Establishing new housing commons in Vienna in the context of translocal networks

Abstract

We are currently observing an international trend towards the establishment of nonprofit-oriented, collaborative and self-managed housing models. In this respect, ideas have been circulating globally and initiatives mutually interacting. The SchloR and Bikes and Rails syndicate projects in Vienna, the focus of this paper, bear witness to this development. They belong to the Austrian umbrella association habiTAT, founded in 2014 along the lines of the German Mietshäuser Syndikat. Against this background, the present paper explores the ways in which mobilized housing commons are implemented in new locations and the role that translocal networks play in this context. The results of our analysis, which is based on 30, partly network-graph assisted, problem-centered interviews, reveal that the housing projects have made explicit use of translocal networks at national and international scale and that vertical linking is a key condition for those projects today. Moreover, way beyond their own needs, they contribute to set up a translocal European knowledge and expert network.

Keywords:

• Urban commons
• housing policy
• affordable housing
• habiTAT
• translocal networks
• transnational scale
• multiscalarity
• decommodification
• collaborative housing
• policy mobility
• Vienna

Acknowledgements

We owe great thanks to the interviewed housing activists, particularly from Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic for their time and insights. We would also like to thank to David Amacher for supporting the data analysis and to the two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Analysis of CLTs account for a certain exception, although the spatial focus remains on the local or national scale. For example, Moore and Mullins (2013) compared the different scalar forms of support to facilitate the diffusion of CLTs and self-help housing in the UK; however, the focus is only on the national scale of the UK. Thompson (2018) went further to explore the historical development of CLTs in Liverpool through mobile urbanism, amongst others. And Raynor (2018) investigated the process of assembling an innovative social housing project, and how such innovations may be scaled up or scaled out.

2 The differences between the two cases regarding location (peripheral industrial versus central conversion area), housing type (predominantly rehabilitation versus new construction), financing (no public funds versus publicly funded building group) and use (mixed versus housing only) were considered as enrichment to the analyses.

3 For example, the new Smart Wohnen initiative intends to have a positive influence on costs with small,efficient floor plans. As rents are not to exceed €7.50/m² (warm water and heating not included), Vienna is “subverting” the purchase option introduced by the federal government (interview 15, 19). And for the first time since 2004, the City is to initiate 4,000 community housing apartments without self-funding requirements (Gemeindebauwohnungen-NEU program) (Reinprecht, 2017).

4 The revision of the zoning category of subsidizable housing, with which city politics have reacted to increasing land prices in 2018, is to be emphasized. This amendment facilitates price caps in rezoning grassland to building land. With regard to its factual application, the City of Vienna stated that two thirds of the areas in any rezoning effort are earmarked for public housing (wien.at-Redaktion, n.d.).

5 For sustainability reasons, habiTAT and the Mietshäuser Syndikat originally shared the norm to select (and rehabilitate) existing buildings; this has changed, as the number of offered affordable buildings has strongly decreased over the last decade.

6 In the framework of the Wohnheim (residential home) grant category, which is exclusive for Vienna, the communal areas of housing projects are funded with 25% of the construction costs and interest-free loans for nonprofit building can be granted. Created in the 1980s, the cooperative-like Wohnheim originally applied to student hostels and care facilities. In this housing form, a house association consisting of the residents allocates use and occupation contracts to the residents. The most noted examples include the Sargfabrik housing and cultural project and its follow-up projects – three residential homes of Gemeinschaft B.R.O.T (Gruber, 2015). However, there is a relevant limitation in that the residents of these houses are not entitled to benefit from payments for individuals.

7 In the further process, a professionalized representation on websites and dissemination of regular newsletters are equally noticeable, as much as a periodical presence on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

8 At this point, the sometimes difficult distinction between bonding and bridging becomes obvious (Pinto, 2006). The present classification was chosen because crucial new resources could be mobilized through the involvement in translocal networks, although common norms exist and there is homogeneity with regard to diverse sociocultural characteristics.

9 In all conscience, the projects can refer to the Mietshäuser Syndikat as a safe investment, as merely one out of currently 165 projects has failed in its history.

10 The recently implemented building groups LiSA (aspern Seestadt) and Gleis 21 (Sonnwendviertel) also rely on the premises of affordability, solidarity and common property. As part of the WoGen housing project cooperative, the Wohnprojekt Wien is also a common-property project which, however, has restrictions to access due to high deposits. The key reference point is the Sargfabrik, completed in 1996. This project accommodates 112 housing units, hosts concerts and seminars, and has a swimming pool.

11 In his interview, an academic expert also emphasized the “special situation” in Vienna: Unlike the other Austrian states, this city was said to barely have experience with bottom-up strategies, even historically (interview 19). The housing shortage following World War I gave rise to one single example: the Viennese settlers' movement which was quickly smashed thereafter (see also Blau et al., 2019, p. 158).

12 This illustrates a frequent practical problem encountered with so-called “hacked” legal forms, i.e., diverted from its true purpose (Bollier, 2017), for practices of commoning, namely, falling through the cracks of housing promotion (Barthel, 2020).

13 In fact, with Living for Future only recently a new Viennese building group joined habiTAT.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the German Research Foundation DFG. Additional funding by Vienna University of Technology's helped to realize this research paper. We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Fund of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Notes on contributors

Corinna Hölzl

Corinna Hölzl is a PostDoc researcher at the Geography Department of Humboldt-University of Berlin. Her research focusses on the impact of civil society activities in urban space; research topics include citizen participation and social movements, housing policy and housing commons, urban development and urban policy. Since 2017 she has been studying the translocal mobilization of housing commons as part of the research project 'Housing as global urban commons. Strategies and networks for the translocal mobilization of nonprofit housing models' funded by the German Research Foundation DFG.

Dominik Hölzl

Dominik Hölzl holds a Master of Science degree from the Spatial Planning Department at the Vienna University of Technology. He is currently working as a project assistant with the urban renewal project 'Pocket Mannerhatten' at his university's Center for Sociology. His main research topics are urban renewal, participation processes, appropriation of space, housing and decommodification.