4 minute read
Yugoslav dream: hybrid way of living, between individual and collective
from The Yugoslav Dream
by AA School
emphasised the need for greater enforcement of self-financing in the housing sector. With the changes in the housing legislation, a new way of financing housing construction began to be introduced - the construction of housing for the market.25 Municipal funds have since 1959 increasingly become the primary source of social funds for housing construction. Their establishment formed a material basis for mass housing construction. At the beginning of the 1960s, the number of newly built dwellings increased, but social housing was still in short supply. Therefore, many solved their housing problem on their own. Due to favourable consumer loans, the number of detached single-family houses in the Slovenian suburbs grew immensely (in the 60s, 25% of Slovenes lived there; by the 70s, 40%).26
25. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 52.
26. Malešič, “Pomen skandinavskih vplivov,” 46.
27. In 1966, such construction accounted for one-third of all housing construction.
28. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 52.
29. Mandič, Stanovanje in država, 137-138.
30. They raised funds, mainly through rents from publicly owned ‘social’ housing and the general ‘solidarity programme’ tax at 1.65% of gross income.
iii. 1965-1972: Market-oriented housing construction
With the economic reform of 1965, housing construction financing changed - concluding a uniformly managed housing policy. Labour organisations and individuals took over the main burden of housing finance. There has been a further decentralisation of competencies, shifting from state to non-state organisations, to banks that took over commercial housing loans and companies that have taken over responsibility for providing their employees with loans and rental housing. Construction companies began to decide on the volume, quantity, and price of housing built and sell them freely.27 The distinctly economic logic in solving the housing problem showed shortcomings, such as the extremely high density of land use and the declining interest in the simultaneous construction of accompanying activities.28 The social side of housing policy has thus disintegrated. It was not relaunched until between 1972 and 1981 when solidarity housing emerged.29
iv. 1972-1985: Socially directed housing construction
After the housing sector reform in 1972, housing policy was directed through municipal self-governing housing interest communities.30 Through them, labour organisations participated in formulating policies and social and spatial planning. They ensured direct communication between municipal institutions, construction companies, and “buyers or co-investors” (regulated the demand for and the supply of housing) and funded the solidarity-housing program. The program was a supplement to labour organisations, aimed at those that could not benefit from “employment benefits” (the unemployed, disabled, young families).
Due to increasing economic problems and decreasing contributions to housing funds, which became optional at the end of the 80s, social housing construction began to decline. The self-governing housing policy model lost support and legitimacy as it failed to eliminate social inequalities in accessing housing. It was depleted in value and financial resources31. With the support of commercial housing loans, self-construction became the predominant way of accessing housing.32 This strengthened the “informal housing system”, especially during the crisis. A significant consequence was suburbanisation.33
31. Companies did not adjust their interest rates on employee loans to the high inflation (inflation rates rose from 30% in 1980 to 130% in 1987)
32. 1984: 17.7% rented an apartment of a labor organisation; 24.6% selfconstructed a dwelling; 2.8% rented a solidarity apartment.
33. Mandič, Stanovanje in država, 142.
34. Martina Malešič, “Od naselja do soseske in od parka do ulice”, in Soseske in ulice: Vladimir Braco Mušič in arhitektura velikega merila, ed. Luka Skansi (Ljubljana: MAO, 2016), 33-44.
v. “Soseska”
In the mid-1950s, criticisms of existing housing construction became increasingly vocal, especially the vagueness of public space, the singlepurpose nature of the so-called “sleeping settlements”, and the inability to form communities in such residential areas. The critique led to two reflections. The first consideration was using spatial forms, which had a historically proven characteristic of a pleasant community environment, such as the street, squares, courtyards etc. The second, and even more critical, was a new topic in urban planning, the idea of a new way of spatial and organisational design of a housing estate, the so-called “residential neighbourhood”.
The concept of the neighbourhood stemmed from the idea that, in cities, it is necessary to create rounded residential settlements, which are at the same time notes of societal and social life. The spatial design of the neighbourhood and its size should promote social contacts and enable the individual to establish their own identity through the identification of the residential environment. More important than the spatial design itself is the program. It must meet the needs of residents and ensure a smooth daily life in the neighbourhood, accessible to pedestrians. The urban design is solely the spatial realisation of such a program. The neighbourhood thus becomes a spatially, functionally, socially, and symbolically complete unit.34