COLLECTIVE REUSE - Co-housing developments in the service of preservation the built heritage

PLACES AND TECHNOLOGIES 2019

COLLECTIVE REUSE – CO-HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SERVICE OF PRESERVATION THE BUILT HERITAGE Babos Annamária1 PhD student, Budapest University of Technology and Economics Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban Planning and Design, Műegyetem rkp. 3. K. II/93, 1111 Budapest, Hungary, annamaria.babos@gmail.com

ABSTRACT Modern cities these days are quite stressful, often unhealthy living habitat, both in a physical and mental way. In the case of urban developments our attitude towards their actual physical and social condition, is an important question. We know many examples of community-based housing development from European cities, where valuable buildings or blocks have been saved while liveable environment has been created.

It is important to recognize the methods and effects o f t hose community-based housing developments that integrate the current built environment. The research method is the analysis examples from Europe. Among these case studies we can find a bandoned s chool o r factory buildings converted to co-housings, or the rehabilitation of a whole downtown block previously sentenced to demolition. Through the analysis it becomes clear that bottom-up initiatives have a positive impact on the neighbourhood and through this on the whole city in a small and a large scale as well. Besides protecting the valuable part of the built environment and also encouraging citizens to act so, these communities organise communal programs, and they teach others to participate in operating and developing their cities. The analysis covers the examination of the environment that gave place to these developments, including the behaviour of local councils towards the communities’ plans either in a supporting or an interfering way. Furthermore it is essential to expound the operating model of these cooperative housings established after the reconstructions, namely what the method is to live in a sustainable way in the long run in these homes constructed in community.

Learning the features of well-functioning projects may h elp u s to acquire West-European practices -integrating built heritage into collective developments- and establish models that are also to well function in Central and Eastern Europe.

Keywords: co-housing, community-based, bottom-up, abandoned buildings, integration

ADAPTIVE REUSE European cities are stressful, often unhealthy living habitat, both in a physical and mental way. In the case of urban developments our attitude towards their actual physical and social condition, is an important question. Recycling old buildings have several advantages, according Zaitzevsky and Bunnell, old buildings physically and socially link us to our past and become a part of our cultural heritage.

Corresponding author

1

117

6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Adaptive Reuse is defined as the process that adapts buildings for new functions while retaining their historic features. From an architectural view the reactivation an d individualization of existing building structure trough new functions is always a big challenge. Adaptive reuse also can be a tool for reducing urban sprawl and contributing sustainable development.

COLLECTIVE HOUSING There are many English terms around the world for this special type of building and living method. The expressions Collective Housing, Co-Housing, C ommon Housing, Co-Habitat and Cooperative housing mean the same. The definition of id22 – Institute for Creative Sustainability is the following: “Cooperative Housing i s a n association of pe ople (co-operators), which cooperatively owns a nd manages apartments a nd common areas. I ndividual members own shares in the cooperative and pay rent which entitles them to occupy an apartment as if they were owners and to have equal access to the common areas.”

The examples of European Co-Housings are becoming more diverse and creative every year.

The buildings and the communities could be really different, inhabitants decide about sharing goals, activities and co mmon spaces. St udies of collective hou sing pro jects are showing us sustainability being practiced and demonstrated. Co-Housing residents typically place emphasis on sustainability. “Sharing economy, sharing social goods, sharing environment” are the three pillars of sustainability; and co-inhabitants provide a good example of this through sharing common spaces, infrastructure, time and other resources.

COLLECTIVE REUSE Collective reuse is defined as the process that adapts buildings for co-housing function while retaining their historic features. We know many examples of community-based housing development from European cities where valuable b uildings o r blocks have b een saved while liveable environment has been created. The methods and effects of those communitybased housing developments that integrate the current built environment are a combination of adaptive reuse a nd t he collective ho using fo rm. Collective reu se is a mixed sol ution for preserving the valuable built heritage, reducing urban sprawl and developing neighbourhood interaction.

Through the analysis it becomes clear that collective bottom-up initiatives have a positive impact on the neighbourhood and through this on the whole city in a small and a large scale as well.

Besides protecting the valuable part of the built environment, they also encourage citizens to act so. These communities organise communal programs, and they teach others to participate in operating and developing their cities.

CASE STUDIES FOR COLLECTIVE REUSE FROM EUROPE Collective reuse of variable buildings There are many examples of community-based housing development from European cities, where valuable buildings or blocks have been saved while liveable environment has been 118

PLACES AND TECHNOLOGIES 2019 created. Among the European case studies we can find abandoned schools or factory buildings converted to co-housings, or the rehabilitation of a whole downtown block previously sentenced to demolition.

The Non-Conventional Housing Units are the renovation of the industrial areas of Poblenou, Barcelona. The project with 29 non-conventional housing are good examples of the rehabilitation of five unused industrial buildings. The building of Fultonia co-housing in Hague was a big stockbuilding, which was waiting for the demolition. The inhabitants have now 14 private residential units and several community spaces.

Figure 1: Left: Non-Conventional Housing Units, Barcelona - photo by: Babos, Annamaria, Right: Fultonia Co-housing, Hague - photo by: Theisler, Katalin

The example from Barcelona and Hague have the same story: The local government decided to demolish the unused buildings, the citizens had the idea to join against the decision and convinced them to let the building used collectively. The spaces were defined by the future inhabitants, they decided about the community spaces and the used materials for renovation.

These buildings are nice examples allowing the user to be part of the history of the building itself and to create a new purpose for it.

Collective reuse of school buildings A special type of reactivation of abandoned building is the collective reuse of an old school, there are many good examples for it in Europe. It is interesting that the age of these building are quite alike, each around 100 years old. Thanks to the same age and function the building structure and the existing floor plans are really similar.

The Grote Pyr (Hague) monumental school building is both used as work and living space, occupied by inhabitants and artists from the neighbourhood, trying to offer something to the community in the Zeeheldenkwartier. Kepplerstraat (Hague) school building was recycled for affordable housing by the support of the city council. Staatschule (Hamburg) unused primary school property ensure now 34 apartments and different community spaces for 87 people. The redundant building of school Alte Schule Karlshorst in Berlin has been transformed into a block of 21 private units; with the aim of creating more affordable homes for local people.

119

Figure 2: Left: Grote Pyr Co-Housing from outside Right: Grote Pyr Co-housing – common spaces - photos by: Theisler, Katalin

INITIATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE REUSE FROM HUNGARY Collective non-residential reuse in Budapest In Budapest, the capital of Hungary, there are many buildings in a bad condition. Generally it is easier for investors to demolish them and build a new ones instead. But with this approach the city could lose more and more valuable buildings. In some cases the inhabitants from the neighbourhood can forbid the dissociation of one building, but it is only a temporary solution.

The key of saving this building would be the adaptive for collective reuse.

Figure 3: Left: Jurányi Incubator House from outside Right: Jurányi Incubator House – inside garden - photos by: streetview

Jurányi Incubator House is a good example of refurbishment an abandoned school building by a self-organized group. The house is located on the Buda side of the city, where theatres could not have been found before Jurányi was opened in autumn of 2012. It is rented from the local government, was renovated by the tenants of FÜGE Productions. 11 theatre, dance companies and several other organizations have found their home in its 6500 m². These and other groups can show their production in a big theatre hall or in a smaller studio. The building contains a coffee shop, an art gallery, an alternative nursery school and a cosy garden. “The house includes Hungary’s probably first set design and costume rental service, and there will also work a set design workshop and a show room.” – writes the website of Jurányi.

120

PLACES AND TECHNOLOGIES 2019

Possibilities in collective reuse of Lőrincz school, Budapest In Hungary - as in other CEE countries - the situation of co-housing is still in its early stage: at present it is getting to know the topic itself, creation of communities, preparation to establish its legal, financial conditions and surveying their market potentials is going on. Community Living Hungary (CLH) is spreading the bottom-up based investor oriented co-housing model in Hungary. Members of CLH help the initiative groups and mentoring pilot projects in Budapest.

Figure 4: Left: Lőrincz school building from outside, Right: Lőrincz school building – inside corridor - photos by: Babos, Annamária

Rákóczi Collective is one of these initiative groups, whom CLH provided mentoring, monitoring and planning support to from 2016-2018. As part of their action, the group examined more than 7 abandoned buildings in Budapest and, with the guidance of CLH, planned the refurbishment of them. Lőrincz school is an old, empty primary school in Újpest (distict IV.), named by the street it is located, in the inner suburb of Budapest. The house was built in 1908, with the style of Hungarian szecesszió (Art Nouveau). The façade to the street has monumental protection that is why this is renovated. The building is owned by the government of the Capital and it is still for sale.

The participatory design process pointed out the difficulties of the adaptive reuse of a school building in January 2017. There could be from 16 to the maximum of 20 apartments in the building and more common spaces on 3 levels, including de cellar. The size of corridors and cellar spaces (one third of the full inside area) results a higher price of the effective usable spaces. This problem could be solved by opening the corridors to the classrooms or make an entrance to the apartments from the garden or other methods, but, on the other hand, these solutions are definitely more expensive. Besides the problems of refurbishing the existing floor plan, there are many questions regarding local Capital and State regulations. For example: residential function requires more parking places placed within the property or in the street; changing the inside court façades is also limited; and, in addition the local government prefers educational function, etc. For these reasons the Rákóczi Collective decided not to move to this building.

121

Figure 5: Left: Participatory design process for Lőrincz school building, Right: Conceptual floor plan for the first floor of Lőrincz school photos by: Babos, Annamária

CONCLUSION - ADVANTAGES OF COLLECTIVE REUSE AND THE POSSIBILITIES IN HUNGARY The well-known examples of adaptive and collective reuse point out that this method is worth for the property owner and user as well. Table 1 shows the benefits of revitalization buildings in a normal and with a collective process. In additional to the owner and the user this method has advantages for the local government, which is collected in different scales on Table 2.

Table 1: The benefits of revitalization buildings in a normal and in a collective way for the owner and the user

Table 2: The advantages of adaptive and collective reuse in different urban scales

122

PLACES AND TECHNOLOGIES 2019 This research collected and pointed out the benefits of collective reuse, analysed one testing project in Budapest. Comparing existing examples from Europe to the Hungarian precedent collective reuse appears a realizable method of evolving a process for the preservation of built heritage. The state and the structure of the abandoned buildings in Budapest are similar, and there are initiative groups as well. Still what is the difference? The examples of Lőrincz School shows that the regulations in Hungary are not flexible enough to easily change the function of a building, and the specific regulations for monumental buildings sometimes prevent the building from renewal. And it is a pity that the local or the Capital government does not support these projects with particular support.

REFERENCES • A rchilovers Non-Concentional Housing Units 2009. Last modified June 6, 2012. Accessed January 5, 2019. https://www.archilovers.com/projects/60414/non-conventional-housingunits.html • Á rkovics, Lilla and Horogh, Petra 2014. “Lakható de lakatlan” építészfórum, Accessed February 19, 2019. http://epiteszforum.hu/lakhato-de-lakatlan • C ommunity Living Hungary blog - Accessed February 20, 2019. http://kozossegbenelni. blogspot.com/ • G agyi, Ágnes, Jelinek,Csaba, Póstfai, Zsuzsanna, Szarvas, Márton 2017. Rákóczi Collective – Alternatives to individual homeownership Accessed February 19, 2019. https:// cooperativecity.org/2017/10/03/rakoczi-collective/ • G erőházi, Hegedűs, Perényi, Szemző 2015. REPLAN - Innovative Solutions to Urban Housing Challenges, p:32-47 • H enehan, Dorothy 2004. Building change-of-use : renovating, adapting and altering commercial, institutional, and industrial properties.

• i d22 – Institute for Creative Sustainability 2012. CoHousing Cultures, Handbook for selforganized, community-oriented and sustainable housing • Jurányi Ház website - http://juranyihaz.hu/ • R ight to build – tool kit – Continental Refurbishment Projects , Accesed: Februrary 19, 2019 https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/case-studies/refurbs-of-old-schools/# • R ing, Kristien, Eidner, Franziska 2013. Self Made City - Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions • Z aitzevsky, Cynthia; Bunnell, Gene 1979. Built to Last: A Handbook on Recycling Old Buildings”. Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology.

123