28 SCIBE | London | Vienna | Reykjavik | Oslo | The World | www.scarcity.is << Continued from page 27
member of a housing corporation, nor are willing to pay higher rents in what is called “Superförderung”.2 Such developments have been associated with the economic crisis from 2008 onwards. Realities in Social Targeting The reality of the housing market, however, reveals a blind spot concerning the social targeting of social housing: one that some actors tend to lack awareness of or even to neglect when stating that the system of housing provision and other accompanying programmes of welfare provide at least shelter to everyone. On the other hand, many actors suggested that there is a low-income group not captured by the current model – a situation that is neither solved by object or subject subsidies. This group comprises citizens with a low income, with a migration background, or working in precarious labour conditions. The situation has been tightened since the 1970s, during which time the share and amount of substandard flats and flatlets in Vienna has undergone a constant decrease, meaning that the private sector has ceased to exist as a provider of affordable (albeit below standard) housing. The result is an ever-increasing tendency towards the cheap and historic stock of Gemeindebauten [public housing], producing a situation in which public housing further loses its prestige in Vienna, thus taking on the twisted image of ‘overcrowded’ and ‘immigrant’ housing in the media. Performance of the System Yet compared to other cities and to residual-based systems of welfare provision in housing, Vienna is reported to show good economic performance, with expenditure of about 1% of the GDP. Again, this is argued with object subsidy and the high share of the total housing stock, both of which regulate rather than merely support the housing markets (as subject subsidies do). Additionally, this condition reputedly allows for fast and far reaching influences on the wider societal scale, due to its direct influence on the built structure through subsidies. Interviewees particularly referred to the fields of economy and ecology, with examples ranging from rent control and job provision to energyconcerns and thermal insulation. Spatial Aspects The spatial distribution of social housing was brought up repeatedly to level out inequalities in a spatial sense. The result is comparatively little socio-geographical segregation over the urban area, and even quite a high mixture of incomes within housing structures when one compares it to international examples. Both are often emphasized as qualities provided by social housing and referred to as one of the main aspects of social housing’s capacities regarding social sustainability. In some of the interviews, however, attention was drawn to the deficiencies in urbanism and planning in Vienna - particularly those concerning strategies and planning goals - that no housing, whatever its quality, can level out. Vienna’s public and social housing is considered to be urban and to have an influence on the interface between the buildings and the public space. Still, the quality triggered by housing schemes in the urban landscape is limited. A lack of urban and public quality has repeatedly been associated with the system of housing production and with its subsidy model. Since subsidies would be targeted programmatically – i.e. housing subsidies focus particularly on housing – developers are not obliged to think about an interface between urban and public space; the housing scheme, therefore, often results in mute architecture. Even though a mixed use is stipulated and favoured by all interviewees, therefore, it has hardly been achieved so far. While several interviewees involved in planning have underlined their concern about the importance of structural programmatic openness provided by design, they also brought up the need for other tools and aspects for attracting programmes other than housing. The current situation, as one interviewee put
it, generates urban monoculture rather than the qualities of a city. A Regulative and Intervening Practice The model of housing provision is described as highly regulated and one in which local authorities take a central role. While all actors interviewed would support municipal intervention in markets (which is what led to social housing in the first place), the model of social housing provision in Vienna as such was accused of being overregulated. A commonly raised topic in the interviews was standards in planning and construction: on the one hand the concurrence of high standards and planning requirements and on the other the limits of subsidies in allowing for little to no flexibilities in planning. The requirements are advocated by the municipality, who justify these with technical requirements and the high social standard of the model that aims to be adequate for all. A minor topic raised in the interviews was the financial advantages of limited profit housing cooperatives (LPHC)3. However these advantages seem to be minimal since the opening towards commercially oriented developers and the introduction of developers’ competitions in the 1990ies. Their added value, however, is limited, as profit shares have to be reinvested into the housing cycle through maintenance or new constructions. For the housing provision in Vienna, LPHCs have been indispensable. Housing, as one interviewee stated, is an untypical product and the “free” housing market is a theoretical hypothesis. Free housing markets do not necessarily produce affordable housing or satisfy demand; rather, they orientate around maximizing gains and shares. Contrarily, limited profited housing associations, and municipal intervention in general, have both contributed to the provision of dwellings for a large section of society within an affordable price range, and thus have brought long-term stability to the housing market in Vienna. The consensus on keeping social housing is shared by all parties; critique is, above all, expressed from outside. The European Union was said to conceptualize housing primarily as a market, where competition is to be fostered. In order to maintain the current model of social housing provision, one interviewee drew attention to the need to raise awareness of public interventions in the market. In its function of levelling out inequalities, social housing is argued to be a service of general economic interest. Nevertheless, all interviewees were optimistic that the Viennese model could sustain minor changes and adaptations. Economic Situation since 2008 As many have suggested in the interviews, social housing must not be reduced to the function of simply providing shelter. Due of its entanglement in the processes and machinations of society, it is necessarily involved in the overall situation of the city. It is embroiled in fields as various as ecology and economy. The system of social housing is seen to have had a positive influence on the economic situation since the beginnings of the financial crisis in 2008. The broad stock of regulated housing is said to have helped to stabilize the local economy and to prevent or cushion major speculations and raises in rents, as has happened in other places. On the other hand, the continuing discharge of object subsidies has served to foster the building industry and thereby to counteract economic recession on a local level. Changing Challenges Some interviewees drew attention to the broad social rearrangements in the population. Changes in work and life such as increasingly unstable labour conditions, shifts in cohabitation and family constellations have led to an ever-increasing diversification of lifestyles and situations, which are deemed atypical to the existing welfare system at work. Real estate markets are already challenged with a changing tenure-structure that shows higher flexibility and mobility. It has been underlined, however, that such flexibility relates in large part to financial insecurities and inconsistencies