Workshop 3: The dilemmas of large housing estate

rehabilitation in Central-Europe – in comparison to the

Swedish practice

(The case of Poland, Hungary and Sweden)

Adam Bierzyński, Stanisław Kozłowski, Anna Kosłowska, Éva Geröházi, Christina Siwertsson, Eva Öresjö

1Introduction

Large housing estates in Central-European countries represent a quite substantial proportion of the housing stock: both in Poland and in Hungary the share of estate apartments are approximately 20 per cent nationwide while more than 30 per cent in the big cities. One would think, that this share is minimised in all Western-European countries, but this is not really the case as the share of housing estate units is also significant in Sweden.

In each country estates were built in order to reduce the housing shortage – this goal was met with different results:

  • In Sweden – after the Million Program of 1965-1974 – several apartments became empty that lured the immigrants and the socially weaker population. Today there is a housing shortage in the bigger and middle-sized cities, but as there was a surplus in some periods of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the segregation process in some estates has already started which was enough to result more serious segregation afterwards in some places.
  • In Hungary there is no housing shortage if compared to the number of households and the number of flats, so the continuous construction process in the country may result that there will be empty dwellings in the estates in 10-15 years time.
  • In Poland there is still a crucial housing shortage in spite of the current dynamic housing construction. This fact means that housing estates will remain the core elements of the housing market in the future.

We might say that housing estates in general are very important part of the housing stock in Central-Europe and basically they are not considered to be urban slums. However it does not mean that all estates are in the same position of the housing market. In general the most decisive factor for determining the status of the estate is the starting composition of its residents. Those estates have the worst reputation that housed mostly blue-collar workers or socially selected families when they were constructed. (These are typical estates of the 1960s in Poland and 1970s in Hungary.) In Sweden the above-mentioned estates with a lot of empty flats (during different periodsofthe 1970s, 1980s and 1990s) – that housed immigrants and social priority families afterwards – became segregated parts of the housing stock. These estates are mostly owned by municipal housing companies.

Thus housing estates are not considered to be slum areas in Central-Europe, so the existing national regeneration efforts concentrate mainly on other city parts – mostly the downtown areas. No complex rehabilitation programmes exist on state level for the large housing estates, their problems are mainly seen as the result of inefficient energy consumption. So both in Poland and in Hungary there were state programmes set up to subsidize energy saving interventions – in Poland it used to be a general[1] program for any kind of housing unit, while in Hungary – where it still exists – it was for houses built of industrialised technology. Even if the state does not regard the estate/or panel problem crucial enough, some local municipalities feel the responsibility to take care of their housing estates. (In most cases in Central-Europe local municipalities only own the public spaces, public services in the estates, so they cannot directly influence the physical condition of the buildings. All they can effectively do is to improve the quality of public spaces and services. These activities belong more to the cautious management of the public property rather than planned rehabilitation activity.)

At the same time in Sweden complex rehabilitation of some housing estates began quasi parallel with their construction programme from the end of the 1970s. The first period was represented by more of community work and after that in the middle of 1980s camethe physical upgrading of the buildings and their surroundings to make the estates more attractive for newcomers. (This effort was not successful enough as it was the inhabitant composition that influenced more the actions of the people intending to move to the estates rather than the outlook of the place.) In the 1990s the approach changed to the social treatment of the inhabitants in need, which also turned to be a one-side intervention, as the people who got the assistance moved from the estates as soon as they were trained and educated enough. So it seems, the only effective tool to interrupt this vicious circle is to combine the physical and the social measures.

The possibility to carry out any kind of rehabilitation heavily depends on the management structures available in the estates. There are differences between the three counties concerning the ownership structure of the estate buildings. While cooperatives and condominiums are the institutional forms of management in the estates of Poland and Hungary, there are no condominiums at all in Sweden among the multi-family apartment houses but only cooperatives and municipal buildings.

In general, estate units that were privatised in Central-Europe – regardless whether from municipal, state or cooperative ownership – are in the worst state considering their financial and organizational means, as the formal tenants became owners without having the proper resources to maintain the buildings.

It seems that in Poland, Hungary and Sweden as well, cooperatives represent the most effective form of ownership and management structure, although in each case the meaning of a cooperative is a bit different:

  • Cooperatives in Poland consist of dwellings that are partly owned by private persons and partly rented from the cooperative. The cooperative fulfils the management tasks of the residential building. (However inhabitants can decide on separating their block from the cooperative and forming a condominium.)
  • A cooperative in Hungary only owns the common spaces of the buildings while the dwellings themselves are owned separately by private persons. (The management of the buildings is provided by the cooperative, and the owners pay a fee for the management and the maintenance of the common spaces.)
  • A cooperative in Sweden is a form of ownership and management structure together: The inhabitants own (have bought) their right to live in the dwellings and own the property collectively in a particular non-profit housing association where they take part in the decision making process – such as the monthly fee for covering interests for housing loans and to maintain the property. When selling the dwelling, the member can ask whatever price they wish.

Large cooperatives have a crucial role, as the fewer the number of actors in one estate is, the better the efficiency may be concerning the rehabilitation efforts.

As mentioned above, there are practically no extended, complex rehabilitation processes going on in Central-European housing estates. And the fact that the problems estates are facing are not regarded as requiring imminent state intervention is only one reason. Just as important is the lack of finances. Most cooperatives and condominiums are only able to collect enough common fees from the owners and tenants to maintain the buildings. The owners or tenants of these buildings often only get a very limited financial assistance from the local municipalities, while the state subsidy focuses on the efficient use of energy.

The Swedish case is quite different. In Sweden there have been state and local programmes for estate renewal and rehabilitation from the 1970s. 30-50 per cent of the renovation costs were paid by the state (the rest was paid by the municipality and the housing company) and there were interest free loans available for rebuilding complete Million Program areas with special social and physical problems. (On the other hand the physical standards in Sweden today are nationally regulated and the owners of the estates are responsible for their maintenance.)

The financial situation and possibilities are heavily correlated with the organizational possibilities. If there are only few entities that are able to take loans or coordinate subsidies, than the result will be much more efficient than in case of dealing with thousands of owners in one estate.

What are the most important conclusions of the Swedish way of rehabilitation to the Central-European countries? Firstly one must see, that the Swedish rehabilitation efforts were more like a crisis management from the very beginning. Some estates of the Million Programme became segregated areas in short notice as soon as the housing surplus occurred. The question is in what stage are the estates of Central-Europe? It seems, that both in Poland and in Hungary the housing market still needs the estates and their status is basically not bad – although different estates have different housing market positions. However some estates, mainly the ones with a socially weak inhabitant composition from the beginning, already show signs of partial segregation. Is this enough reason to take preventive measures in order to avoid the further devaluation of such estates? And what should be done? The Swedish pattern showed, that there is a kind of evolution in the interventions applied in the estates. In the first round there was more community work, afterwards or parallel with that the physical interventions became typical followed by more purely social ones, while the current practice is more the combination of the two. Even in this case the social rehabilitation stories are not at all success stories. Rather they are permanent struggles against segregation with the hope of at least stopping any further decline. (In Sweden segregation is partly caused by the substantial inflow of immigrants from the less developed countries. In Eastern-Europe such process has yet to appear.)

If we must evaluate the future rehabilitation chances of the housing estates of Central-Europe, than we might say, that countries with the most condominium units are in the worst position as the organization and financing of complex renovation processes is very complicated with several thousand owners in one estate. A slightly better situation may be observed in countries, where relevant share of the estate buildings are cooperatives, which means that they at least will have the chance to absorb subsidies or assistance in the future if such an opportunity occurs. In order to achieve that, the further privatisation process should be limited. What is frightening after all is that these countries may not have the proper financial resources and the culture of cooperation to apply complex rehabilitation measures when the urgent need for that will appear.

2Poland

2.1Main indicators of housing estates

Large housing estates in Poland have been built since the 1960s. They consist of large scale housing blocks. Since the 1970s they are mostly made of large panel slabs, which are characterised by fast a progressing degradation. Currently, particularly some of them need revitalisation.

In Poland about 8 million people (20 per cent) live in housing estates (in Warsaw 600,000 – 35 per cent). Part of this housing stock needs urgent improvement.

In Warsaw less than 14 per cent of the dwellings are in buildings constructed before 1945. About 41 per cent of the dwellings were built between 1945 and 1970, and approximately one-third – between 1971 and 1988. Thus, about 74 per cent of all dwellings in Warsaw are built after the World War II and before 1989. In the ownership structure 49 per cent of dwellings in Warsaw are owned by housing cooperatives, 29 per cent - are condominiums and 17 per cent - are in communal hands. Housing cooperatives in Warsaw possess about 80 per cent of dwellings from the 1970s and the 1980s.

Ursynów Pn. and Wrzeciono (two estates of Warsaw as an example) present two different types. Ursynów Pn. was built between 1976 and 1981, and mainly consists from 3 to 12-storey blocks made of large concrete slabs. At the beginning this estate had only a housing function and was called the “bedroom of Warsaw”. The service facilities of this estate remained only in plans. From the middle of the 1990s the situation has started to change. The transportation was improved, many schools, shops, several hypermarkets and cinemas have appeared on the estate. Currently, the most important problem is the insufficient number of parking places. The social structure of the estate is dominated by a population with a relatively good educational background. As a result, most of the inhabitants are white-collar workers. In spite of the relatively high status of the inhabitant’s diversification of the socio-spatial structure may be observed. Wrzeciono was built in the 1960s and 1970s, and mainly consists of 4-12-storey blocks made of traditional bricks. At the beginning the community of Wrzeciono housing estate consisted mainly of blue-collar workers working for the steel industry (currently under name Luccini’s Steelworks, located next to the estate). The Wrzeciono estate represents a typical working-class area, organised nearly as patronat estate. Since the middle of the 1990s the social structure of the estate has become diversified by the impoverishment of the working-class inhabitants, the outflow of the better educated people and the appearance of the new gated estates with higher status inhabitants. The crisis in the heavy industry sector resulted that the majority of the inhabitants of the estate lost their jobs. Consequently, Wrzeciono has become an area of high unemployment. Currently 38 per cent of the inhabitants rely on different forms of social benefit. High unemployment and the poverty together with a few opportunities in the labour market generate various pathological problems. In spite of the relatively low social status of Wrzeciono, it attracts better off newcomers, who are all concentrated in the gated communities.

Such a situation does not favour local community integration. Due to the inflow of the new residents the average levels of education and income have increased in Wrzeciono recently, but the differences among the residents also grew. In spite of the changes, the Wrzeciono estate maintains a low position in public opinion.

2.2The goal of the rehabilitation interventions

Polish large housing estates are not the target areas for complex rehabilitation. In spite of the social and physical degradation, they remain permanent and valuable elements of the housing sector in Poland.

Some land in the housing estates belong to the gminas (or cities) and they are managed by different municipal departments (streets, green areas, playgrounds etc.). The maintenance and development of these areas depend on the financial possibilities and the inventiveness of the municipal officials, but it has an impact on the inhabitants. On the other hand, the improvement of physical state of the buildings is the duty of their owners (cooperatives, condominiums and sometimes city authorities).

Consequently, improvement of the quality of life on the estate, which should be the main goal of all these organizations is practically the sum effect of all their activities. The problem is that these actions are often not coordinated.

Generally speaking, the main goals of the housing estate management are both physical and social ones. Among the physical improvements we can distinguish: state of buildings and streets, green and sport areas, park places and other public spaces. The social improvement of the estate embraces, among others, safety, education, health, social participation. However, these interventions may be categorised as the everyday management of the estates rather than any kind of large-scale rehabilitation measures.

There has been no physical modernization of housing estates initiated by a local government. Some communes (gminas) in cooperation with greater cooperatives have tried to improve the quality of life of their inhabitants. Thus, one can list some good examples:
-extension and reinforcement of the police station – buildings, cars, equipment, staff (increase number of police’s patrol);
-intensive fight against drugs, alcohol and crime;
-development of local and long-distance transportation (bus lines, wider streets);
-improvement of the quality of buildings (e.g. exchange of central heating pipes, pipes, gas installation, gutters, improve of condition of lifts, major overhaul, thermo-insulation of buildings);
-increase of the number of services easy to reach from home (grocer’s shops, libraries, bookshops, hairdressers, schools, sport facilities like a gym, a swimming-pool, a tennis hall etc., cinemas, supermarkets etc.) also located in the ground floor of newly constructed buildings;
-taking financial part in exchange of windows in dwellings;
-increase of the inhabitants' activity by establishing cultural institutions, community centres, senior’s clubs, youth clubs;
-social help for poor people;
-rent discount for the poorest households;
-street lighting, building safety crossings often with traffic lights;
-increase of inhabitants' participation in local actions by e. g. organization of special events for inhabitants, competitions between inhabitants like the most beautiful garden;
-improvement of the condition of playgrounds, parks, green areas, local streets;
-improvement of the accessibility for the handicapped;
-make schools' sports field accessible to everyone.
A lot of those actions, like the improvement of the technical conditions of the buildings and the dwellings result that inhabitants more often look after renovated buildings and staircases, because they co-financed the renovation. But we should realize, how many factors influences result of interventions. The same goals and decisions in different estates can bring dissimilar results.

2.3How the management structure influences the chances of rehabilitation