 9-46.55 Elisabeth Anderl, Jasmin Leb-Idris and Karin Wallmüller, Wohnbau: Alternative: Baugruppen 2008-2010, (Graz: Edition HDA, 2010), 9.

Figure 75 Participatory design

Figure 76 Ancient and new, old and young meet in the “Aegidienhof” proj-ect in Lübeck

50

Living Democracy

The initiators of the W:A:B (Wohnbau: Alternative: Baugruppen) are dealing with Building Communities. They define two main aspects of this phenomenon:1. Building aspects – the housing stock can be more colorful and more diverse types of housing can be built.2. Human / Social aspect – if you design and build your own home with your future neighbors, it will generate a much more healthy relationship with them and a much better community life, with a more intensive dialogue from the beginning, the needs could be more tailored and a better architecture quality could be realized. 56

In Austria just a few could find the “perfect” flat for its specific household needs. The building groups - just like housing co-operatives general - have several advan-tages: community-oriented, more social and economic, it uses the resources more effectively and it is a self-determining building process. It has several additional values against the market-oriented housing stock. Thanks to the participatory design process it gives much better answers for the current household needs, increase the living conditions and the social contacts and it is better also for the environment (less land-use, more innovative energetic and structural strategies, …etc.). The state’s task is to support this self-organizational housing to generate a more intensive dialogue between the architects, future “investors”, users and the political forces. 57

Organizational level

The housing co-operatives and the limited-profit companies are joined under the umbrella of the non-profit housing sector – Austrian Federation of Limited-Profit Housing Associations – Auditing Federation (GBV – www.gbv.at). The GBV has 193 members and includes ca. 795,000 housing units. These units can be rents or owner occupied and represent 18% of the total housing stock and about 33% of the total multi-family-housing stock.“The organisational structure includes provincial groups with an advisory function, an executive board of 4 persons that governs the day-to-day business, a supervisory board where each provincial group is represented, a conference of 53 delegates and the annual federal convention. The federation is an independent organization from the state and it plays three roles: member representation, advocacy and auditing.” 58

Vienna

In the Austrian context it was already mentioned how important is the subsidized housing stock in the country. In the capital this percentage of “social” housing is much stronger. About 220,000 households live in subsidized housing (called “Gemeindebauten” – municipal rental housing) that is about 60% of the whole housing stock. Yearly about 7000 new subsidized flats are constructed but not just

56 Ibid., 7.57 Ibid., 8.58 Jane Cameron et al., ed., Profiles of a movement: co-operative housing around the world, (CECODHAS Housing Europe and ICA Housing, 2012), 11.

Figure 77 Vienna in Austria

51


their number is important but their quality should be mentioned too. The social housing in Vienna has a more than 100 years old tradition with continuous extraor-dinary architectural quality.“This success story is no coincidence, but rather the result of social-democratic housing politics marked by social responsibility – and by the desire for continuous improvement of quality, for flex-ible and timely adaptation to changing social conditions, and for a permanent support of innovation.” 59

Vienna’s politics, users and citizens are facing to several economic, social, cultural and ecological questions that should be answered in the future. Issues like cultural diversity, affordability, new types of households, …etc. are tasks that need new strategies and new physical solutions. 60

Dr. Wolfgang Förster 61 characterizes the current housing situation in Vienna / Austria / Europe with a few national and international tendencies and questions in the book “Housing Models – Experimentation and Everyday Life”.“- The aging of society, which requires integrative strategies encompassing housing policies, social policies and health care- Migration and related cultural conflicts in residential environments- The continuous diversification of lifestyles no longer adequately addressed by housing for the “normal family”.- The polarization of society with the danger of increasingly strong social segregation.- The mobility of residents, often compelled, and the – at least temporary – overlapping of living and working spheres.- Rising construction costs and hence also higher costs in housing.- Climate protection and other environmental demands, et cetera.” 62

These characteristics can be found in all the analyzed countries and cities. The ques-tion is only their proportion. The characteristics show well that the tendencies are very diverse and the solutions should be also interdisciplinary. The professionals should work together with the users and they have to find out the new housing strategies for the future together.

The MA 50, Vienna Housing Research Program has 4 main research topics since 2004:“- Affordable housing: cost reduction through planning, pilot projects on affordable housing con-struction, economic land use in housing construction, financing and funding options.- Technical and ecological qualities and standards in new housing construction: energ y consumption, flexibility, timber construction, open space, facility standards etc.- Technical and ecological qualities and standards in refurbishment: Energ y consumption, open space, facility standards etc.- Living in community: tenants participation, new caretaker model, moderation and management, community facilities, assisted living, social mix, integration, identity etc.” 63

59 Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 7.60 Ibid., 6-7.61 Head of the Department for Housing Research and International Relations (City of Vienna, MA 50), 2013.62 Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 8.63 “Vienna Housing Research,” accessed June 4, 2013, http://www.wohnbauforschung.at/en/wohnbauforschung.htm.

53

more and more light

| | | | 4.2.2 Germany


Basic data

Population: 81,800,000 (2011)Total housing stock: 40,316,000 dwellings (2010)Total rental housing stock: 21,800,000 dwellings (2010)Total social (rental) housing stock: 1,846,256 dwellings, 4.6% of total housing stock Total co-op housing stock: 1,850 housing co-operatives with 2,180,000 dwellings represent 5% of the total housing stock and 10% of the total rental housing stock (2010)People: 2.8 million individual members and 4.6 million people living in housing cooperatives representing 6% of the German population 2010.

The story

The first housing co-operatives were realized thanked to the British movements’ influence. The first, privately owned housing co-operative was founded in 1862 in Hamburg and the first rental-housing co-operative in 1885 in Hannover. 58 % of the current housing co-operative stock in Western Germany was founded after the World War II between 1949 and 1970. In Eastern Germany this type of housing had two main types. The smaller percentage was the not-for-profit housing co-operative (that was mostly built before the WW II) and the majority was the subsidized (by the government) one. The reunification brought big changes in the housing devel-opments.The state started to support the Eastern part of the country to rehabilitate the hous-ing stock and to help the maintenance.In 2002 the state set up an Expert Commission that’s task was to analyze the hous-ing developments and to give advices. The Commission defined the housing coop-eratives as the third alternative to rental housing and ownership. The experts sug-gested to the politicians to:“- Recognize housing co-operatives as a key form of tenure in today’s German context.- Put in place measures whether financial and legislative to ensure their development.- Inform the general public about housing co-ops.- Improve the housing co-operatives’ performance by training and new management practices.” 65

Housing co-operatives are key players in the housing- and urban developments in Germany. Quality and quantity are both key issues of their projects. The main char-acteristics of this type of housing are:“- Members buy shares and the amount varies from one co-op to another. When leaving the co-op, the initial amount is reimbursed to the members at nominal value by the co-operative.- Members enjoy security of tenure through a perpetual lease as long as they comply to the terms of the occupancy contract.- Rents are regulated and can increase only within prescribed limits.

64 Jane Cameron et al., ed., Profiles of a movement: co-operative housing around the world, (CECODHAS Housing Europe and ICA Housing, 2012), 33.65 Ibid., 34.

Figure 78 Germany in Europe

54

Living Democracy

- Some housing co-operatives have developed wider social services such as kindergartens, services for the elderly etc.- Co-op by-laws rule the non-profit principle and the use of surpluses must be decidedby the General Assembly (non-profit principle was previously enforced by law).” 66 The size of a co-operative can be different. In Western Germany there are several (ca. 25) with more than 5000 members but the most (about 72%) have less than 1000.These numbers are a bit different on the eastern part of Germany. 61% has less than 1000 members and there are about 48% that have more than 5000. 67

Economic level

There is no direct public financial assistance for housing co-operatives in Germany. The only support is the corporate tax relief. The projects are financed by the mem-bers’ private capital and by mortgages. Investing into a housing co-operative is a long-term investment. This type of housing is very stabile (thanks to its bottom-up structure) and the “investors” can get a little higher interest rate than in a commer-cial bank.The housing co-operatives may have non-resident members (individuals and legal entities). Their rule is also very important in the co-operative’s life while they invest their money into it and that increases the community’s capital. These “passive” members could participate on the annual General Assembly but they couldn’t vote. These members get limited dividend for their shares (financial support) that is about 4% in Germany. 68

Co-operative share

Every member has to pay share when it joins the co-operative. The amount depends on the co-operative and often depends on the size of the apartment. The interest rate is defined by the co-operative and when a member steps out the share has to be paid back. 69

Social level

Solidarity – with that living is much better.

Co-operatives want to make the members’ living conditions better. With participa-tion residents can help to develop their environment. The housing co-operatives offer several possibilities for different people to realize these developments. In these communities the elderly people’s support is as important as the big families’. This healthy neighborhood and diverse society mean social sustainability for hous-ing cooperatives. 70

66 Ibid.67 Ibid.68 Ibid.69 “Die Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften,” accessed June 9, 2013, http://www.wohnungsbaugenossenschaften.de/genossenschaften/ was-sindgenossenschaftsanteile.70 “Die Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften,” accessed June 9, 2013, http://www.wohnungsbaugenossenschaften.de/genossenschaften/ solidaritaet.

Figure 79 A multi-generational communi-ty

55

more and more light

Security

In a housing co-operative all members are not just tenants but also owners. This situation gives for all long-term living security. They have permanent license and they can stay as long as they want. If they need a different flat, they can manage it with the other members or they can redefine the community’s goals (to create new, different flats, …etc.). 71

Cultural level

With the growth of the cities the cultural diversity also grows. More and more people with different social and cultural background have to live together in the same neighborhood. This cultural diversity could easily create conflicts. Urban and architectural design becomes more important than ever in the history. The impor-tance of privacy increases and the community life and its spaces give also more topics for discussions.

Environment level

In Germany more and more local municipality realize that housing co-operatives have several positive aspects and effects. They start to support these initiatives with public land and reduced rate loans. The municipalities secure plots for these non-profit developments in big quarter developments like the “Hafen city” in Hamburg. Living in the city centers became attractive again. This trend generates more discus-sion about the city centers and their built environment. With the new social move-ments new household types have appeared in the cities. The new households need new spatial answers that are big challenges for the “investors” and for the archi-tects.

Organizational level 72

The Co-operatives Act (adopted in 1889 and reformed in 2006) and the Rent Regu-lation Act (rules the obligations and responsibilities of the landlords and the renters) define the legal background of housing co-operatives.The Federal German Housing and Real Estate Organization (GdW) joins the 1,850 housing co-operatives with 750 public housing, 154 private housing companies and 55 housing companies (owned by the church). The GdW was founded in 1969.“GdW and its regional federations share the advocacy, legal, financial and advices to housing co-operatives and research, training and communication at the federal and regional levels.” 73

71 “Die Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften,” accessed June 9, 2013, http://www.wohnungsbaugenossenschaften.de/genossenschaften/ sicherheit.72 Jane Cameron et al., ed., Profiles of a movement: co-operative housing around the world, (CECODHAS Housing Europe and ICA Housing, 2012), 35.73 Ibid.

56

Living Democracy

Co-management 74

Housing co-operatives have very simple rules. Every member is also an owner and has a vote. Thanks to this everybody can actively participate in its environments development. Everybody’s vote has the same importance and everybody has the same right and duties. They elect their representatives for 5 years and on the annu-al general meetings they can define their common goals.

Berlin 75

Berlin was always an important urban center in Germany. The city in 1850 had 428,000 citizens; in 1870 a little bit more than 1 million and in 1940 it reached its peak with about 4.48 million inhabitants. These demographic changes always gener-ated powerful housing movements in the city. Between 1996 and 2005 there was a strong decrease in the housing stock. From 23,694 built flats per year (in 1996) the number changed to 2,684 flats per year (in 2005). Today the housing developments are still in “crisis” but there are more and more privately initiated developments. The private stakeholders self-organize their homes and create new urban living forms in the city.The building communities are becoming continuously more important. The munic-ipality also realized this and it started to support them. They realize mostly town-houses on one of the several infills in the city center. Architectural offices that have the architectural knowledge and the commitment to improve the built environment and the housing conditions often initiate these projects.

74 “Die Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften,” accessed June 9, 2013, http://www.wohnungsbaugenossenschaften.de/genossenschaften/ mitbestimmung.75 Stefan Krämer and Gerd Kuhn, Städte und Baugemeinschaften, (Stuttgart + Zürich: Karl Krämer Verlag, 2009) 78-88.

Figure 80 Berlin in Germany

Figure 81 The “Friedrichswerder” build-ing community project in Berlin

Figure 82 The “Friedrichswerder” townhouse’s sketch

57


| | | | 4.2.3 Switzerland


Basic data

Population: 7,639,961 (2011)Total housing stock: 4,000,000 dwellings (2011-Federal Statistics Office) 40% of the housing stock in Switzerland is owner-occupied while 52% is private rental and 8% is non-profit rental.Total social (rental) housing stock: about 300,000 dwellingsTotal co-op housing stock: 172,000 dwellings (End of 2010)

The story

Housing co-operatives represent 57% of the non-profit rental stock and 4.3% of the total housing stock in Switzerland. 63% of Switzerland’s housing co-operatives are located in large cities. For example, housing co-operatives take 20% of the housing stock in Zürich.The housing co-operatives have a more than 100 years old history in Switzerland. With their several advantages they are more and more popular but still can’t reach more than 10 % overall in the housing stock. The biggest cities are the best devel-oped on this field and between these cities (Bern, Zürich, Basel, Geneva, Lausanne, Luzern) Zürich has the best conditions (like in all the Western European countries where the biggest cities have the most housing co-operatives). The housing coop-eratives percentage is still very low although they have several economic, ecological, social and cultural advantages. Why is this? The profit-oriented firms have more capital to invest and they could act much faster.In Switzerland the housing co-operatives are part of a bigger housing group called public housing (gemeinnütziger Wohnungsbau).

The third way in housing. The non-profit housing co-operatives in Switzerland. 77

The third way between rent or privately owned flats. In Switzerland ca. every 20 flats are belonged to a housing co-operative. Mostly all the housing co-operatives are nonprofit oriented. It helps to avoid the speculation and to create cheaper and more affordable housing. This type of housing is in average 20 % cheaper than the general, market oriented housing.

After the WW II there was a big housing boom in Switzerland with a lot of housing co-operative. After this boom the development slowed down and less housing co-operative was built. In the last decade in the region Zürich housing development was started again and more and more housing co-operative were established.

76 Jane Cameron et al., ed., Profiles of a movement: co-operative housing around the world, (CECODHAS Housing Europe and ICA Housing, 2012), 73.77 Wohnbund, Der dritte Weg im Wohnungsbau – die gemeinnützigen Baugenossenschaften der Schweiz , ( J. Künzle AG, 2007), 2-5. Translated by the author.

Figure 83 Switzerland in Europe

58

Living Democracy

Although this housing form is mostly bottom-up initiated they also have strong top-down support from the state, cantons or from the municipality. They help mostly with capital (land, low interest loans or loan guarantees).The most important characteristics of the ca. 1500 housing co-operatives are: self-help, solidarity, democracy, subside, …etc.Kurt Fluri (the mayor of Solothurn and board member of the Association of Swiss cities and member of the National Council - FDP) says in an interview that public housing is a long-term and with it a sustainable strategy while it avoids the short-term profit orientation. Housing co-operatives take more care for their building stock and they are more energy efficient. Therefore they are very good investments in the building stock and they create a more stabile background for their renters and owners.These types of housing are important in urban developments too. The politician summarizes his opinion with one sentence: This public housing should be pro-moted by public hand because of its several positive aspects. 78

Economic level

The housing co-operatives are non-profit in Switzerland too which is a very impor-tant issue in a country where everything is measured by money or gold. Social and cultural topics are also very important elements in an economic discussion.The housing co-operatives are long-term investments and they are more stabile (more flexible structures, more participation, more stakeholders, …etc.) that’s why they started to be also an important investment type in the last decades. More and more banks, investors realize their force and support them.

Social level

Social solidarity is a very important issue. Not just in the country but also in inter-national connections. (e.g. the ABZ and the ETH Zürich developed a project for an Ethiopian city. 79

Social responsibility (like realization affordable housing in the city) is another important goal in most of the housing co-operatives.

Cultural level

Thanks to the housing co-operaties’ democratic (dialogue-oriented) organizational structure all the different cultures can participate in the developments. Although the traditional housing co-operatives are more rigid there are several new initiatives that have more complex goals like social and cultural diversity. These more sensitive communities try to connect the households with different cultural backgrounds to realize a more colorful and healthy society.

78 Ibid., 5.79 “Genossenschaft ABZ,” accessed June 9, 2013, http://www.abz.ch/de/projekte/solidaritaetsprojekt_aethiopien.

Figure 84 Net rent per flat per month in Switzerland

Figure 85 Change of households in Swit-zerland

59


Environment level

Because of their diversity, co-operatives’ size can be very different. There are very small co-operatives (just a few members) and there are also huge ones Generally the big ones have a very long history and they could have few thousand members). A co-operative can be just 1 building but it can also have more buildings in different parts of a city or in different cities.The newest Swiss “2000-Watt-Society” standard defines many economic, social, cultural and environmental conditions for sustainable developments.


Housing co-operatives could be bottom-up and also top-down initiated that gener-ates a more diverse structure. It is also typical that bottom-up initiated projects are top-down supported by the state, the canton or by the municipality. This support could be land, low-interest loans or loan guarantee.

As it was already mentioned in the historical part of housing co-operatives, they have several different types and forms. This fact applies to Switzerland too: one can find all of the forms from small communities, garden cities to huge urban blocks in a city center. The diversity is very impressive and the different types could be stud-ied one by one.In this study only the most sustainable and most community-oriented types are analyzed.

Zürich 80

The city Zürich started to promote the housing development more than 100 years ago. Since that time the active discussion between the stakeholders in the public housing was always an important topic. This co-operation is important because this type of housing development is more affordable and it is more social and creates a more livable city. Since 1907 more than 150 housing co-operatives and foundations (as independent enterprises) were established with courage, risk-taking and innova-tion to invest into the future.

Types of housing co-operatives in Zürich

There are different types of housing co-operatives. Just the city Zürich has 3 differ-ent. They size could be also very diverse and their goals too. It could be from a very small (initiated and maintained by a few people) co-operative to a huge, more instrumental. The number of members could be from a few to a few thousand. With the increase of the members, the number of buildings increases too. There are hous-ing co-operatives with just one building but there are also huge co-operatives with several settlements (each with 10-20 buildings).

80 Daniel Weiss, Mehr als Wohnen. Gemeinnütziger Wohnungsbau in Zürich 1907-2007, (Zürich: gta Verlag, 2007), 6-15. Translated by the author.

Figure 86 Zürich in Switzerland

61


| | | | 4.2.4 Hungary - What does ”housing co-operative” mean in Hungary?


Basic data

Population: 9,985,722 (2011)Total housing stock: 4,303,000 dwellings (2010)Total co-op housing stock: 1,269 housing co-operatives with approximately 300,000 dwellings representing 7% of the total housing stockPeople: 714,000 are members of housing co-operatives

The story

The first housing co-operative in Hungary was established in 1912. After the World War II the state started to construct tenement flats but these developments were too expensive. To reduce the costs the state started to support the realization of housing co-operatives. The state was the manager of them. In the 1960’s and 70’s large mul-tifamily buildings were realized. At the end of the 1980’s the housing privatization generated a specific ownership structure. The housing co-operatives owned the land and the common spaces (and paid the maintenance) and the former tenants (who could buy their flats on a very low price) owned their flats. This special own-ership structure generated many organizational, legal and social difficulties for further developments.In the last 2 decades (since 1990) there were no new housing co-operatives estab-lished in Hungary. With their private-oriented ownership structure condominiums became much more popular. The condominium and the housing co-operative are the two main legal frameworks in the housing stock. Their comparison is an impor-tant task.Although the current government has no goals with the housing co-operatives, it should be noticed that for future rental housing developments in Hungary the hous-ing co-operatives are a potential tools.

Economic level

During the socialism the state financed the maintenance of the housing co-opera-tives. The tenants didn’t have to save any money for renovation and extra costs. The state paid all the costs. With the political and economic change in 1990 the state realized that it couldn’t afford to maintain its huge public housing stock. In the beginning of the 1990’s the state stopped to finance the maintenance too. The hous-ing cooperatives had no more public financial support. The fall of the regime brought the question of maintenance to the front. The co-operatives had no savings that caused the fall of condition of the housing stock.


Figure 87 Hungary in Europe

62

Living Democracy

Social level

During the socialist regime co-operatives general became a negative phenomenon. The state started to control the co-operatives and they lost their real meanings. This process created a negative image about co-operatives general and housing coopera-tives too. An other negative aspect is the block housing stock that was built between 1960 and 1980. These living machines had negative image because their living conditions are questionable. They are housing co-operatives and people often con-nect the two phenomenon with each other. Nowadays the block housing is more fashionable and affordable (their image is much better) but their legal background is still unsolved.

Cultural level

Thanks to the socialist regime’s regulations the community life was a not accepted thing. The people had weak relationship with their neighbors, there were no infor-mal community events and the people couldn’t initiate any bottom-up develop-ments. The culture was also very controlled by the state. With this background the young democratic Hungary has to develop its new future. There are more and more bottom-up initiatives, the neighbors try to have better relationship with their neigh-bors and there are more small community events. The households are still very traditional but there were many changes in the last two decades.

Environmental level

The top-down controlled and managed system (during the socialist regime) gener-ated a very bad housing stock condition in Hungary. The residents have no savings for maintenance and renovation and the state doesn’t support any more thesedevelopments.In the last few years the EU funds (funds mostly for energy-efficient rehabilitations – isolation, …etc) were important supports for the rehabilitation.


In 1992 the Act on Co-operatives was renewed and the existing legal background was examined. The housing co-operatives became independent entities in the gen-eral co-operative system. Since 2005 housing co-operatives are allowed to function with independent legal and regulatory framework. Their financial management was also specified, due to their specific features.The Hungarian housing co-operatives’ legal principles are almost the same as theWestern European norms.

The commons and differences of housing co-operatives and condominiums

Common features- Basic operations are controlled by the law- Assembly is the highest decision-making body

63


- Both are full-legal house-management organizations- According to the Civil Code, they are other business entities

Different features

Questionnaire 82

What advantages and disadvantages do the housing co-operatives have in Hungary?Tamas Farkas (summary from his answer):Advantages: The housing co-operatives have a more than 100 years history in Hun-gary. The first was established in 1904 in Budapest. It is the most practical legal form for multi-family housing. It is very democratic ”one member, one vote” and most of the questions could be decided with 50% +1 vote. It is also a positive aspect that the board members could be chosen from the members and there is no outer board.Disadvantages: The phenomenon co-operative got a negative political meaning in the last 2 decades that brought the condominiums to the forefront. Practically there were no housing co-operatives established since the socialist era. Another negative aspect is the strange ownership structure in a co-operative. The communal spaces (staircase, roof, basement and community spaces) belong to the co-operative but the flats belong to the private residents. The flats could belong to the co-operative too but the practice shows no examples for this type. Their too strict registration and report commitment is also a disadvantage against the condominiums.

What are the future perspectives of the “LOSZ” and what kind of developments could you imagine?

82 Data based on the interview with Tamás Farkas (President of “LOSZ” - www.losz.hu), June 17, 2013.

Figure 88 Housing co-operative or condominium

64

Living Democracy

Tamas Farkas (summary from his answer):The LOSZ was established in 1990 to represent the housing co-operatives. There are about 1200 housing co-operatives in the country with ca. 300,000 flats. These numbers found the importance of this phenomenon. There is more and more dis-cussion about rental housing developments that’s fundament could be the Western European housing co-operative models. At the current financial situation there is no potential for these developments but the perspective is that direction.

What kind of positive and negative tendencies do the housing co-operatives have since the fall of the socialism? Do the people find the housing co-operatives a positive or a negative phenomenon?Tamas Farkas (summary from his answer):In the 1960’s the housing co-operatives were very important housing forms (mostly top-down established). Between 1991-93 the privatization of the housing stock brought the condominiums into the front and since then it has its continuous power. The co-operatives generally have a quite negative character caused by the soviet regime. Although the housing co-operatives were weak in the last 3 decades they still have their importance that’s why the policies are dealing with this type of housing. In the political discussions the housing co-operatives have no importance that is why the condominiums have the power and the support.

How good and stable is the legal background of the housing co-operatives? Does it need further developments?Tamas Farkas (summary from his answer):Their legal background and organizational structure is very good therefore their future is unquestionable. The Law secures their safe operation. Nowadays there are no plans to establish new housing co-operatives but future rental housing develop-ments could renew their importance.

Does the LOSZ co-operate with other institutes? Can you suggest other stakehold-ers that would be interested in housing co-operate developments?Tamas Farkas (summary from his answer):We have relationships mostly with the construction companies and with the build-ing materials sellers. This is thanked to the main feature of the current situation where the maintenance is the most important task. The “LOSZ” is member of the International Association for hHousing Co-operatives (CECODHAS) and it has a continuous discussion with them.

Why is the housing co-operative better than the condominium? What characteris-tics (legal, economic, social, cultural) make it better? Why would it be good to transform a condominium into housing co-operative?Tamas Farkas (summary from his answer):There are several differences and similarities between the housing co-operatives and the condominiums. To summarize it: housing co-operatives have a more com-plex legal background, their history is much older, the self-help is a normal method for them and they are very democratic.

65

Case studies in Europe

| | 5 Case studies in Europe

After the analysis of the general history of European housing co-operatives the further studies were reduced to three Western European countries (Austria, Ger-many and Switzerland). These countries were chosen while they have very old tradi-tion of housing co-operatives and they have good social and cultural relationship with Hungary. Several economic, social and cultural elements in Hungary are taken over from these German-speaking countries: from the educational-system till TV-shows or medicines.

| | | 5.1 Catalogue of case studies

The study of the history of housing co-operatives and the chosen countries describe the different types of the phenomenon. Housing co-operatives could be categorized by several topics like social and cultural diversity, economic background, organiza-tional structure, ...etc. - Top-down or bottom-up initiated- Common goals (economic, social, cultural, ecological, ...etc)- Financial (public) support (public-private partnership, private realization)- Social diversity (diverse, women, elderly, students, ...etc.)- Social interaction (within the community and with the neighborhood)- Cultural interaction (within the community and with the neighborhood)- Location (suburb, city center, housing area)- Building (single-family house, multi-family house, freestanding, infill)- Spatial diversity (diverse, similar, flexible, ...etc.)- Ownership structure (diverse, rent, privately owned)

| | | 5.2 Selection criteria

The realization of a sustainable housing co-operative in Budapest is the main goal. To reach it, the housing co-operative must deal with economic, social, cultural and environemntal aspects. The selection criteria was defined by these characteristics. - bottom-up initiated- common goals- community-oriented- affordable housing- diverse community (social and cultural background)- socially and culturally interactive community- inner-city location (good infrastructure, good public transport access)- spatial diversity (function and size) - ecological goals- diverse ownership structure

66

Living Democracy

| | | 5.3 Analysis grid and questionnaire

Analysis grid

The analysis grid has 6 main topics: general information, ecologic level, social level, cultural level, environmental level and organizational level. Within the 6 main top-ics the following tasks figure the grid of the analysis.

- Common goals- Project costs- Social (public) financial support- Social diversity- Social interaction (in the community and in the neighborhood)- Cultural diversity- Cultural interaction (in the community and in the neighborhood)- Location (the neighborhood)- Spatial diversity (function and size)- Spatial flexibility- Ecology- Organizational structure (legal form)

Questionnaire

- How did the project start?- Who were the first initiators?- What was the main goal?- When did the the participatory process start?- How was the legal background? - How was the social (public) support system? Was the project pioneer of it had many models to follow?- How did the financial background look like?- the size of the co-operative - big enough, too big, …

67


| | | 5.4 Case study 1. – Sargfabrik, Vienna (A)

| | | | 5.4.1 General information

Basic data 83

Location: Austria, Vienna, 14th districtDevelopment: 1986 – (building process 1994/4 – 1996/9)Situation: block perimeter development (infills)Legal form: association (housing co-operative)Residents: 150 adults and 60 children 84

Site area: 4,711 m2 / Built area: 2,747 m2

Number of floors: 1-7Gross floor area: 6,968 m2 (without the basement)Density: 1.5Living area net: 5,570 m2

Public and community area: 2,000 m2

Open spaces: 1,000 m2

Size of dwellings: 40-60 m2 (could be joined up to 6 units)Total construction costs: 7,500,000 Euro ex. VATConstruction costs per m2: 1,076 Euro ex. VATParking: 7Bike parking: -

83 Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 277. 84 Verein für Integrative Lebensgestaltung, Sarg fabrik – Association for Integrated Lifestyles (Wien, 2004), 2.

Figure 89 The residents of the “Sargfabrik”

Figure 90 Vienna

Figure 91 The district

Figure 92 The neighborhood

Figure 93 The “Sargfabrik”

68

Living Democracy

The story 85

The history of the Sargfabrik started in 1986 when a few committed people started to organize and realize a new, innovative housing against the expensive housing market and the lack of housing units for families in the city-center of Vienna. The project was 100 percent bottom-up initiated and from the beginning had several new and innovative elements. The vision was to create spaces that accommodate different lifestyles and bring different cultures together. The project was realized on a former coffin producer factory’s plot. From the former fabric 3 elements were reused: the ground floor plan of the former building, the chimney and the “name” – Sargfabrik (coffin fabric in German). The non-profit association created a village in Vienna’s 14th district with several public and semi-public facilities (kindergarten, events hall, seminar room, bathing house, restaurant, playground, courtyards, roof garden and a library. The project became a realized housing and urban utopia in West Vienna.

Chronology

“1987 – Founding of the “Association for Integrated Lifestyle” with the aim of developing a hous-ing and cultural project.1989 May – Purchase of the “Maschner & Söhne” building in Vienna’s 14th district, formerly the largest coffin manufactureers under the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The factory was built at the end of the 19th century and coffins were produced until 1970 when the building fell into ruin.1992 – Planning proposals made by architects from the Baukünstlerkollektiv BKK-2 (now BKK-2) are rejected by neighboring residents; alternations and new plans are made.1994 – Start of the building work; the building at No. 8 Matznergasse is renovated and included into the complex.1996 autumn – Opening of the “redeveloped” Sarg fabrik: 73 accommodation units for around 110 adults and 45 children and teenagers.1998 – Encouraged by positive results the association purchases the neighbouring No. 10 Mis-sindorfstrasse.2000 – Opening of the equally orange and no less “sloping” – little sister building “Miss Sarg-fabrik” on the street corner, with 39 accommodation units, a library with PCs and internet con-nection, a communal kitchen, club room and BKK-3 office.” 86

Common goals – “Integrated lifestyle” 87

“Living-culture-integration” is the most important motto of the association / com-munity and they try to act like that from the very beginning and day by day. The most important elements are: - to act together – planning, building and maintaining is a communal task- to live together – this community living is based on the individuals (singles, familyand other groups)- to live together – everyone can share facilities and duties but no one has to do it

85 Ibid., 1-2.86 Ibid., 5.87 Ibid., 2.

Figure 94 Bird’s eye view

Figure 95 One of the courtyards

69


- social, ethnic, cultural and economic diversity (different: age-groups, incomes, households, …) and integration- ecological sustainability – optimal energy usage, eco-friendly materials and energy, recycling, solar energy, ...etc.- to create a “community” center in the 14th district with public and semi-public facilities (Sargfabric cultural center, kindergarten, seminar room, bathing house, café-restaurant, …etc.)


Total project costsTotal building costs: 13,6 Mio Euro 88

Membership costs 89

Partial ownership: 700 EUR per m2 (in case of moving out the members get their money back)Association costs (rent): average 6-6.5 EUR per m2

The VIL – Association for Integrative Lifestyle is a non-profit association to develop and maintain this colorful housing project. Because the initiators wanted to build affordable accommodations they looked for financial supports from the very beginning. They studied the different possibilities and they had to realize that their goals couldn’t be reached without changes. They could get subsidize from the city council just with specific reasons. That’s why they decided to realize a residen-tial home system. This is the cause why are they an association that quite similar to the housing co-operatives. Each of the residents must be the member of the asso-ciation and has to pay a deposit related to the size if its flat. The advantage of this system is that they don’t depend on the Tenancy Law and they could formulate their specific, commonly defined leasing agreement that is better for the individuals as well as for the community. The construction and maintenance costs are paid directly by the tenants (no 3. party, no speculation and no profit-oriented investor). The financial board follows the changes of the loan rate and they always discuss it with the residents. If the rate is lower the tenants can pay less. If someone moves out from the Sargfabrik it gets back the deposit plus compensation for inflation. The tenants are not just renters but owners too. Christl (one of the tenants) says:“I have the feeling that the Sarg fabrik belongs to me in some way or other even though it doesn’t belong to me on paper. But it makes me very content to think this is mine, this is what we have made although everyone was skeptical at first and told us it wouldn’t work, nothing could ever become of it, even if you sit there discussing forever. But it did work out. I got the money for the deposit from my parents, even though they were not convinced that the project would be successful.” 90

Rainer (another member) is not so positive about the future. He thinks that this project can’t function any more because of the economic changes in the last 10 years. Although he says that to realize the second project (Miss Sargfabrik) in 2000 was already much easier because the bank saw the first successful story and they had much more capital. Ute, a third resident talks about the very first steps of the

88 Ibid., 3.89 Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 276.90 Ilka Ruby and Andreas Ruby, “The Making of Sargfabrik & Miss Sargfabrik,” 2G n.36 (2005): 127.

70

Living Democracy

financing story. The 30 initiators had to use their own capitals to buy the land and than they could use the land as a security to get the loan from the bank. Alexander talks about the internal social balance “project” that is very important while the tenants can’t apply for financial assistance from the municipality (they are not a housing co-operative). Each of the residents pay a social support “fee” and with this money the community can support people with lower incomes or with special financial situation. 91


In the 112 accommodation units live about 150 adults and 60 children. The func-tional and spatial diversity generate a more colorful social and cultural life. The social and educational facilities in the project run by the City of Vienna’s Youth and Family Offices. For disabled people there are 7 places reserved in single or shared-flats. There are 6 living units with limited contracts for tenants in need of short-term housing. 92

This diversity was also a main goal from the beginning. In an interview with the residents (Ute, Rainer, Toni, Felicitas and Christl) they talk about these social goals. They wanted to invite disabled and lower income families to the discussions already from the very beginning but those people had too many problems so they couldn’t join these events. The goal was clear, they had to manage without them to realize and reserve spaces for them. In Sargfabrik there are 3 flats for disabled, 3 for elderly and 3 for refugees and in the second project (Miss Sargfabrik) there are 3 more for disabled people and a socio-pedagogical residential community (supported by the city). Its function is to accommodate kids from children homes (that was not manageable any more for socio-pedagogical and financial reasons) maintained by the city.The rules of the complex help a lot to shape the future. Luckily the residents definethese rules so by the time they could rethink some of it. Their community-oriented life generates more and more discussion about social questions and shows different solutions. Ute says:“We are not missionaries but when something here works, such as, for example, the integration of refugees, disabled or elderly persons then this could surely be adopted as an example of how it could function at a larger scale. We present our experience in the form of a model that can be applied in a modified form to other situations. And when something doesn’t work, then we can hand on this experience also. But nobody can tell us any longer that the integration of refugees does not work – it works, and we live here with proof of this fact.” 93

Community life

Community functions and spaces were important goals from the beginning. Facili-ties that could connect the association members as well as the residents with the neighborhood were aims. Public events (concerts in the cultural center, seminars, the bathing house, …etc.) invite people from the neighborhood or sometimes also from outside of the city border. Toni (one of the residents) thinks that the size of

91 Ibid., 124-128.92 Verein für Integrative Lebensgestaltung, Sarg fabrik – Association for Integrated Lifestyles (Wien, 2004), 2.93 Ilka Ruby and Andreas Ruby, “The Making of Sargfabrik & Miss Sargfabrik,” 2G n.36 (2005): 118-119.

Figure 96 Community event in the garden

Figure 97 One of the gardens

71


the community is also a very important key to generate a healthy community life. If they would live just in a shared-flat or in a small building group the social life couldn’t be so strong. Here you have the chance any time to meet someone on the galleries, in the gardens or in the several semi-public spaces. But you can sure meet with someone who visits the many public facilities. “I find this an extremely positive aspect, it makes things here far livelier and creates a stimulating diversity.” 94

These “social” facilities are important not just in the social way but also in the financial aspect. Without these public elements we couldn’t afford to have an own bathing house, café, seminar room, … Some of these projects are 100% profes-sional and some of them are semi professional - semi voluntary. “Many of our communal facilities function like a private-public partnership. After a long battle we are finally going to receive a culture grant from the City of Vienna for our culture building.” says Rainer. 95

Communal living and voluntary work is fundamental in the everyday life of the Sargfabrik. There are different work groups that organize events (e.g. Sargfabrik Ball), birthday parties, look after the garden or library and run a cooking group that cooks once a week in the communal kitchen. 96

Here could be mentioned similar projects from Austria or from other analyzed countries. Like the Kraftwerk1 in Zürich (it’s two community: Hardturm and Hei-zenholz) that has more than 29 work groups (e.g. outdoor spaces, “cooperative shop”, maintenance, library, community cooking, garden, community room, guest room, staircase gallery, action day, roof garden, film club, intranet, children com-mission, party organizer, bar, video store, bikes, …). These unpaid initiatives (main-tenance, additional values) generate a much more social community life and every-body could be much more engaged in its everyday life.


Thanks to the community’s original social and cultural aims, the housing has sev-eral cultural meeting points too. The Sargfabrik Cultural Center is a perfect place for a nice musical event, but its space could be rent out for any type of event. In the Bathing house everyone could get closer to the Finnish culture through a nice sauna adventure. The Café-Restaurant offers a perfect place for a discussion anytime.

| | | | 5.4.5 Environment level

The project is not just in social and cultural way innovative. The spatial diversity and organization and the structural flexibility are also very important issues in the project’s sustainable life.“The combination of reinforced concrete, lightweight construction and removable inside walls offers accommodation units for different living arrangements on one to three floors in very flexible and easily adapted rooms.” 97

94 Ibid., 120.95 Ibid., 123.96 Verein für Integrative Lebensgestaltung, Sarg fabrik – Association for Integrated Lifestyles (Wien, 2004), 5.97 Ibid., 2.

72

Living Democracy

The orientation of the 4,5 meter high living rooms (with their huge glass walls), the central heating system, the solar panels, the roof garden and the spatial organization (usable also for disabled people) were fundamental characteristics from the very beginning. 98

Location – the neighborhood 99

The Sargfabrik is located in the 14th district (Penzing) in West Vienna. With its 85,440 population it is a middle size district. Its surface (33.86 m2) is the 4. biggest in Vienna and its green surface is the 2. biggest. The district was united of 5 former communities (Penzing, Breitensee, Baumgarten, Hütteldorf and Hadersdorf- Wei-dlingau). Penzing is the closest to the city center.In Penzing 26.5% of the land is used for building land (in the whole Vienna it is 33.3%) that is the 4. lowest in the city. The building land’s 74.6% is used for housing and 14.9% is for other functions (culture, religion, sport, public usage, …). 62.48% of the land is green space (75.8% woods, 9.7% meadows, 6.2% gardens and 5.2% parks) that is the 2. highest in the capital. The infrastructure uses 9.4% that is the 3. lowest.

Population of the district

In 1869 the district had 12,397 citizens. It grew until 1934 when it reached its first peak with 98,123 people. Since that golden age until 2001 the population was decreasing when it was 78,169. After 2001 it started to grow again thanks to the district’s popularity. Nowadays this number is about 85,000 and still growing. The population structure shows a very weak aging. The population under the age of 15 is 14.0% (average is 14.7%), between 15-59 is 62.5% (average is 63.6%) and older than 59 is 23.5% (the average in Vienna is 21.7%). The women-men percentage is 53.7% to 46.3%. In 2005 the 15.2% of the district’s citizens was foreigner (in Vienna it was 18.7%) and it is increasing. The diversity of religions shows the same similarities like the population.The district has a very good public transport structure - for the local transport as well as for the national and international traffic. Here is the “West” railway station and the district has several subway and suburban train stations. The highway runs also close to this area.

Flats

In the housing complex 75 accommodation units were realized. All of them are maisonettes (45 m2 entrance floor and 22 m2 upper floor) that could be joined together, up to six units. This structural and organizational system gives the spatial flexibility, in the terms of the long-term variability. All the flats have minimum 2 facades and could be accessed through the common gallery. This gallery is also an important element for the flexibility and for the community life.

98 Ibid.99 “Penzing,” accessed June 4, 2013, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penzing_(Wien). Translated by the author.

Figure 98 Vienna and the 14th district

Figure 99 Penzing the 14th district

Figure 100 The population’s change since 1869

73


Thanks to the several community facilities the residents can have smaller flats. They find this a big advantage while they can share the responsibilities and duties with others (less work per person).

Shared-flat

There is one shared-flat in the complex that was already realized in the beginning. It joins 6 small maisonette units and creates a 400 m2 common flat for several dif-ferent households (7 adults and 4 children). All of the households have their own small units and they share a huge living and dining room and a kitchen.

Community spaces

Sargfabrik cultural center

Although the center has diverse programs, the concerts and musical events are its more important characteristics. Like the music, that could bring together different people with different age, background, … the center acts as a social melting pot. From folk to World music or jazz you can sure find something that fit to your taste. There are several programs also for kids but the center’s space could be rented out for any type of events too. It’s 315 m2 flexible space is ideal for very diverse events for about 300 people. It could be used as a theater, concert or dance hall, reading room or as a club for kids. 100

100 Verein für Integrative Lebensgestaltung, Sarg fabrik – Association for Integrated Lifestyles (Wien, 2004), 3.

Figure 101 The common gallery, access to the maisonettes

Figure 102 General floor plan

Figure 104 Sargfabrik cultural center

Figure 103 Ground floor plan

74

Living Democracy

Bathing house

In the district “Penzing” this bathing house is another international melting pot. Here everyone can experience the bathing culture of different countries (from the Finnish sauna to a tepidarium). This function operates for the members 24 hours per day. The bathing house community organizes events for disabled people, babies or small children too. The bath is also available for hire. 101

Seminar room

“The naturally lit 104m2 seminar room, complete with parquet floo ing, is available for workshops, meetings and movement and therapy programmes for up to 80 participants. To adapt to its various uses, the seminar room can be rearranged, equipped and divided at short notice. The room is at ground level and easily accessible to wheelchair users. Guests in our seminar house have compli-mented the Sarg fabrik on the personal support and relaxed atmosphere, easily accessible equipment and good service. Our contented regular customers include many national and Vienna based organ-isations, societies and initiatives.” 102

Children’s house

In the kindergarten there are about 60 kids (with very different social, ethnic and family background) in 3 groups. The teachers speak German, Turkish and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian that also shows the social and cultural diversity of the commu-nity. The teaching method is based on the Maria Montessori system. The kindergar-ten offers afternoon programs too. The kids can use the community’s workshop so they can develop their artistic side. The other semi-public facilities in the house are also available for them. They use the seminar room for gymnastics and activities and they regularly visit the theater. Their meals are prepared in the Café-Restaurant. The spatial organization (flexible spaces, disabled access) is ideal for the young generation. This private kindergarten is affordable also for lower-income families thanks to the Vienna City Council’s support. 103

Café-restaurant Sargfabrik

The bistro stylish café-restaurant is very loved by the residents as well as by the local people from the neighborhood. During the cultural events, seminars, … the café offers special catering facilities for the visitors. In good weather the garden with its green space gives a special atmosphere to the café. The motto is simple and clear: good quality, diverse and affordable.“We place great importance on the quality of food. The menu includes international and Viennese cuisine, vegetarian food and snacks of a universally high standard and low price.” 104

101 Ibid.102 Ibid.103 Ibid.104 Ibid., 4.

Figure 105 Bathing house

Figure 106 Seminar room

Figure 107 Children’s house

Figure 108 Café and restaurant

75


Roof garden

On one of the two roofs one can find a very nice community garden with an amaz-ing panorama view. The other roof is used for solar panels.

Energy

The “Sargfabrik” fulfills the Austrian energy-efficient standards. The district’s heating center warrants the necessary heating and warm water. In the complex there is panel heating. Part of the electricity is given by the solar panels, situated on one of the roofs.For the community energy - like privately owned or shared facilities - is also an important task. They think that shared facilities can also reduce the energy use. It is enough to have 1 or 2 grills per community, it is not necessary to have everyone its own. But it is also true for the communal laundry, library, kitchen, …etc.The land use is also an important topic in the analyzed projects. With their multi-family building form that provides higher density, they use much less land than a single-family house or a row house.

| | | | 5.4.6 Organizational level

Project development: 1986-Initiators: it was a group of 30-40 committed peopleLegal form: the Austrian legal form “Wohnheim” – communal living secured theprojects support by the Vienna City Council. 105

Administration

“The ‘VIL’ acts as the owner, builder, caretaker and rental agency of the housing complex. The association members live in the flats and their rights and obligations are detailed in an internal contract, like in a cooperative. The members pay basic and individual contribution to costs, towards the repayment of the building loan, and to the resident administration costs. On moving out, mem-bers return the flat to the association. Important decisions, such as statutes, standing orders, the business plan, annual planning, budget, flat allocation, rules of use etc. are made twice yearly by the association at general meetings. The general assembly elects all voluntary board representatives. This board appoints a professional executive director for implementing the yearly work plans and managing all departments. An office-style administration looks after the necessary organisation and communication needs of the housing administration and management. Momentarily fifteen people are employed.” 106

The organization, functions and programs changes continuously. There are several functions that weren’t in the beginning (but were needed during the years) and there are also some that fell out (because they weren’t very successful). There was an “office” space for self-employed residents but everybody preferred to work at home so the residents started to use the office space for other activities. 107

105 Ibid.106 Ibid.107 Ilka Ruby and Andreas Ruby, “The Making of Sargfabrik & Miss Sargfabrik,” 2G n.36 (2005): 124.

Figure 109 Roof garden

77


| | | 5.5 Case study 2. – A52, Berlin (D)


Basic data 108

Location: Germany, Berlin, “Mitte” district, Anklamer Strasse 52.Development: 2003/9 – (building process 2004/7 – 2005/5)Situation: block perimeter development (infills)Legal form: building co-operative – civil law partnership - owner association 109

Residents: 10 owner-occupied flats (2-6 bedrooms)Site area: 446 m2 / Built area: 182 m2

Number of floors: 6 plus roof floorGross floor area: 1,333 m2

Density: 3Living area net: 866 m2

Public and community area: 99 m2 roof terrace, 214 m2 yard, 15 m2 laundry (planned)Open spaces: 1.5 x 6 m2 private balconiesSize of dwellings: 50-136 m2

Total construction costs: 1,143,000 Euro ex. VATConstruction costs per m2: 857 Euro ex. VATParking: 0 Bike parking: 10 bicycles in the yard and 10 in the basement

108 Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 301.109 “Housing for a Building Group in Berlin,” Detail (2008 / 9): 973.

Figure 110 The view from their rooftop

Figure 111 Berlin


Figure 114 The A52


78

Living Democracy

The story 110

The A52 building co-operative’s story started in 2003 with two committed archi-tects who wanted to live in the city center in their privately owned apartments. In Germany and in Berlin the building co-operatives have a quite long but varying history and in the beginning of the 21st century they were trendy again. A lot of private initiators, architects realized that the lack of housing in the city center could be filled in with communally realized condominiums. The two architects started to look for other stakeholders who had the same interest and who wanted to partici-pate in a project like that. In the beginning they defined only one goal, they wanted to live in the city center. They found participants very easily so they could start to define the further, communal goals quite soon. The main common goal was to realize a small housing condominium with a few privately owned flats and to share the duties of a building construction and maintenance. With this self-organized and self-managed process they could save about 10-20% of the building costs. 111 The community found a perfect place in the center of Berlin – an infill in the district “Mitte”. On the building site they could realize a building with ca. 180 m2 footprint and with 6 floors. The two architects were also the “design architects” so they could work together well with the future residents (also their future neighbors).They planned a flexible structure (floor plan) with a staircase core in the middle and 2 small shafts in the middle of the floors. That created a quite flexible and simple floor plan. On every floor can be 1 or 2 flats depends on the needs. The maximum size of a flat is 135 m2. The facade is also very simple and well formulated to secure the flexibility of the floor plans. All the flats are privately owned and on the roof floor there is a communally owned guest flat with a huge community terrace (99 m2). The residents can use that flat and the terrace in weakly changing terms. The yard is also communally used where the residents can do grill parties and their kids can play.

Chronology 112

2003 – The two architects (Christoph Roedig and Ulrich Schop) set up the A52 GbR design company with the ten other future residents. 2003 November – After they bought the land, they converted the design company into a building co-operative. In this time the members had to decide if they want to stay or not. 2004 July – The beginning of the construction. 2005 May – The finish of the construction. The building co-operative became an owners’ association (GbR – Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts). After the transfor-mation every member was free to dispose of its own private property.

110 Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 286.111 “Flexible urban house – ten in one – Berlin 2005,” TBA (2008 / 4): 14.112 Ibid., 17.

Figure 115 Participatory design

79


Common goals – “Designing together” 113

The main goal of the architects was to bring “suburban” lifestyle into the city center and to share duties and responsibilities with other future residents. Another important goal was to design a flexible spatial structure that can change along the future needs.


Total project costsTotal building costs: 1,143,000 Euro ex. VAT

Membership costsThere is no membership costs while every resident owns its flat. They have to pay the maintenance and future renovation costs.

Support

They had no public support. The members had to buy the land and pay the design costs. After they bought the land the community could get the loan (with some special conditions – while in that time the building groups weren’t well known so the banks didn’t want to give any loan).

In the very first part of the process all the participants had to lay down ca. 1,000-2,000 EUR per dwelling as a deposit. It was also used to pay the architects, struc-tural engineers, consultants, … in the beginning.The different floors were differentiated with a price factor from 0.8 (ground floor) to 1.25 (fifth floor). The construction costs were pre-calculated and discussed together. The final costs were two times re-calculated till finally everybody was satisfied with the results. They tried to save money everywhere they could. They self-built everything they could, the community realized the garden and some smaller construction works. They were in a good position because they could decide where to save and where to spend more. For example they spent more money for the larger spans for a more flexible floor plan.In the time of the project the banks didn’t know too much about building groups so they tried to get loan in 25 banks. Finally they could manage with a special finan-cial construction by different banks. 114


In the very beginning there were participants from the age of 26 to 53, mostly singles and couples without children. The community is quite small but thanks to this everybody knows the others well. In the design and construction process it was important that the architects would be also residents. It generated more trust

113 Ibid.114 “Housing for a Building Group in Berlin,” Detail (2008 / 9): 973.

80

Living Democracy

towards them. In the planning phrase the meetings were always held in one of their flats. These meetings were quite familiar and brought the future residents together just like the construction process where they had to do physical works together. 115

Community life

Although the community is small, they have several different communal spaces. The backyard and the roof terrace are two bigger areas where the residents can meet and host guests. They defined and created the staircase and its platforms also for the community. There they have the chance to meet with their neighbors and have a small conversation.


They didn’t have any common cultural goals. The community is too small to offer any special cultural event or to open to the neighborhood.


Location – the neighborhood 116

The A52 is situated in the center of Berlin. The district “Mitte” is the middle of the city with several social and cultural facilities. The river Speer divides the area into 2 big parts with an island in the middle. The quarter is the 2. dense district with its 82,897 inhabitants on its 10.69 km2. The average age in the district is 40-42 and 18.3% of the residents are foreigners. The Mitte has very good public transport and several railway stations.

115 Ibid., 968-980.116 “Berlin” Wikipedia, accessed June 5, 2013, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Mitte.

Figure 118 The roof terrace with the guest apartment

Figure 119 The district in Berlin

Figure 116 The garden

Figure 117 The staircase

81


Flats

On the general floors there are 1 or 2 flats per floor. On the ground floor there are two maisonettes (the two architects live there) and on the roof floor there is only a small guest apartment. Originally the owners occupied the flats but at the moment there is one rented out. Each floor has 135 m2 total floor area that could be leave as one flat or could be divided into two smaller apartments. The wet rooms and kitchens are always orga-nized around the two utility shafts. The 2.80 meter high floors are quite luxurious but it was an important decision in the beginning. The pillar free floor plans and the well-designed facade secure the flexibility of the flats. The maisonettes on the ground floor secure the privacy for the flats. The lower floor is for the communal areas and the upper floor is for the bedrooms.Thanks to the flexible floor plan all the flats could be designed individually with its future residents. 117

Flexibility

The flexible floor plan and facade secure the long-term variability of the building. “ … a clearly articulated curtain-wall facade with variations from floor to floor that reflect the different dwelling layouts on each level.” 118

Community spaces

The roof floor (with the guest apartment and the roof terrace), the yard and the staircase are the community spaces. The community decided quite early to have the roof floor as a communal element. The yard (more shaded), the staircase and the terrace give perfect community area for the residents. It is easy to meet with some-one in the staircase and have a small talk.

117 Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 301.118 “Housing for a Building Group in Berlin,” Detail (2008 / 9): 968.

Figure 121 First floor and general floor plan


Figure 123 The roof floor plan

Figure 122 The sketch of the flexible floor plan

82

Living Democracy

Energy

The building was realized with normal construction elements. No special energy-saving elements were built in but everything fits into the current building norms. The flexible floor plan is a security for the building’s long-term lifecycle.


This small community has no special organizational structure. In the design phrase they were joined in a design group, in the building construction phrase their legal form was building co-operative and after the realization they started to work as a GbR (owners’ association). The most interesting form – in terms of this thesis - is the building group. With this legal form individuals can realize their own ideas and can self-participate in the building process.

Building co-operative

„Building Cooperatives are popular model for creating affordable urban residential space. They also enable savings of up to 25% compared to typical residential real estate developments.” 119

The three engaged architects (DI Elisabeth Anderl, DI Jasmin Leb-Idris and DI Karin Wallmüller) who try to initiate more and more building co-operative projects define two main aspects of this phenomenon:1. Building aspects – the housing stock could be more colorful and more diverse types of housing could be built. 2. Human / Social aspects – if you design and build your own home with your future neighbors, it will generate a much more healthy relationship with them and a much better community life. With a more intensive dialogue from the beginning, the needs could be more tailored and a better architecture quality could be realized.The building co-operatives - just like housing co-operatives general - have several advantages: community-oriented, more social and economic, it uses the resources more effectively and it is a self-determining building process. It has several addi-tional values against the market-oriented housing stock. Thanks to the participa-tory design process it gives much better answers for the current household needs, increase the living conditions and the social contacts and it is better also for the environment (less land-use, more innovative energetic and structural strategies, …etc). The state’s task is to support this self-organizational housing to generate a more intensive dialogue between the architects, future “investors”, users and the political forces. 120

Building co-operatives are often initiated by architects just like in the case of A52. There are several other architectural offices in Berlin who support non-profit hous-ing initiatives.

119 “Residential Developent in Berlin,” Detail (2012 / 5): 493.120 Elisabeth Anderl, Jasmin Leb-Idris and Karin Wallmüller, Wohnbau: Alternative: Baugruppen 2008-2010, (Graz: Edition HDA, 2010), 7-8.

Figure 124 The “flexible” facade

Figure 125 The section

83


| | | 5.6 Case study 3. – Dreieck, Zürich (CH)


Basic data 121

Location: Switzerland, Zürich, District 4.Development: 1986- (rehabilitation of 10 old buildings and 2 new buildings)Situation: block perimeter development (infills)Legal form: housing co-operativeResidents: 150 people (plus 60 clerks)Site area: ca. 3600 m2

Number of floors: 1-6Gross floor area: 8700 m2

Density: 2.41Living area net: 6400 m2

Public and community areas: 2300 m2

Open spaces: 1570 m2

Size of dwellings: 55-155 m2

Total construction costs: renovation: 10.7 million CHF (25,630 m3), new: 5.9 mil-lion CHF (8,070 m3) 122

Construction costs / m2: renovation: 2,160 CHF / m2 and new 3,270 CHF / m2 123

Parking: no dataBike parking: no data

121 Genossenschaft Dreieck, Das Dreieck, (Zürich: Druck Printoset, 2011), 3-8.122 Ulrike Schettler, “Keine Lückenbüsser.” Wohnen 5 (2003): 13.123 Ibid.

Figure 126 The housing group of the Dreieck

Figure 127 Zürich



Figure 130 The Dreieck

84

Living Democracy

The story 124

The project “Dreieck” is in the middle of the city of Zürich. It is an area with com-mercial, housing, public functions and very good infrastructure. There is a public transport hub about 200 meters from the building and several bus- and tramlines.The co-operative ”Das Dreieck” was established as a bottom-up initiative in 1996 with the aim to save the existing built environment and stabilize their legal back-ground, to renovate the buildings and to add two new multifamily buildings. The common goal was to create cheaper housing and commercial possibilities in the area. The members are generally renters from the “Dreieck” but outsider private persons or corporations can be also member. The members are generally renters from the Dreieck but outsider private persons or corporations can also be members.

Chronology 125

1950-1980 The municipality bought all the buildings (13) in the triangle to realize ahighway through the area.1980 - The municipality cancelled the realization of the highway (the citizens votedagainst it) and left the buildings. Low-income families and poor people started to use the flats.1986 January - The municipality announced that the area is going to be used by a housing co-operative.

124 Genossenschaft Dreieck, Das Dreieck, (Zürich: Druck Printoset, 2011), 3-8.125 Data from two sources: Thomas Stahel, Wo-Wo-Wonige! Stadt- und wohnpolitische Bewegungen in Zürich nach 1968, (Zürich: Paranoia city Verlag, 2006), 434-435. and Genossenschaft Dreieck, Das Dreieck, (Zürich: Druck Printoset, 2011), 3-8. Translated by the author.

Figure 131 A shop in 1986

Figure 132 Birds eye view in 1986

Figure 133 The competition model with the 2 new housing in 1987

Figure 134 Facade of the new project in 1987

Figure 135 Fights in 1987

Figure 136 The inhabitants in 1990

85


1986 October - The municipality started an architectural competition to revitalize the area (new buildings instead the existing housing stock). In a statement the resi-dents published their thoughts against this kind of revitalization.1988 March 29 - Establishment of the Association “Dreieck”. The goal was to gen-erate a wider discussion about the project and to engage more people.1988 April – The members of the “Bahoge” announced (in a letter and in a news-paper) their statement against the “Dreieck” project.1988 autumn - The residents (with the support of a few architects) created their own proposal for the area.1989 March 1 - The city council approved the preliminary design of the redevelop-ment (6 properties stayed and 5 would be replaced by new buildings).1989 April 28 - The residents submitted their own proposal (renovation of the exist-ing building stock). All the residents agreed with the project proposal.1989 summer - The Association “Dreieck” supported by a professional agency and several professional associations and people was protesting for their project.1989 September - The “Bahoge” receded from the project.1990 January 2 – A podium discussion with the head of the construction depart-ment (Ursula Koch) about the renovation was held.1990 September 7 – The municipality supported the residents design proposal with 100,000 CHF.1991 January – The residents’ new proposal was announced.1992 April 9 – The municipality voted for a bigger project (5500 m2 instead of 3500 m2)1993 April – The municipality decided to renovate the area.1993 July – Rolf Schelling initiated a 16.5 million CHF support for the project.1993 – The “Dreieck” Association looked for an existing housing co-operative partner. The SBW (Foundation for Affordable Housing) joined the project.1994 - The SBW and the Association ”Das Dreieck” made a contract for a 2-3 years support and to create a self-sufficient co-operative.1996 - Establishment of the ”Das Dreieck” housing co-operative. A new concept for the commercial areas was figured out.1997 - The first building stage – renovation and modernization of the buildings in the courtyard and modernization of the central heating system.1998 - The co-operative got the rights for the whole area.2000 - They have successfully finished the 3rd renovation stage (the expenses were finally less than the calculated).2001 October – they began to build the two new buildings and after a year the new renters could move in.

Figure 137 “Attention! Inhabited area” in 1987

Figure 138 Festival in the “Dreieck” in 1990

Figure 139 June 1990

Figure 140 Dinner in the canteen in 1997

86

Living Democracy

Common goals – ”the philosophy of a co-operative” 126

The basic common goal of the community was to save the built environment and the existing community and to offer cheaper flats and offices in the neighborhood. The next and still relevant goal is to combine social and ecological housing. Open-ness, tolerance and responsibility are basics for living together, for people with different social, cultural and ethnical background. The community is always opened for new initiatives that help the co-operatives self-management. To reach these aims next to the community, the community spaces were also very important.


Total project costs 127

Total building costs:Renovation costs (10 old buildings): 10.7 Mio. CHF (2,160 CHF / m2)New building costs (2 new buildings): 5.9 Mio. CHF (3,270 CHF / m2)

Membership costs

Partial ownership: 4 room flat: ca. 10,000 CHFRents (netto):- 4 room flat (old building): 1,400 CHF- 1 room loft (new building – 48 m2): ca. 900 CHF- 6½ room flat (new building – 156 m2): ca. 2,950 CHF

Social Support

The Foundation for Building Affordable Housing (SBW - no public contribution) supported the project with legal and financial background and with knowledge.

The “Dreieck” established its own building firm to reduce the building costs (the inhabitants could do demolishing works and self-built). 128

Affordability was also a very important question for the original tenants. What is the maximum rent they could afford? They discussed it during the participatory design process and that formulated the potential ways. What kind of materials could they use, how big could the flats (m2 per person) and the community spaces be, ...etc?

The money was a key factor in the project from the first minute. The city council couldn’t leave the existing buildings if the renovation project (by the inhabitants) wouldn’t be cheaper than the new project (8 old building replaced by 2 new). The 2 projects were compared and finally the cheaper won. The social, cultural questions couldn’t be measured so easily so the costs were the main topic. The money is very important not just in the realization process but also in the maintenance. Several project elements were used to (that) decrease the maintenance costs.

126 Genossenschaft Dreieck, Das Dreieck, (Zürich: Druck Printoset, 2011), 10-11.127 Ulrike Schettler, “Keine Lückenbüsser.” Wohnen 5 (2003): 13.128 Ibid., 12.

87



The area is well known by its good quality flats as well as by its trendy shops and bars. Several social groups (different ages, different interests) can find their place here from early in the morning till the end of the day.The shops, offices and services in the triangle secure the continuous intensive life; there is always someone on the streets. The architectural, graphic and publisher offices in the inner-court secure that the semi-public spaces are also under control in 24/7.The functional and spatial diversity of the area offers a wide variety of possibilities (free time, work, culture) for the users of the city. This diversity can be thanked to the rehabilitation (existing smaller urban structure) and to the good and open-minded design process (participatory design).

Community life

The community of the “Dreieck” plays a key role in the area’s life. They fought in the 80’s for the area and they are still an essential part of it. The several public and semi-public facilities (bistro, public library, laundry, …etc) secure the 24/7 active community life. The semi-public inner courtyard is a perfect place for the local community. The balconies (with their visual contact) join the private flats and gen-erate a continuous social life between the tenants. The community often organizes events (“Dreieck” day, meetings, ...etc) to keep the social interaction.


The bistro and the restaurant give place for formal and informal meetings. The canteen can be rented for different events. The community ensures the intensive social and cultural life for the inhabitants and some of the inhabitants take also part in the bigger area’s (district, Zürich) cultural, social life. This type of living gener-ates more interactions and teaches you how to act in the society.Trendy cloth shops, book and wine shop, small restaurant, vintage vinyl shop, Indian grocery, piano workshop create a colorful mixture in the area. The quarter’s public library (on two floors) can be found here too.


The building stock in the Dreieck (triangle) is organized by the surrounding streets (Anker-, Zweier- and Gartenhofstrasse) and forms a block perimeter development. With the rehabilitation of the existing building stock the community had already a quite diverse spatial structure and with the two new buildings they could develop it further. The new elements have bigger and more flexible spaces and they complete the spatial needs. The 10 existing and 2 new buildings contain 60 flats (48 in the existing and 12 in the new ones) and 30 offices and retails. The 2 new buildings complete not just the block perimeter but the diversity of the flat typologies too. There were no 1-room flats and shared-flats before.

Figure 141 New roof terrace - Ankerstrasse 12-16

Figure 142 New balconies - Ankerstrasse 12-16

Figure 143 New additional staircase - Gar-tenhofstrasse 31

88

Living Democracy

The rehabilitation of the old housings were key elements because their condition and spatial structure wasn’t modern enough. Additional baths and spaces (huge ter-races, ...etc) completed the architectural structure of the “Dreieck”.

Flats

The 10 old and 2 new buildings contain altogether 60 flats. There are 48 flats in the old buildings and 12 in the new ones (6 loft and 6 big shared-flats). The diversity of the flat structure generates social diversity too. Different households fit in the dif-ferent flats and everybody can find its ideal flat in the area. The old buildings with their old spatial structure are better for classic families (2+2). The new buildings were realized with more flexible spatial organization to offer space for the new household types.

Community spaces

The community spaces and their spatial organization are crucial in the everyday life of the “Dreieck”: the inner courtyard (semi-public space), the laundry in the court-yard building, the canteen, the huge semi-private or private terraces, the huge shared flats. In these spaces the tenants can live social life in the more and more anonym life of the city.

Guest room

The guest room is also an important shared facility in a co-operative’s life. It doesn’t matter how big or small is a family it is sure that it has guests sometimes. The guests stay just for a few days a year but it is more common to have a guest room. There are no guest rooms in the flats but everybody can use the common rooms. There is a timetable where you can schedule your guests. To realize and maintain a common guest room costs much less than an extra room in each flats.

Laundry

The laundry has several advantages in this case. Originally every building had its own laundry but with the revitalization they reorganized it into one big communalspace. With this action they saved a lot of space in the individual buildings and cre-ated an important meeting point where the locals can meet, get to know each other a little bit better and can take a rest.

Canteen

The canteen is an other community space. It can be rented or the community can use it for meetings, events. On weekdays there is a community lunch for anyone.

Figure 144 The guest room

Figure 145 Communal laundry for the whole community

Figure 146 The canteen

89


Old buildings

All the flats in the old buildings are quite small compare them to the current hous-ing tendencies in Zürich. For example a 4 room flat (3 bedrooms) in the Zweier-strasse 56 is just 93.5 m2, which means ca. 25 m2 per person. The average is about 50 m2 per person at the moment.

New buldings

Two new buildings were built to complete the block perimeter and to provide the needed m2 (it couldn’t be less than the new competition showed). These two new housings were also potential elements to support additional functions like the library, new flat typologies, ...etc.

The “Dreieck” 129

Ankerstrasse 6.

Built: 1897 / Renovation 1998Spatial/functional mix: 1 bistro, 1 shop and four 4-room flatThis is one of the most representative corner buildings of the group with its location and special outer view. It is under monumental protection as it has a very specially articulated facade. With the renovation the butchery in the ground floor was trans-formed into a bistro and the facade paintings on the north and south side were renovated. The small informatics shop and the well known bistro share the ground floor and the basement. The 4 upper floors each contains one 111.5 m2 flat with 3 bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room, a toilette and a bathroom. These flat suit per-fectly for families with 2 adults and 2 or maximum 3 kids.

129 “Wohnen,” Genossenschaft Dreieck, accessed May 26, 2013. Translated by the author.

Figure 148 General floor plan - Anker-strasse 6

Figure 147 The most representative corner of the Dreieck

90

Living Democracy

Zweierstrasse 56.

Built: 1913 / Renovation 1998Spatial/functional mix: 1 atelier, 3 shops, four 3-room flat and four 4-room flatThis noble Jugendstil house has facades on both streets. On the Zweierstrasse it has a nice oriel (typical for this style) and the inner design has also several nice details. The spatial structure of the upper floors was renovated according to the original Jugendstil structure. On the ground floor 3 small shops (cheese-, music- and extravagant cloth shop) take place to strengthen the vitality of the city life and the diversity of functions in the area. The two flats are facing to the two streets and to the inner court. Both of them have minimum two facade fronts.

Zweierstrasse 50.

Built: 2002Spatial/functional mix: 1 library, 4 offices / ateliers, six small lofts and two big loftsArchitects: Amman Albers StadtWerk and Pierino CerlianiThis building completes not just the block perimeter but offers also a different liv-ing typology. With its small, loft style flats it is a potential living space for singles and smaller families. 130

The library on the ground floor and the basement is the central library of the dis-trict. It contains a further education center too. On the first floor there are 4 offices / ateliers. The semi-public staircase / terrace is an important meeting point (community space) for the tenants. The exterior staircase offers a meeting point for the residents and gives a visual link for the whole area. The building is connected to the ecologic central heating system of the Dreieck.

130 “Swiss Architects,” accessed May 26, 2013, http://www.swiss-architects.com/projects/projects_detail/23550.

Figure 149 General floor plan with two flats - Zweierstrasse 56

Figure 150 General floor plan - Zweier-strasse 50

Figure 151 The exterior staircase and the communal roof terrace - Zwei-erstrasse 50

Figure 152 Neutral living area in a flat - Zweierstrasse 50

91


Zweierstrasse 48.

Built: 1879 / Renovation 1999Spatial/functional mix: 1 atelier, 1 shop-flat and three 4-room flatThis simple, freestanding building contains flats for families. The inner structure was renovated with some extra loading structure but without reorganizing the original spatial organization. The only additional element is the huge balcony for every flat. This addition is very typical for the whole triangle. This simple exterior space can develop the condition and quality of the flats. The flats with 3 bedrooms are quite small, only 80.5 m2. The renovation of the building had very low budget so only the very needed elements were replaced.

Zweiestrasse 42. and Gartenhofstrasse 27.

Zweierstrasse 42. (old)

Built: 1881 / Renovation 1997Spatial/functional mix: 1 shop, six 3-room flat and three 4-room flat

Gartenhofstrasse 27. (new)

Built: 2002Spatial/functional mix: 1 canteen, 1 shop, 1 office, 1x5½ room flat and 3x6½ room flatarchitects: Kaspar Fahrlaender

The Zweierstrasse 42 and the Gartenhofstrasse 27 should be mentioned together as they have common staircase and a very interesting and special spatial organization. The Gartenhofstrasse 27 could be seen as an extension of the Zweierstrasse 42. The existed building’s staircase serves the new building too. The new part contains the canteen and an office space on the ground floor and 4 big flats that could be used as shared flats too. Their spatial organization is ideal for individuals who would like to live with others or for new household types. The old and the new buildings are connected with a big terrace that joins two flats together on each floor. The tenants can use these communal spaces as one big or they can also separate their part to make it more private.

Figure 153 One flat per floor - Zweier-strasse 48

Figure 154 The renovation of the existed wooden floor - Zweierstrasse 48

Figure 155 The original floor plan - Zwei-erstrasse 42

Figure 157 The additional communal bal-conies

Figure 156 Ground floor plan and general floor plan of the the Gartenhofstrasse 27 with the extension

92

Living Democracy

Gartenhofstrasse 31.

Built: 1913 / Renovation 1998Spatial/functional mix: 1 atelier, three 3-room flatThis very simple, freestanding building is one of the smallest elements of the group. It has 3 very simple 2-bedroom flats but it is still a very important element of the spatial diversity of the triangle. Small scale, small community (in the bigger triangle community), small garden (no physical division).The only additional element is the new concrete staircase. It was needed to give space for an integrated bathroom for every flat. The flats can accommodate a small family (3 maximum 4 members) within 83.1 m2 which is still much less then the current average.

Ankerstrasse 20.

Built: 1893 / Renovation 1999Spatial/functional mix: 1 atelier, 1 shop-flat, one 3-room flat and two 4-room flatsThis classicistic villa on the corner is under monument protection since 1999.

Ankerstrasse 12-16.

Built: 1895 / Renovation 1997/2000Spatial/functional mix: 4 ateliers, 3 shops and 3x four 4-room flatsThe building is divided into 3 parts with 3 staircases. Every part has 1 flat on each floor. On the ground floor ateliers and small shops are located. With the renovation new balconies were added on the courtyard front, the roof windows were rebuilt and the wall paintings were renovated in the interior. There were many other small elements that needed renovation. They tried to (keep) conserve as many existing parts as they could (from the existing as much as it was possible).

Ankerstrasse 11.

Built: 1888 / Renovation 2004Spatial/functional mix: 2 shops and four 4-room flatAfter the renovation of the original “Dreieck” with its 12 buildings in 2002 the community started to develop itself. They bought the Ankerstrasse 11 and reno-vated it.

Courtyard – Ankerstrasse 16a., Zweierstrasse 48a/50a. and Zweierstrasse 54a.

Built: 1880-1935 / Renovation 1997Spatial/functional mix: laundry, 2 workshops and 6 atelier officesOriginally four 2-floor buildings formed the freestanding building in the middle of the courtyard but with the rehabilitation one of them was demolished. In the still standing 3 old buildings there are several small offices and ateliers for young

Figure 158 General floor plan - Gartenhof-strasse 31

Figure 159 The additional staircase and the small semi-private garden - Gartenhofstrasse 27

Figure 160 General floor plan - Anker-strasse 20

93


designers, architects, etc. The communal laundry also belongs to the inner build-ings. The roof terrace offers another special semi-public community space for the area.

Energy 131

Ecological aspects are important for the community from the very beginning. They started to take care about the construction materials already in the first phrases. Renewable, recyclable materials were used for the renovation and for the 2 new buildings. The 2 new buildings are built with Minergie-Standards. The “Dreieck” has a central thermal heat pump (ecologic central heating system) that gives the most of the needed heat for all the buildings. Since 2009 about 110 m2 of solar panels (on the roofs of the new buildings) provide 20% of the total electricity need.


Project Development: 1986 –Initiators: a few committed people – ”Das Dreieck” Association – to save this area with its valuesLegal form: housing co-operative

Organizational and social information

The legal form of the “Dreiecck” is housing co-operative. It has 225 members (not just local residents). The bigger part of the flats are rents and one building (Anker-strasse 11.) has privately owned flats. The tenants and the ”shops” rent their space from the co-operative. About 150 people live (aged 0-75) and about 60 work in the 60 flats and 30 retails. The social diversity of the community is a main goal.

Organigram

131 Genossenschaft Dreieck, Das Dreieck, (Zürich: Druck Printoset, 2011), 15.

Figure 161 The organigram of the “Dreieck”

95


| | | 5.7 Case study 4. – Horanszky 1, Budapest (H)


Basic data 132

Location: Hungary, Budapest, 8th districtDevelopment: 1935 – (building process 1935-36 / renovation 2010)Situation: block perimeter development (infill)Legal form: condominium (80% of the flats is privately owned)Residents: 70 adults and 10 childrenSite area: 715 m2

Number of floors: basement, ground floor, 1-4th floor and roof floorGross floor area: 2576 m2

Density: 3.6Living area net: 2203 m2

Public and community area: 377 m2 retail, communal garden and the staircaseOpen space: 155 m2 (communal garden)Size of dwellings: 32-125 m2

Total construction costs: not relevantConstruction costs per m2: not relevantParking: 0Bike parking: 0

132 Data based on the interview with Tamas Bulcsu. The interview was taken by the author on the 21th of May 2013. Tamas Bulcsu is a resident and board member of the Horanszky 1. He is architect and he lives with his family (wife and 2 daughters).

Figure 162 The community of the Horanszky 1 in the garden

Figure 163 Budapest



Figure 166 The Horanszky 1

96

Living Democracy

The story

The Horanszky 1 is situated in the inner city of Budapest. This area is called “Palace District” as well thanks to its several palaces. Dezsö Grósz and his wife built this Bauhaus palace in 1936-37. It was a pioneer building with its new Bauhaus style in the quartier. During the World War II the former tenants and owners had to move out from the building. The façade and also the interior damaged during the war. After the World War II there was no possibility to create a community (it wasn’t allowed). Until the fall of the socialism the condition of the house was just worse and worse. There was no money for the renovation and the flats became smaller and smaller due to the flat-partition during the socialist regime. In the ground floor the 2 retails (a small shop and a bistro / restaurant) worked continuously. With the fall of the socialist era came the privatization and some refreshment. 80% of the flats were privatized and the building became a condominium. The tenants could buy the flats on a very low price thanks to the bad condition of the building and the flats. The community tried to find an outsider maintainer but they weren’t success-ful. Probably that was their luck because finally a resident became a self-manager of the condominium. He wasn’t very good and successful so the community voted for a new organizational structure. The condominium organized its own Board (4 board members all of them are residents in the house). In 2009 the community won a competition to revitalize its communal garden. It was an old dream that came true. The price was enough for the materials and for the design costs. The community realized the project by itself. The new garden was designed by a landscape architect office that has several years of experience on the field of participatory design. Most of the residents took part in the design process and of course in the realization process.

Common goals

Although the condominium has a quite strong community life (compared to a nor-mal condominium in Hungary) it doesn’t have any common goal. The residents know each other, the community has its own management board but they have no written common goals. They applied for different funds for the rehabilitation and they won few of them but they never thought that communally defined aims would be important.


On the economic level the Horanszky 1 functions as a normal condominium. Mostly all of the residents own their own flat and the communal spaces are shared. Natural persons own the 2 retails, functioning as flats. The condominium doesn’t have any constant financial support. They can apply for economic support from the government, EU or from public organizations. There is only one social flat that is owned by the local municipality. Thanks to its good location and good community the flats have good value. The Horanszky 1 is a beloved building in the quartier.

Figure 167 The damaged façade after the WW II

Figure 168 The Condominium of the Year in 2000

Figure 169 The corner - Horanszky 1

97


They have a Facebook site where they can promote their community and building. The neighborhood is also under revitalization (Budapest inner city revitalization – financed mostly by EU funds) so the area is under development physically as well as socially and culturally.The residents have to pay subscription every month that is calculated by their own-ership percentage. If they decide to do any development their monthly subscription rises.Although the condominium’s community is strong enough to do developments the financial tasks often slow or block their initiatives. A following step should be to figure out how could they develop their economic background further. How could they be financially stronger and more flexible?

The self-management and self-help are important tools for the community to reduce the communal costs. They manage the condominium’s life and they build their own communal garden.

Flat (for sale or for rent in 2012) 133

Price: 37,000,000 HUF – 324,561 HUF / m2 (the average is 235,000 HUF / m2 in this district) 134

Floor area: 114 m2

Condition: renovatedNumber of rooms: 4Floor: 4th floor


The households are very diverse in the building. There are singles, couples and big-ger families (with 2-3 children) too. There are residents from kids (new born baby) to old ladies (80 years old). Their social mix generates a healthy social life in the building. Although the community life is not obligatory in the condominium there are several residents who has very good relationship with its neighbors. Before the renovation of the garden (2010) the staircase was the only community space of the building. The staircase functions as a semi-public living room for the social events.The Bauhaus palace’s flexible floor plan secures the social diversity. There are 4-5flats per floor and all of them are different sized and oriented. This generates a diverse spatial situation.The residents manage the condominium themselves that also generates a more intensive social life. They have to discuss all the questions and they have to vote. This democratic structure is really helpful for the community and they can develop their condominium further.

133 “Ingatlan,” accessed June 25, 2013, http://ingatlan.com/6803099.134 “Lakasarak,” accessed June 25, 2013, http://www.origo.hu/gazdasag/gazdasagplusz/20120831-ketteszakadt-varos-lakasarak-buda pesten-2012ben.html.

Figure 170 The new communal garden

Figure 171 The garden is designed and built by the residents with pro-fessional help

Figure 172 Different ages together

Figure 173 The staircase was the only com-munity space

98

Living Democracy


The community doesn’t have any common cultural goal but they have several small cultural elements that worth mentioning. Although they don’t have any influence on the 2 retails on the ground floor these elements function often as cultural spots as a small shop, bistro, …etc. that meant important social and cultural place for the neighborhood.In the building (where the community has its influence) they use the staircase as a “cultural center” for the community. There is a small working group that is respon-sible for the staircase’s cultural life. There are paintings and graphics from former residents.The Horanszky 1 was the Condominium of the Year in 2010. It was a big success for the community and it showed that their social thinking could be a model for the neighborhood. There were several publications about the building in that time and the social and cultural life is stronger since then.


Location – the neighborhood

The 8th district (also called Józsefváros) is part of the inner city. The inner city’s suburban developments started in the 18th century and became the current 8th dis-trict. The part of the 8th district closer to the former inner city called the “Palace District”. With its palaces and important public buildings this area always had its importance.85,173 citizens live on the 6.85 km2. This is the 9. most populated district in Buda-pest. There are universities, hospitals, several monuments and important public institutes in the district.

Flats

The condominium has 31 flats with very diverse spatial mix. There is flat from 30 (1-room apartment) to 125 m2 (4-room flat). Each floor has 4-5 flats.

Structure

This building has a hybrid structure. The inner load structure is pillars so the inner spaces can be easily varied.

Energy

The community renovated its central heating system (gas) a few years ago with the state’s financial support. They would like to isolate their roof but the don’t have any savings for that.

Figure 174 Info board about the Bauhaus palace

Figure 175 An article about the “cultural center” of the building

Figure 176 Budapest and the 8th district

99



Ownership structure

The ownership structure of the building functions as a normal condominium. The flats and retails belong to the private owners. The communal spaces (roof, staircase, basement and garden) are shared-owned by the condominium members. Every owner has its percentage depends on its privately owned flats or retails size. The whole condominium has 10,000 percent and for example an owner of a 51 m2 flat has 197 percent. The voting structure functions also as the ownership structure. Every owner has x percent in voting according to the m2 it owns.

Organigram – organizational structure

Questionnaire - an interview with a resident 135

1. What is the community’s organizational and legal form?Legally it works as a condominium but it has several housing co-operative charac-teristics. There is no outer firm that would be responsible for the maintenance (it is a typical condominium characteristic). The community has its own board (the members are residents). The board has 1 chairman and 3 members. The financial board has 3 members. There is one general assembly per year and 4 meetings for the board members.

2. How does the voting look like on a general assembly? Do you know any better voting model?There must be min. 50% participation on the assemblies and in normal (not consti-tutional) questions 50% + 1 yes or no is enough. We don’t know any better model, but there were no big problems with this system. The problem is not the voting system but the money.

135 The interview was taken by the author with Tamas Bulcsu on the 21th of May 2013. He is a resident and board member of the house. He is architect and he lives with his family (wife and 2 daughters).


Figure 178 General floor plan

Figure 179 Roof floor plan

Figure 180 The organigram of the Horanszky 1

100

Living Democracy

3. What kind of ideas came to the mind to develop the maintenance and the com-munity? What is already realized and what is not? Why couldn’t it be realized? There were several ideas (to isolate the roof, to isolate and renovate the facade, to reuse the gray-water, thermal-heating system) but non of them could be realized. There is no money for them.

4. Is it possible for the community to buy some flats, retails in the house and rentthem out? Does the community (condominium) have the right of preemption?It is possible but it has financial questions. The condominium has no right of pre-emption but we could buy properties on the market price.

5. Is there anyone who is responsible for the marketing (to rent out the empty flats, retails, ...) of the house or all the flats and retails are in private hand and the com-munity has no legal background to do anything?There is nobody who would be responsible. All the flats and retails are in private hand so these private persons should solve their marketing problems. Although since we started to promote the house on Facebook it goes much easier if any of us would like to sell any of the flats.

6. Does the community have any common space (communal laundry, communal living room, guest room, ...)? Is there any discussion to create some space for the community?The community doesn’t have any interior common space. We should buy a flat to realize one. There was a communal laundry several decades ago (now the laundry space is already integrated into our flat). The only community space is the commu-nal garden. It belongs to the condominium as the roof and the staircase. We could renovate the garden in 2009-10. We won money on a competition. The planning process was participatory design, all the residents who would like to participate in the preliminary and design process could do it. The money was enough for the materials so we should self-build the garden. The community realized it about in 1 year.

7. Does the community think that this legal form is good for itself or there is no discussion about it?We don’t know but there is no discussion about this.

8. How strong is the community life in the house? Are the people who are always against the new initiatives? Could you realize the new ideas without these people?There are always a few who don’t want something but in the voting process we need just 50% + 1 person so normally everything could be ”realized”.

9. Does the community have any communally formulated goal?No, there is no common goal.

101

Synthesis

| | 6 Synthesis

Summary and interpretations

The literature-based analysis of the housing co-operatives’ history and the com-parative study of the four chosen countries and four case studies show that these types of housing have very diverse characteristic. A housing co-operative’s size, goals, financial conditions, etc can be very different project by project. This synthe-sis summarizes the different characteristics on the 6 defined levels (general, eco-nomic, social, cultural, environmental and organizational) and describes the possi-bilities for these housing types in Budapest. In the 7th chapter an ideal pilot project describes the most important elements that an ideal project must have.

| | | 6.1 General information

Size – number of residents

There is no perfect size for a housing co-operative. For different goals (economic, social, cultural or ecologic) different sizes can be adequate. For a simple building community with less social-orientation, less common goals, ...etc it is better to have fewer residents. The design and building process can be faster if there are fewer stakeholders and participants. When the goals are more complex (social support, social diversity, cultural aims, community-orientation, …etc.) the size of the hous-ing co-operative can be much bigger. These more complex communities could have from abuout 40 to a few hundreds of tenants. The location or the financial back-ground can also define the size of a community.

In the current situation (lack of rents, no public support and housing co-operative as “new” phenomenon) in Budapest less complex interventions would be better to start. 1-2 simple goals, not so many stakeholders and participants and not so com-plex organizational structure would be a perfect start for a housing co-operative. The case study’s size, goals and location in Berlin could be a potential model. A few more common (social or cultural) goals could be important additional extras. Although there were several similar initiatives in Budapest in the 1970’s and 80’s they are not so well known. Their history shows that their sole goal (to build together) is not enough for sustainable social and cultural developments.

Environment psychologically the number of residents should be between 10-12 per living groups and maximum 3 groups would be ideal. With architectural / spatial organization this number could be multiplied. 136

Common goals

In the case of a building co-operative there are less common goals. Their most important goal is to build a multi-family house on a lower price and to share the duties and the responsibilities with others. In the case of a community-oriented

136 Data based on the interview with Dr. Andrea Dúll PhD (Psychology ELTE Budapest), June 17, 2013.

Figure 181 Number of residents - Case study 1-4

Figure 182 Number of residents - Ideal project

102

Living Democracy

housing co-operative the common goals (economic, social and cultural diversity, ecological thinking, affordable housing, community spaces, …etc.) could easily generate a very complex structure that needs more professional knowledge and participants.

The existing housing communities in Budapest have no defined common goals. To formulate 1-2 common goals should be the first step for the communities. Social, cultural and community-oriented goals like – revitalization of the community’s social life, better relationship with the neighbors, self-help, self-management, reduce the communal costs – would be essential.

Publicity

All the analyzed projects were pioneers in their times. They were published widelynationally and internationally. They had several followers and influenced many follow-up projects. Their social, cultural and ecologic effect couldn’t be measured but they are visible. These bottom-up initiated projects influenced the private hous-ing sector as well as the public supported one. More and more civil organizations and municipality, public institutes dealing with the questions. They generated pub-lic discussions in the cities and effected many social and political goals.

In Budapest 1 or 2 similar projects (with very good publicity) could generate a long-term public discussion about questions like affordability, social thinking, integra-tion, communities, ... etc. There are already similar initiatives (community gardens, participatory design, bottom-up initiatives) that have wide publicity and high public interest.

| | | 6.2 Economic level

Costs

The statistics in the analyzed countries show that housing co-operatives are about 20- 30% cheaper than their market-oriented competitors. This number can be less (about 15%) but can be also much more (about 40-50%) mostly in the bigger cities where the profit is higher. The costs mean the construction costs as well as the maintenance. In existing housing co-operatives the maintenance and rehabilitation costs can be also less with self-help and self-management (not paid volunteer works).

Financial support

Housing co-operatives can be 100% privately realized but the state and the munic-ipalities in the examined countries are already realized that with financial support (assistance, subsidize) they can participate in these social projects. They have to invest less than if they would do social projects alone (without private participation). These private-public partnerships have much better effects (like integration, social and cultural connections and affordable housing) in the society than the simple

Figure 183 Common goals - Case study 1-4

Figure 184 Common goals - Ideal project

103

Synthesis

social housing projects. Although the financial top-down support is different in these countries (in Austria the state’s influence is very strong) the result (number of housing co-operatives) is quite similar. About 8 to 12% of the housing stock is hous-ing co-operative in the examined countries.

In Hungary this number is also about 7.5% but it is important to know that these co-operatives are quite old (no revitalization since the 1990’s). In the last 2 decades there were no new co-operatives established. The state and the municipalities have no financial assistance strategies and the number of privatized flats is high so the top-down support is no easily imaginable. The international examples show that the state could help the housing co-operatives with low-interest loans and the munici-palities could help with properties (buildings, flats or plots).

Incomes

Housing co-operatives are affordable for people with very different incomes while the tenants define the goals themselves. Someone with lower income can look for a smaller flat with less facilities and a tenant with high income for a big one. The communities can also define goals like integration to join these different economic levels. The Sargfabrik for example has an inner social support system to help the tenants with lower incomes. With public support it is easier to realize a more diverse community. The co-operatives with fewer goals (no social or cultural goals) are hardly accessible for the lower classes.

| | | 6.3 Social level

Social interaction

Housing co-operatives are more social than their market-oriented competitors. They are non-profit, accessible also for the lower classes and often have social goals. They are often community-oriented, self-managed that generates a social interac-tion between the residents. Their organizational structure is democratic which is also important in its integrative aspect. The tenants/owners can participate in the forming of their environment. Housing co-operatives often combine the living with other community and public facilities (community kitchen, guest room, offices, retails, …etc.) that are also very important for a healthy social life. Co-operatives can be specified for example on elderly care or student housing, but the bigger per-centage is non-specified.Although the Horanszky 1 is not a housing co-operative it has a good community. The residents know each other and they always talk a bit if they meet in the staircase or in the garden. Unfortunately they don’t have any indoor community space where they could meet and could organize events. Their condominium works as a co-operative so they self-manage the house’s businesses. That is also a very important aspect of their community life. They decide and manage the most important ques-tions always together.

Figure 185 Financial support - Case study 1-4

Figure 186 Financial support - Ideal project

Figure 187 Social interaction - Case study 1-4

Figure 188 Social interaction - Ideal project

104

Living Democracy

Social diversity - types

Although in the case studies the projects have diverse communities (in terms of social, economic and cultural aspects), generally the housing co-operatives have many specific types. They could be especially for women, elderly, students, big families, … etc. They are also important in the term of diversity (more types, more diverse social groups, …) but their types couldn’t be the main goal. The realization of these types is often easier (more committed people for a specific goal) but they are too specified to be general models.

In the Horanszky 1 one can find different household models: from singles through lonely grandmas to families with 2 children. The Ideal project’s goal is to have at least the same diversity as the Horanszky’s community.

| | | 6.4 Cultural level

Cultural diversity – cultural potential

Just like social diversity, cultural diversity is also an important aspect to realize sustainable housing co-operatives. Their social diversity can easily generate colorful cultural background for the community. Integration is often common goal for the communities that makes them much more open minded.

Cultural interaction

Housing co-operatives often have special spatial organization that helps to create useful community spaces for cultural and social interactions. The democratic orga-nizational structure forces the tenants to have good relationship with their neigh-bors. The tenants active participation in the co-operative’s management allows them to initiate new developments in the community. The communities’ colorful cultural background often effects their neighborhoods and creates a platform for social and cultural interactions.

| | | 6.5 Environmental level

Location

The better infrastructure a housing co-operative has, the better conditions could it has. It can have more diverse social and cultural life. Affordability is an important aspect. Families with lower incomes (without public support) can’t afford to live in the city center neither in the suburbs (garden cities). For them the middle ring of the cities (post-industrial, not rehabilitated areas) is the most affordable.

In Budapest there are several post-industrial or not revitalized areas close to the city center with good infrastructure. These areas are potential locations for a newly established housing co-operative. Some of them are still in public hand that could also support these initiatives.

Figure 189 Cultural potential - Case study 1-4

Figure 190 Cultural potential - Ideal project

Figure 191 Location - Case study 1-4

Figure 192 Location - Ideal project

105

Synthesis

Flats

The different size and quality of the flats are important aspects. In a housing co-operative that has several different sized and qualified flats the social diversity is much easier. Different households need different spatial organizations. Flats could be from 1-room apartment to shared-flat (for 6-10 tenants) with 5-8 rooms.

Functional and spatial diversity

The functional and spatial diversity generate a physical flexibility that provides the long-term sustainability of a housing co-operative. In the Sargfabrik and in the A52 the floor plans can be varied easily to react on the social, cultural or economic changes. The Dreieck’s long-term flexibility is thanked to its spatial diversity. There will be always someone who will fit into one of the several different spaces. The revitalization of the Dreieck (with its additional elements: balconies, new bath-rooms, …etc.) already shows this long-term thinking.

The Horanszky 1 is a good example for the spatial diversity (there are about 15 dif-ferent flats) and also for the spatial flexibility (the inner loud-structure – pillars – provides the flexibility).

New or old

The case studies show well that it doesn’t matter if the built environment is new or old. More important is the location, the condition, the economic aspects, the diver-sity and the flexibility. If the Dreieck project’s rehabilitation couldn’t be cheaper than the new project than it wouldn’t have so much success. It shows also that the long-term diversity could be reached with not so flexible built environment (diverse buildings without flexible floor plan, structure, …). The A52 in Berlin tries to solve the long-term sustainability (in terms of usable spaces) with flexible floor plans for the different needs in the future. The location is also a very important aspect for these sustainable (in terms of social, cultural, economic and ecologic aspects) proj-ects. In the city center or in the suburbs these colorful projects couldn’t be realized so easily.

In Budapest there are thousands of buildings that are waiting for rehabilitation. Their conditions are often so bad that their demolition is much more economic than their rehabilitation. There are also several empty plots in the middle-ring of the city and the post-industrial areas have many potential buildings or re-useable plots. The case studies show also the political aspects of the projects. It is visible that the different parties have different interests, goals and supporting systems. This is also very important aspect in the decision. The projects (rehabilitation or new) should be studied one-by-one in the different situations with the several aspects. The participants (stakeholders) have to know all the aspects and than they could decide what they want.

Figure 193 Spatial diversity - Case study 1-4

Figure 194 Spatial diversity - Ideal project

106

Living Democracy

| | | 6.6 Organizational level

Self-management

Although the housing co-operatives are non-profit enterprises it is important to notice that their place in the profit-oriented market is not fixed. They have to act like a profit-oriented business to be successful. They have to advertise themselves, they have to follow the actual trends and they have to be flexible to react on the social, economic and cultural changes. Their democratic organizational structure is very good to realize this flexibility. The self-management is another important aspect in the housing co-operatives. The not-paid voluntary works help to reduce the costs and the management stays in the residents’ hand. There is no business-oriented outer firm who would slow down the processes.

Self-help

A building co-operative is the best example for the self-help phenomenon. Its main goal is to reduce the costs and to build together. In this situation the participants are allowed to do unpaid construction works.

Bottom-up or top-down initiated

Housing co-operatives generally can be initiated top-down as well as bottom-up. All of the chosen case studies are bottom-up initiated but they had top-down sup-port. The A52 in Berlin had no public support and it is 100% privately realized and maintained. The other projects had public support in the realization process and in the maintenance too. There are subsidized flats in the Sargfabrik that shows that in Vienna the municipality has a very strong influence in the housing sector. For a more diverse community the support is necessary. Private “investors” couldn’t afford to realize a socially sensible project. A project that would be very important for a healthy city.

In Budapest there are no top-down strategies to support projects like the case stud-ies so the first initiatives should be bottom-up initiated. There are a few districts with local municipalities that already support similar bottom-up initiatives and social housing developments. According to this it is possible that they would help in the realization of a new housing co-operative. The size of a community also influences the bottom-up / top-down process. It is very hard to realize a 100% bottom-up project if there are too many participants.

Figure 195 Top-down or bottom-up - Case study 1-4

Figure 196 Top-down or bottom-up - Ideal project

107

Proposal - Pilot case study in Budapest

| | 7 Proposal - Pilot case study in Budapest

The final goal of the thesis - as it was already mentioned - and the first step of further researches and works is to describe a proposal that could be used to start housing cooperative developments in Budapest. The proposal shows the advan-tages of a housing co-operative and describes the first steps that are essential to establish this housing form in Hungary.

Figure 197 Sustainable development

109


| | | 7.1 Pilot case study – Ideal project, Budapest (H)


Basic data

Location: Hungary, Budapest, 8th districtDevelopment: 2013-Situation: block perimeter development (infill)Legal form: housing co-operativeResidents: 12x3xY – depends on the number of members, potential support and the propertySite area: not defined yetNumber of floors: not defined yetGross floor area: not defined yetDensity: not defined yetLiving area net: not defined yetPublic and community area: the community’s decisionOpen spaces: inner courtyard, roof terraceSize of dwellings: different sizes for the different householdsTotal construction costs: max. average market price (minus the profit)Construction costs per m2: -Parking: 0Bike parking: min. 1 per tenant

Figure 198 Illustration of the community

Figure 199 Budapest



Figure 202 The potential properties

110

Living Democracy

The story (fictiv)

The story of this housing co-operative started after the economic crisis in 2013. It was initiated by a few committed people mostly in the age of 30-40. Their goal was to realize a community-oriented housing co-operative that deals with social, cul-tural, economic and ecological quesions. A community that functions on demo-cratic basis and where every tenant can initiate new developments. An ideal housing co-operative should be bottom-up initiated and independent from political and market-oriented processes but can be supported by the government or the local municipality.In the following chapters the different levels such as economic,… are going to be described. What would be important in a case of an ideal housing co-operative?


Financial support

Although the project is bottom-up initiated and tries to be independent from top-down developments and from the political movements it is important to co-operate with them. The initiators and the members of the community have to discuss the potential possibilities with the local municipality.The local municipality doesn’t have too many empty plots but it has several build-ings (they are in very bad conditions but renewable). It is possible that the munici-pality gives a half-empty building to the co-operative if it renovates it and the cur-rent tenants could stay there. At the moment these flats are social flats (the rents are ¼ of the market price) but the municipality doesn’t have the financial background to renovate them. This co-operation would be good for the municipality as well as for the new housing co-operative. The new community’s goal should be to integrate the current tenants (they are mostly gipsy families with low incomes or with social support) into the society. This co-operation would generate social diversity. With-out the local municipality’s help the community has to buy an empty plot in the district. The current real estate-prices are low so it would be a good moment to buy a plot from a private investor. 137

Affordability

The initiators, members can figure out the communal goals together in the first phase. What does affordability mean for them, what is the quality they can afford? The social and spatial diversity generate a “diverse affordability” too. The smaller apartments could be affordable for the tenants with lower incomes and the bigger flats with more rooms for the tenants with better economic background.

137 Data based on the interview with DLA György Alföldi, June 17, 2013.

Figure 203 Potential building (illustration)

Figure 204 Potential building’s courtyard (illustration)

111



Social diversity

Although a few committed people can initiate a housing co-operative it is a very important common goal to realize a diverse community. The community should have tenants with different economic, social and cultural background. This social diversity could also help the self-management with the different knowledge the ten-ants have. It could be a goal already in the first phrases to have the diversity but the tendencies show that for the people with disabilities the participation is very hard in the initiating process.

Diverse households

With the spatial diversity the households could be mixed. From one-room apart-ments to 3-4 room flats and shared flats could be realized. These diverse house-holds could help each other in different ways which is also a positive social aspect.


The social diversity can help to realize a cultural diversity too. People with different background could learn from each other. An open-minded community could par-ticipate in the cultural life of the neighborhood and could also organize cultural events. A semi-public community space and the inner courtyard could be perfect place for cultural events. These events could be organized by the tenants or by the local municipality. The municipality has several events to integrate the poor house-holds into the society and to help their cultural development.

Pilot project

This first pilot project will be an important model for further similar developments. It means that the results must be published (on several fields and forums) and the community must stay opened to pass over the experiences.

The neighborhood

This new community will be an important model in Budapest as well as its neigh-borhood. It must open to its closer neighbors to generate a discussion about further developments in the area. 1-2 cultural functions could help the community’s inte-gration into the district’s everyday life. The local municipality has several social developments in the neighborhood. One could be situated in this building.

Figure 205 Children’s day 1

Figure 206 Children’s day 2

112

Living Democracy


The private, semi-private and community spaces have the same importance. The staircase and the corridors are important community spaces.

Location – the neighborhood

Where should the co-operative be? In the city center, in the suburb, ...?! Sustain-ability could be a goal. To use the existing resources is an important issue in this case. There are several empty plots or empty buildings in Budapest that could be used: to build a new building as well as to reorganize the existing ownership, man-agement, ... structure.The 8th district is a potential location for this project. The area had and still has several rehabilitation projects and the local municipality could be a very good part-ner to realize this pilot project. The unemployment rate is high and the social diver-sity is quite strong. There are central areas in the district with urban palaces and there are also “rental” areas which were built for workers in the beginning of the 20th century. 85,173 citizens live on the 6.85 km2. This is the 9. most populated district in Buda-pest. There are universities, hospitals, several monuments and important public institutes in the district.

Structure

How should the building structure look like to make it possibly flexible? The build-ing should be built for more than 100 years, but the functions could change in every 30-40 years. The old buildings in the city center are more flexible than the buildings from the 1950-80’s (panel blocks, ...).

Participation – not just the process must be good but the building too!

Space organizational structure

Different architectural structures could generate different usage. The common spaces would have a very important rule in the everyday life of a co-operative. (e.g. Kraftwerk1 – Heizenholz the community terrace). In the inner city of Budapest the multi-family house with inner-courtyard is the typical housing typology. In this type the flats are connected with an outdoor gallery and with one staircase. This structure (like in the Sargfabrik) can create a flexible floor plan. The size of the pilot project could define the flexibility and diversity of the building.

Figure 207 The 8th district in Budapest

Figure 208 The outdoor gallery

113


Figure 209 Cross section (illustration)

Figure 210 Longitudinal section (illustration)

Figure 212 General floor plan (illustration)

Figure 211 Ground floor plan (illustration)

114

Living Democracy

Community spaces

The community spaces and their organizational structure is a very important task that the future tenants have to figure out in the beginning. Shared-facilities (com-mon laundry, community garden, roof terrace, common library, ...etc) and semi-public spaces (multifunctional rooms - that could be rented out) could be these community spaces. These spaces could be situated on the ground floor and on the basement floor. Thanks to this the upper floors (the staircase and the outdoor gal-leries) could stay semi-private.

Energy

The current European Union financial support system (funds for building renova-tion to increase the energy-efficiency) would be useful for an existing building’s renovation. The isolation, central heating system could be renovated to suit to the current norms.


Common goalsIt is very important for the community to define their common goals in the begin-ning. This could be: sustainability, social issues, affordable housing, community living, to live in the city center, to create their own suitable home, living and work-ing, social integration, … etc.

Bottom-up initiatives

The residents not just live in the co-operative but they are also important part of the process. They can participate in the development and they can also initiate new interventions. It could be a “cinema night” once a week, a community garden on the rooftop or an art exhibition in the stairway.

Democratic structure - vote

“One member, one vote” is a very important basic rule of the housing co-opera-tives. 50% + 1 vote is needed for the decision making.

Self-management and leadership

The management should be changed in every 2-4 years to provide the democratic structure of the organization.

Self-help

Although the participatory design is a quite new phenomenon in Hungary there are several good examples for it. In the 8th district there are more and more bottom-up initiated developments and there are also top-down developments with participa-

Figure 213 The tenants are rehabilitating a communal garden in the 8th dis-trict

115


tory processes. The local municipality tries to rehabilitate the district with the local people’s help. The self-help has more positive aspects. In one hand it reduces the costs while the participants can do several things themselves and in the other hand it brings the participants together. In housing rehabilitation projects where the ten-ants took part in the process the maintenance was much easier and the conditions of the building stayed much better after years than in the projects without participa-tory process.

Shared facilities

Shared facilities are important topic for the future tenants. What are those facilities that they would like to share with the others? If they share facilities they can reduce the costs. Sometimes it seems a very small thing but these facility-shares are often more about the community than the money. A community laundry could reduce the costs as well as could create a small community space where the neighbors could meet and have small discussions. These shared facilities could be the internet, wash-ing machine, community spaces, garden, terrace, … etc.

Ownership structure

The community would funcition as a housing co-operative that owns the whole building. and the residents are renters.

Organigram

Members

Everyone can be a member of the co-operative - a natural person as well as a legal person. The members have to pay a membership fee that is a low entrance fee. The members have the right to participate on the annual meetings. All the tenants have

Figure 214 The organigram of the ideal project

116

Living Democracy

to be member in the housing co-operative. They have to pay a membership fee when they enter to the co-operative. The tenants have to pay this fee or the local municipality could also help the poor households with this assistance.

Tenants

Tenant can be anyone who is a member of the co-operative. The common goals help to find tenants with similar interest.Working groups

The working groups organize everyday life of the co-operative. Their job is not as defined as the board members’ (that is defined in the Housing Co operative Law) but their work is also very important. They are responsible for the social and cul-tural life of the community. They organize the community events, cultural and social movements. These smaller groups also have a democratic structure. Working group could be a weekly organized cooking club, a gardening group, an art group (that is responsible for the “exhibitions” in the staircase), …etc.

Board membersThe board members are tenants. They are responsible for the management of the co-operative. They four times per year. They are dealing with the financial, organi-zational and maintenance questions of the community and the building.

Publicity

It is very important for the success of this pilot project to have a wide acquaintance. The more people know about this project the more potential it has. It must be well known communally as well as in the different professional fields dealing with hous-ing cooperatives. The community should have manual and digital forums. Digital could be a blog, website, facebook and manual could be a semi-public community space, the local newspapers, events and etc.

Figure 215 Community laundry

Figure 216 The website of the Sargfabrik

117

Conclusions

| | 8 Conclusions

The analysis of the housing co-operatives’s history and the comparison of the case studies show that the community-oriented, bottom-up initiated housing co-opera-tives could be adapted to Hungary. Their were initiated in similar social and eco-nomic conditions as like as the current situation is in Hungary. The lack of rental housing , the bad housing conditions generated a public discussion that initiated these projects. Although the bottom-up initiation and the participatory process is time-consuming the results show that the invested money and energy were worthy. The current Hungarian bottom-up initiatives, social- and cultural movements pro-vide the success of a similar project in Budapest. The realization of a housing co-operative model would be useful for many stake-holders and the model’s publication could share the knowledge with a wider audi-ence. The invested energy could be a long-term invesment for further housing- and democratic developments.

118

Living Democracy

Figure 217 Table of conclusions - Sargfabrik

119

Conclusions

Figure 218 Table of conclusions - A52

120

Living Democracy

Figure 219 Table of conclusions - Dreieck

121

Conclusions

Figure 220 Table of conclusions - Horanszky 1

122

Living Democracy

Figure 221 Table of conclusions - Ideal project

123

Bibliography

| | 9 Bibliography

Anderl, Elisabeth, Jasmin Leb-Idris and Karin Wallmüller. Wohnbau: Alternative: Baugruppen 2008-2010. Graz: Edition HDA, 2010.

Blundell Jones, Peter, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. ed. Architecture and Participa-tion. Spon Press, 2005.

Collymore, Peter. The architecture of Ralph Erskine. Great Britain: Granada Publishing, 1982.

Cameron, Jane, James Thorogood and Dominic Wood. ed. Profiles of a movement: co-operative housing around the world. CECODHAS Housing Europe and ICA Housing, 2012.

Caduff, Christian and Jean-Pierre Kuster. Wegweisend wohnen. Gemeinnütziger Wohnungs-bau im Kanton Zürich an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert. Zürich: Verlag Scheidegger and Spiess AG, 2000.

Faragó, László. A jövöalkotás társadalomtechnikája – a közösségi tervezés elmélete. Buda-pest-Pécs: Dialóg Campus Kiadó, 2005.

Friedman, Yona. Pro Domo. European Union: Actar, Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura, 2006.

Franck, Karen A., and Sherry Ahrentzen. New Households New Housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989.

Freisitzer, Kurt, Robert Koch und Ottokar Uhl. Mitbestimmung im Wohnbau – ein Hanbuch. Wien: Picus Verlag, 1987.

Genossenschaft Dreieck. Das Dreieck. Zürich: Druck Printoset, 2011.

Hamedinger Alexander and Alexander Wolffhardt. ed. 0. Amsterdam: Techne Press, 2010.

Jenkins, Paul; Leslie Forsyth. Architecture, Participation and Society. Routledge, 2009.

Krämer, Stefan and Gerd Kuhn. Städte und Baugemeinschaften. Stuttgart and Zürich: Karl Krämer Verlag, 2009.

LaFond, Michael, Thomas Honeck, Christine Suckow, Paula Mett and Adam Fur-man. ed. and trans. CoHousing Cultures – Handbook for self-organized, community-oriented and sustainable housing. Berlin: id22: Institut für kreative Nachhaltigkeit, jovis Verlag, 2012.

124

Living Democracy

Lepik, Andres and Barry Bergdoll. Small Scale Big Change – New Architecture of Social Engagement. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2010

McCamant, Kathryn, and Charles Durrett. Creating Cohousing – Building Sustainable Communities. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2011.

Meltzer, Graham. Sustainable Community – Learning from the cohousing model. Trafford Publishing, 2005.

Miller, Tyson. ed. Dream of a Nation – Inspiring Ideas for a Better America. SEE Innova-tion, 2011.

Meyrat-Schlee, Ellen and Paul Willimann. Gemeinsam Planen und Bauen. Handbuch für Bewohnermitwirkung bei Gruppenüberbauung. Bern: Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen, 1981.

Jones, Bernie. Neighborhood Planning – A Guide For Citizens and Planners. APA Planners Press, 1990

Orbán, Annamária. “Community action for collective goods. An interdisciplinary approach to the internal and external solutions to collective action problems – the case of Hungarian condo-miniums.” PhD diss., Central European University, 2003.

Pearson, Lynn F. The Architectural and Social History of Cooperative Living. MacMillan Press, 1988.

Simon, Axel. Wohnen in Zürich. Zürich: Niggli AG Verlag, 2006.

Stahel Thomas. Wo-Wo-Wonige! Stadt- und wohnpolitische Bewegungen in Zürich nach 1968. Zürich: Paranoia city Verlag, 2006.

Stadt Zürich und Schweizerischer Verband für Wohnungswesen SVW, Sektion Zürich. Wohnen Morgen – Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven des gemeinnützigen Woh-nungsbau. Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2008.

Sanoff, Henry. Methods of Architectural Programming. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., 1977

Sanoff, Henry. Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000

Somerville, Peter. Understanding Community – Politics, policy and practice. The Policy Press, 2011

Weiss, Daniel. Mehr als Wohnen. Gemeinnütziger Wohnungsbau in Zürich 1907-2007. Zürich: gta Verlag, 2007.

125

Bibliography

Wohnbund. Der dritte Weg im Wohnungsbau – die gemeinnützigen Baugenossenschaften der Schweiz. J. Künzle AG, 2007.

Magazine

Ammann, Priska. “Der Hof.” tec21 6 (2006): 11-13.

“Flexible urban house – ten in one – Berlin 2005.” TBA (2008 / 4): 14-23.

“Housing for a Building Group in Berlin.” Detail (2008 / 9): 968-80.

Spinuzzi, Clay. The methodology of Participatory Design. Technical Communication Vol. 52, Number 2, May 2005: 163-74

“Residential Development in Berlin.” Detail (2012 / 5): 493-99.

Schettler, Ulrike. “Keine Lückenbüsser.” Wohnen 5 (2003): 9-13.

transRedaktion. trans 17 – Partizipation. ETH Zürich, gta Institute, 2010

127

Table of figures

| | 10 Table of figures

1. Introduction- Figure 1 – Exchange rate - http://www.portfolio.hu/img/upload/2013/01/2_28.png - accessed March 1, 2013.- Figure 2 – Number of built flats (1921-2011) –http://www.lakasepitesert.hu/upload/Europanak_aktiv_lakaspolitikara_van_szuksege.pdf - accessed March 1, 2013- Figure 3 – Top-down and bottom-up developments – Oleg Golubchikov and Anna Badyna, Sustainable Housing for Sustainable Cities (UN-Habitat, 2012), 64. - worked up by author- Figure 4 – Flow diagram – by author, 2013

2. General Context2.1 Hungary- Figure 5 - Hungary in Europe - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hu.html - accessed April 21, 2013- Figure 6 - Hungary and its main cities and towns - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CHG2GRbeET8/S-EkRqyDlf I/A A A A A A A APEk/wrha5Sfz1-0/s1600/map+of+Hungary.gif - accessed April 22, 2013- Figure 7 - Treaty of Trianon in 1920 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magyarorszag_1920.png - accessed April 21, 2013- Figure 8 – The existing highway system shows the importance of Budapest - http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t it le=Fájl:Magyarap.png&filet imestamp=20130115180757 - accessed April 21, 2013- Figure 9 – Unemployment rate in 2012 - http://allasok.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/20130301_MTI_G0113.jpg - accessed April 22, 2013- Figure 10 – Exchange rate - http://www.portfolio.hu/img/upload/2013/01/2_28.png - accessed March 1, 2013- Figure 11 - Poverty rate in different households in 2011 –http://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/egyre_tobb_a_szegeny_magyarorszagon.173748.html – worked up by author 2013- Figure 12 - Poverty rate in different ages - http://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/egyre_tobb_a_szegeny_magyarorszagon.173748.html - accessed April 30, 2013- Figure 13 - “Financial dependency” and “poverty rate” in 2010 - http://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/egyre_tobb_a_szegeny_magyarorszagon.173748.html - accessed October 8, 2012- Figure 14 - Decreasing of population in Hungary -http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/nepsz2011/nepsz_sajto_20130328.pdf – accessed April 21, 2013- Figure 15 - Aging rate by female and male - http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/nepsz2011/nepsz_sajto_20130328.pdf - accessed April 21, 2013- Figure 16 - Migration tendencies within the country - http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/nepsz2011/nepsz_sajto_20130328.pdf - accessed April 21, 2013- Figure 17 – Coffee house in Budapest - http://egykor.hu/images/2010/original/budapest-central-kavehaz.jpg - accessed June 18, 2013- Figure 18 – Gypsy musicians - http://www.civishir.hu/upload/news/3/20091106150925.jpg - accessed June 18, 2013

128

Living Democracy

- Figure 19 - Number of appliers for the Hungarian universities per year - http://index.hu/belfold/2013/04/19/15_ezerrel_kevesebben_tanulnanak_tovabb/ - accessed April 29, 2013- Figure 20 - The Danube as an international waterway through Hungary - http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/int/geog/eei/images/rivers/danube/map_danube.gif - accessed April 22, 2013- Figure 21 - The Great Hungarian Plain covers the 56 % of Hungary -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HU_region_1._Alföld.png – accessed April 21, 2013- Figure 22 - Shepherds in 1855 on the “Alföld” - http://mek.oszk.hu/02700/02789/html/img/VIII.jpg - accessed April 22, 2013- Figure 23 – Number of built flats 1921-2011 –http://www.lakasepitesert.hu/upload/Europanak_aktiv_lakaspolitikara_van_szuksege.pdf - accessed March 1, 2013- Figure 24 - Rate of rents in the EU in 2002 – “Uniós Források a lakásügyben 2014-2020” presentation by Zsolt Gunther, September 13, 2013- Figure 25 - The “Ócsa” project in 2012- http://podo-pro.hu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Ócska-telep-anno-2011.jpg - accessed March 11, 2013

2.2 Budapest- Figure 26 – Budapest with its 23 districts - http://www.filolog.com/images/map_budapest_districts.jpg - accessed June 18, 2013- Figure 27 - A postcard from 1919 shows the Danube that divides Buda and Pest - http://daybydaycorrespondence.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hungary-buda-pest-1914.jpg - accessed April 26, 2013- Figure 28 – Location of the different type of housing in the city structure – www.maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 - worked up by author, 2013 - Figure 29 – Type 1 – Inner courtyard - http://emlek-mas.blogspot.ch/2011/08/nosztalgikus-kepregeny-iii.html - accessed March 12, 2013- Figure 30 – Type 1 – Inner city multi-family houses with inner courtyard (purple) - www.maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 31 – Type 2 – Block of flats – https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/35538291 - accessed March 12, 2013- Figure 32 – Type 2 – Block of flats (red) - www.maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013 - Figure 33 – Type 3 – Block housing –https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/86194236 – accessed March 12, 2013- Figure 34 – Type 3 – Block housing (blue) - www.maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013 - Figure 35 – Type 4 – Single-family houses – http://aprod.hu/hirdetes/zugloban-kedves-egyedi-hangulatu-csaladi-haz-elado-IDeaDL.html - accessed July 1, 2013- Figure 36 – Type 4 – Single-family houses (green) - www.maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013 - Figure 37 – Type 5 – New settlements – http://www.wienerberger.hu/külső-falazat/porotherm-téglából-épült?pn=2&lpi=-1 - accessed March 12, 2013- Figure 38 – Type 5 – New settlements (yellow) - www.maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013

129

Table of figures

- Figure 39 - Sold types of housing in 2007 - http://mfor.hu/cikkek/Kelendo_e_ingatlana____Keresett_lakastipusok_es__meretek.html?mobileLayoutSelected=0 - accessed April 23, 2013- Figure 40 - Sold used housing in 2007 - http://mfor.hu/cikkek/Kelendo_e_ingat-lana____Keresett_lakastipusok_es__meretek.html?mobileLayoutSelected=0 - accessed April 23, 2013- Figure 41 - Sold new housing in 2007 - http://mfor.hu/cikkek/Kelendo_e_ingat-lana____Keresett_lakastipusok_es__meretek.html?mobileLayoutSelected=0 - accessed April 23, 2013- Figure 42 - Sold used housing by size in 2007 - http://mfor.hu/cikkek/K e l e n d o _ e _ i n g a t l a n a _ _ _ _ K e r e s e t t _ l a k a s t i p u s ok _ e s _ _ m e r e t e k .html?mobileLayoutSelected=0 - accessed April 23, 2013- Figure 43 – Block housing rehabilitation - http://minalunk.hu/leadkepek/500lead2387.jpg - accessed April 25, 2013

3. Housing co-operatives in Budapest3.3. Housing co-operatives in Hungary- Figure 44 – The community of the collective house - http://epiteszforum.hu/miskolci-kollektiv-haz-19791989 - accessed April 25, 2013- Figure 45 – The “Magház” project - http://maghaz.com/ - accessed October 2, 2013- Figure 46 – The Condominium of the Year in 2000 - https://www.facebook.com/p h o t o . p h p ? f b i d =1 0 1 5 0 8 7 6 9 5 8 0 9 2 9 6 7& s e t = p b . 17 9 0 9 6 0 9 7 9 6 6 . -2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 47 – Critical mass in Budapest - http://www.flickr.com/photos/magyarda-vid/3462788756/sizes/m/in/photostream/ - accessed June 27, 2013- Figure 48 – Community garden in Budapest’s 8th district - http://kozossegikertek.hu/galeria/zoldsegszureti-mulatsag-a-leonardo-kertben/ - accessed May 29, 2013- Figure 49 – The vacant city’s New York model - http://kek.org.hu/lakatlan/en/kutatas/terkepezes/vacant-nyc/ - accessed June 27, 2013- Figure 50– “Collective market” in Budapest - https://www.facebook.com/photo.p h p ? f b i d = 4 5 4 4 0 9 8 0 1 3 0 9 2 7 7 & s e t = p b . 3 9 4 0 9 7 2 6 7 3 4 0 5 3 1 . -2207520000.1369833418.&type=3&theater - accessed May 29, 2013- Figure 51 – “Fogasház” project in Budapest - http://www.litera.hu/files/article/Fogasház%20vezér.jpg - accessed April 25, 2013- Figure 52 – The interior of the “Fogasház” - http://www.estek.pluralica.eu/upload/image/fogashaz_bent.jpg - accessed April 25, 2013- Figure 53 – The 8th district in Budapest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_budapest_district_8.jpg - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 54 – The 8th district - http://calabriaetterem.hu/spg/662689/Szallitasi_terulet_89101419_ker_terkeppel - accessed June 28, 2013- Figure 55 – Public art - http://meonline.hu/magyar-epitomuveszet-hirek/etudok-kozterhasznalatra…/ - accessed June 28, 2013- Figure 56 – The “Corvin” project - http://www.textilwirtschaft.de/business/Corvin-Atrium-Center-in-Budapest-eroeffnet-_66761.html - accessed June 28, 2013

130

Living Democracy

4. Housing co-operatives in Europe- Figure 57 – Periods of community oriented developments – Roland Burgard, Standards der Zukunft – Wohnbau neu gedacht (Springer, 2008), 23.4.1 The history of housing co-operatives- Figure 58 – New Lanark 1800-1825 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Lanark_buildings_2009.jpg - accessed May 4, 2013- Figure 59 – Communal kitchen in a co-operative housekeeping in 1905 - http://publ i sh i ng.cd l ib .org/ucpressebooks/v iew?docId=f t6 j49p0 wf ;chu nk .id=d0e2515;doc.view=print - accessed June 18, 2013- Figure 60 – Owenite community - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Har-mony_by_F._Bate_(View_of_a_Community,_as_proposed_by_Robert_Owen)_printed_1838.jpg - accessed May 6, 2013- Figure 61 – Chartist Land Company - http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1528261 - accessed March 20, 2013- Figure 62– The plan of Phalanstere by Fourier - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Phalanstère.jpg - accessed May 6, 2013- Figure 63 – The realised Familistere by Godin - http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Familistère_1.jpg&filetimestamp=20060922195249 - accessed May 6, 2013- Figure 64 – Courtyard of the Familistere - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_d7VpN-Hi5Lo/SZElk85a4qI/AAAAAAAAC-8/8HAZLaNczxw/s400/familistère1.JPG - accessed May 6, 2013- Figure 65 – The kindergarten of the Familistere - http://www.histoire-image.org/photo/zoom/pin5_anonyme_003f.jpg - accessed May 6, 2013- Figure 66 – Plan of the first floor of an associated home described by E. V. Neale - Lynn F. Pearson, The Architectural and Social History of Cooperative Living (MACMILLAN PRESS, 1988), 30.- Figure 67 – A published co-operative home - Lynn F. Pearson, The Architectural and Social History of Cooperative Living (MACMILLAN PRESS, 1988), 35.- Figure 68 – Letchworth co-operative housing in Homesgarth by A. Clapham Lander, Architect – http://cashewnut.me.uk/WGCbooks/popup.php?title=Co-operative%20houses - accessed March 21, 2013- Figure 69 – Inner courtyard - http://cashewnut.me.uk/WGCbooks/popup.php?title=Homesgarth%20quadrangle - accessed March 21, 2013- Figure 70 – Plan of the “Amerikanerhaus” in Zürich-Wiedikon – Karen A. Franck and Sherry Ahrentzen, New Households New Housing, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989), 57.- Figure 71 – Facade of the “Amerikanerhaus” in Zürich-Wiedikon – Karen A. Franck and Sherry Ahrentzen, New Households New Housing, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989), 57.- Figure 72 – Heimhof in Vienna - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heimhof2.JPG - accessed June 28, 2013

4.2 Co-operatives in different European Countries4.2.1 Austria- Figure 73 – Austria in Europe - http://www.worldatlasbook.com/images/maps/europe-map-political-countries.jpg - accessed June 7, 2013

131

Table of figures

- Figure 74 – W:A:B exhibition of building groupsin Graz – http://www.gat.st/sites/default/files/imagecache/Vollbild/images/wab-wohnbaualternativebaugrup-pen_gat_ausstellung-gemeinsam-bauen.jpg - accessed June 29, 2013- Figure 75 – Participatory design – Kurt Freisitzer et al., Mitbestimmung im Wohn-bau – ein Hanbuch (Wien: Picus Verlag, 1987), 251.- Figure 76 – Ancient and new, old and young meet in the “Aegidienhof” project in Lübeck - http://www.luebeck-info.com/sehenswuerdigkeiten/aegidienhof_mehr.html - accessed June 3, 2013- Figure 77– Vienna in Austria - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/au.html - accessed June 7, 2013

4.2.2 Germany- Figure 78 – Germany in Europe - http://www.worldatlasbook.com/images/maps/europe-map-political-countries.jpg - accessed June 7, 2013- Figure 79 – A multi-generational community - Michael LaFond et al., ed. and trans., CoHousing Cultures (Berlin: jovis Verlag, 2012), 36-37.- Figure 80 – Berlin in Germany - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html - accessed June 7, 2013- Figure 81 – The “Friedrichswerder” building community project in Berlin - http://archimag.de/11fragenan/2010/architekturfotograf-rick-jannack/ - accessed June 30, 2013- Figure 82 – The “Friedrichswerder” townhouse’s sketch - http://www.architonic.com/aisht/townhouse-am-friedrichswerder-wiewiorra-hopp-architekten/5100781 - accessed June 30, 2013

4.2.3 Switzerland- Figure 83 – Switzerland in Europe - http://www.worldatlasbook.com/images/maps/europe-map-political-countries.jpg - accessed June 7, 2013- Figure 84 – Net rent per flat per month in Switzerland - Wohnbund, Der dritte Weg im Wohnungsbau – die gemeinnützigen Baugenossenschaften der Schweiz, ( J. Künzle AG, 2007), 6.- Figure 85 – Change of households in Switzerland - Wohnbund, Der dritte Weg im Wohnungsbau – die gemeinnützigen Baugenossenschaften der Schweiz, ( J. Künzle AG, 2007), 4. - Figure 86 – Zürich in Switzerland - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sz.html - accessed June 7, 2013

4.2.4 Hungary - Figure 87– Hungary in Europe - http://www.worldatlasbook.com/images/maps/europe-map-political-countries.jpg - accessed June 7, 2013- Figure 88– Housing co-operative or condominium – by author based on the inter-view with Tamás Farkas (President of “LOSZ” - www.losz.hu), June 17, 2013.

5. Case studies5.1 Sargfabrik- Figure 89 – The residents of the Sargfabrik - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 9, 2012

132

Living Democracy

- Figure 90 – Vienna - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 91 – The district - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 92 – The neighborhood - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 93 – The “Sargfabrik” - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 94- Bird’s eye view - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 95 – One of the courtyards - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed Novem-ber 26, 2012- Figure 96 – Community event in the garden - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 97 – One of the gardens - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 98 – Vienna and the 14th district - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Vienna_subdivisions_(14).svg - accessed June 4, 2013- Figure 99 – Penzing the 14th district - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penzing_bezirksteile.png - accessed June 4, 2013- Figure 100 – The population’s change since 1869 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/timeline/709713d78b18cb074cb8f54e0d620d29.png - accessed June 4, 2013- Figure 101 – The common gallery, access to the maisonettes - http://www.sarg-fabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 102 – General floor plan - Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 279.- Figure 103 – Ground floor plan - Oliver Elser, Michael Rieper und Künstlerhaus Wien. Wohnmodelle – Experiment und Alltag. (Wien - Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2008), 278.- Figure 104 – Sargfabrik cultural center - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 105– Bathing house - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 106 – Seminar room - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 107– Children’s house - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 108– Café and restaurant - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012- Figure 109– Roof garden - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed November 26, 2012

5.2 A52-Figure 110 – The view from their rooftops - http://www.roedig-schop.de/neubau.html# - accessed November 26, 2013

133

Table of figures

- Figure 111 – Berlin - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 112 – The district - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 113 – The neighborhood - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 114 – The A52 - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 115 – Participatory design – “Housing for a Building Group in Berlin,” Detail (2008 / 9): 972.- Figure 116 – The garden – “Housing for a Building Group in Berlin,” Detail (2008 / 9): 971.- Figure 117 – The staircase – “Housing for a Building Group in Berlin,” Detail (2008 / 9): 980- Figure 118 – The roof terrace with the guest apartment - “Housing for a Building Group in Berlin,” Detail (2008 / 9): 979.- Figure 119 – The district in Berlin - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Mitte - June 5, 2013- Figure 120 – Ground floor plan – “Flexible urban house,” TBA (2008 / 4): 16- Figure 121 – First floor and general floor plan – “Flexible urban house,” TBA (2008 / 4): 16- Figure 122 – The sketch of the flexible floor plan – “Housing for a Building Group in Berlin,” Detail (2008 / 9): 972- Figure 123 – The roof floor plan – “Flexible urban house,” TBA (2008 / 4): 16- Figure 124 – The “flexible” façade – “Flexible urban house,” TBA (2008 / 4): 15- Figure 125 – The section – “Flexible urban house,” TBA (2008 / 4): 16

5.3 Dreieck- Figure 126 – The housing group of the Dreieck - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=5# - accessed February 5, 2013- Figure 127 – Zürich - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author,2013- Figure 128 – The district - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 129 – The neighborhood- https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 130 – The Dreieck - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 131– A shop in 1986 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 132 – Birds eye view in 1986 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 133 – The competition model with the 2 new housing in 1987 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=11 - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 134 – Facade of the new project in 1987- http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 - accessed May 20, 2013

134

Living Democracy

- Figure 135 – Fights in 1987 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 136 – The inhabitants in 1990 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 137 – “Attention! Inhabited area” in 1987 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 138 – Festival in the Dreieck in 1990 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 accessed May 20 2013- Figure 139 – June 1990 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 140 – Dinner in the canteen in 1997 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=16 - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 141 – New roof terrace - Ankerstrasse 12-16 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 142 – New balconies - Ankerstrasse 12-16 - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 143 – New additional staircase - Gartenhofstrasse 31 - http://www.dasdrei-eck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 144 – The guest room - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 145 – Communal laundry for the whole triangle - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=23&gID=18# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 146 – The canteen - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 147 – The most representative corner of the Dreieck – photo by the author 2013- Figure 148 – General floor plan - Ankerstrasse 6. - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 149 – General floor plan with two flats - Zweierstrasse 56. - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 150 – General floor plan - Zweierstrasse 50. - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 151 – The exterior staircase and the communal roof terrace - Zweierstrasse 50. - http://www.swiss-architects.com/projects/projects_detail/23550 - accessed May 26, 2013- Figure 152 – Neutral living area in a flat - Zweierstrasse 50. - http://www.swiss-architects.com/projects/projects_detail/23550 - accessed May 26, 2013- Figure 153 – One flat per floor - Zweierstrasse 48. - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 154 – The renovation of the existed wooden floor - Zweierstrasse 48. - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 155 – The original floor plan - Zweierstrasse 42. - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 156 – Ground floor plan and general floor plan of the Gartenhofstrasse 27 with the extension - http://www.fahrlaenderscherrer.ch/Projekte/Projekt5/G27.pdf - accessed May 25, 2013- Figure 157 – The additional communal balconies - photo by the author 2013

135

Table of figures

- Figure 158 – General floor plan - Gartenhofstrasse 31. - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 159 – The additional staircase and the small semi-private garden - Garten-hofstrasse 27. - photo by the author 2013- Figure 160 – General floor plan - Ankerstrasse 20. - http://www.dasdreieck.ch/index.php?id=2# - accessed May 20, 2013- Figure 161 – Organigram of the Dreieck – by the author, 2013

5.4 Horanszky 1- Figure 162 – The community of the Horanszky 1 in the garden - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f bid=179105172966&set=pb.179096097966.-2207520000.1369756683.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 163 – Budapest - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 164 – The district - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 165 – The neighborhood - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 166 – The Horanszky 1 - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 167 – The damaged façade after the WW II.- https://www.facebook.com/p h o t o . p h p ? f b i d =1 0 1 5 0 8 7 6 9 5 8 0 9 2 9 6 7& s e t = p b . 17 9 0 9 6 0 9 7 9 6 6 . -2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 168 – The condominium of the year 2000 - https://www.facebook.com/p h o t o . p h p ? f b i d =1 0 1 5 0 8 7 6 9 5 8 0 9 2 9 6 7& s e t = p b . 17 9 0 9 6 0 9 7 9 6 6 . -2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 169 – The corner - Horanszky 1. - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150876958092967&set=pb.179096097966.-2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 170 – The new communal garden - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150559939812967&set=pb.179096097966.-2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 171 – The garden is designed and built up by the residents with profes-sional help - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150876958092967&set=pb.179096097966.-2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 172 – Different ages together - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150876958092967&set=pb.179096097966.-2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 173 – The staircase was the only community space -https://www.facebook.com/photo .php? f b id=10150 876958 092967&se t=pb.179 096097966 . -2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater – accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 174 – Info board about the Bauhaus palace – https://www.facebook.com/p h o t o . p h p ? f b i d =1 0 1 5 0 8 7 6 9 5 8 0 9 2 9 6 7& s e t = p b . 17 9 0 9 6 0 9 7 9 6 6 . -2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013

136

Living Democracy

- Figure 175 – An article about the “cultural center” of the building – https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150876958092967&set=pb.179096097966.-2207520000.1369756598.&type=3&theater - accessed May 28, 2013- Figure 176 – Budapest and the 8th district – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_budapest_district_8.jpg - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 177 – Ground floor plan – by the author, 2013- Figure 178 – General floor plan – by the author, 2013- Figure 179 – Roof floor plan – by the author, 2013- Figure 180 – Organigram of the Horanszky 1 – by the author, 2013

6. Synthesis- Figure 181 – Number of residents – Case study 1-4 – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 182 – Number of residents - Ideal project – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 183 – Common goals - Case study 1-4 – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 184 – Common goals - Ideal project – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 185 – Financial support - Case study 1-4 – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 186 – Financial support - Ideal project – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 187 – Social interaction - Case study 1-4 – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 188 – Social interaction - Ideal project – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 189 – Cultural potential - Case study 1-4 – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 190 – Cultural potential - Ideal project – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 191 – Location - Case study 1-4 – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 192 – Location - Ideal project – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 193 – Spatial diversity - Case study 1-4 – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 194 – Spatial diversity - Ideal project – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 195 – Top-down or bottom-up - Case study 1-4 – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 196 – Top-down or bottom-up - Ideal project – diagram by the author, 2013

7.1 Ideal pilot project- Figure 197 – Sustainable development – diagram by the author, 2013- Figure 198 – Illustration of the community - http://www.netzwerk-generationen.de - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 199 – Budapest - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 200 – The district - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 201 – The neighborhood - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 202 – The potential properties - https://maps.google.com - accessed June 18, 2013 – worked up by author, 2013- Figure 203 – Potential building (illustration) – photo by the author, 2013- Figure 204 – Potential building’s courtyard (illustration) – photo by the author, 2013

137

Table of figures

- Figure 205 – Children’s day - http://www.kesztyugyar.hu/index.php?option=com_phocagal lery&view=detai l&cat id=163:kesztygyri-csaldi-nap-s-gyereknap-2013.-mjus&id=3735:p1020402-fileminimizer&tmpl=component&Itemid=64 - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 206 – Children’s day 2. - http://www.kesztyugyar.hu/index.php?option=com_phocagallery&view=detail&catid=163:kesztygyri-csaldi-nap-s-gyereknap-2013.-mjus&id=3759:p1020483-fileminimizer&tmpl=component&Itemid=64 - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 207 – Budapest and the 8th district – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_budapest_district_8.jpg - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 208 – The outdoor gallery – photo by the author, 2013- Figure 209 – Cross section (illustration) – by the author, 2013- Figure 210 – Longitudinal section (illustration) – by the author, 2013- Figure 211 – Ground floor plan (illustration) – by the author, 2013- Figure 212 – General floor plan (illustration) – by the author, 2013- Figure 213 – The tenants rehabilitating the communal garden in the 8th district - http://hirszerzo.hu/hirek/2008/9/12/79417_rehabilitacio_nyugati_mintara_folytatodik_a - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 214 – Organigram of the ideal project – by the author, 2013- Figure 215 – Community laundry - http://babybooz.com/hirek/jatekbol-mosoge-pbe-rakta-gyermeket - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 216 – The website of the Sargfabrik - http://www.sargfabrik.at - accessed June 25, 2013- Figure 217 – Table of conclusions - Sargfabrik - by the author, 2013- Figure 218 – Table of conclusions - A52 - by the author, 2013- Figure 219 – Table of conclusions - Das Dreieck - by the author, 2013- Figure 220 – Table of of conclusions - Horanszky 1 - by the author, 2013- Figure 221 – Table of conclusions - Ideal project - by the author, 2013

139

Appendix

| | 11 Appendix

Questionnaire – interviews with the case studies’ initiators

- How long did it take to start/initiate the co-operative?- How many people (friends, ...) started it and why(what was the main goal)?- How was the “professinal structure” of the initiators? (the initiators profession) - When did it start to be an interdisciplinary organization?- How big should be an ideal co-operative? How many members?- How did the financial background look like in the beginning? - Should the initiators (first members) invest money to start the process?- What was good/bad, what should/would you do in a different way?- Does your co-operative has any relationship with its surrounding, neighborhood?- Is the community active? Are there any new initiatives in the co-operative since its start?- Was/Is there any top-down support? Political, financial, institutional, ...etc?- Did you have any older examples (existing co-operatives) that you used during the establishment?- What are the most important parameters you have to focus on?- How is the ownership structure? Rents, privately owned, mix?- Is there any target group you would focus on or the member spectrum is wide?- How important are the common goals?- Is the location important or it could be anywhere in the city?- Is everybody active in the co-operative or there is a few percent that is more active and there are also some people who doesn’t do anything?

Questionnaire – an interview with the president of the “LOSZ”

- What advantages and disadvantages do the housing co-operatives have in Hun-gary?- What are the future perspectives of the “LOSZ” and what kind of developments could you imagine?- What kind of positive and negative characteristics do the housing co-operative tendencies have since the fall of the socialism? Do the people find the housing cooperatives a positive or a negative phenomenon?- How good and stable are the legal background of the housing co-operatives? Does it need further developments?- Does the LOSZ co-operate with other institutes? Can you suggest other stake-holders that would be interested in housing co-operate developments?- Why is the housing co-operative better than the condominium? What character-istics (legal, economic, social, cultural) make it better? Why would it be good to transform a condominium into housing co-operative?- If the tenants would like to buy 1 or more flats in the house, which form (condo-minium or housing co-operative) would be better and why?

140

Living Democracy

Questionnaire - an interview with a resident in the Horanszky 1

- What is the community’s organizational and legal form?- How does the voting look like on a general assembly? Do you know any better voting model?- What kind of ideas came to the mind to develop the maintenance and the com-munity? What is already realized and what is not? Why couldn’t it be realized?- Is it possible for the community to buy some flats, retails in the house and rent it out.- Does the community (condominium) have the right of preemption?- Is there anyone who is responsible for the marketing (to rent out the empty flats, retails, ...etc.) of the house or all the flats and retails are in private hand and the community has no legal background to do anything?- Does the community have any common space (communal laundry, communal living room, guest room, ...etc.)? Is there any discussion to create some space for the community? - Does the community think that this legal form is good for itself or there is no discussion about it?- How strong is the community life in the house? Are there people who are always against the new initiatives? Could you realize the new ideas without these people?- Does the community have any communally formulated goal?

M

AS

80

Ben

ce K

omlo

si

L

ivin

g D

emoc

racy

Living Democracy - Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Housing Developments in Budapest - Housing...

Documents

Transcript of Living Democracy - Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Housing Developments in Budapest - Housing...