Master Thesis »Social mixing & design of physical space in cooperative housing« / SoSe 2020 by Yuliia Zalomaikina

Social mixing and design of physical space in cooperative housing A tale of two innovative projects – Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt by Yuliia Zalomaikina

Examined by Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Christine Hannemann (University of Stuttgart) Prof. Dr. Astrid Ley (University of Stuttgart)

Social mixing and design of physical space in cooperative housing A tale of two innovative projects – Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt A Thesis submitted in the Partial Fulfillment for the Requirement of the Degree of Master of Science in Integrated Urbanism and Sustainable Design by Yuliia Zalomaikina

Examined by Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Christine Hannemann

Prof. Dr. Astrid Ley

Professor of Sociology of Architecture & Housing

Professor of International Urbanism

University of Stuttgart

22/10/2020

Examined by Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Christine Hannemann Professor of Sociology of Architecture & Housing University of Stuttgart

Prof. Dr. Astrid Ley Professor of International Urbanism University of Stuttgart

22/10/2020

Signature

Disclaimer

This dissertation is submitted to University of Stuttgart - Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning (USTUTT) for the degree of Integrated Urbanism and Sustainable Design (IUSD), in accordance to IUSD USTUTT regulations. The work included in this thesis was carried out by the author during the period from March - August 2020. The author confirms that the work submitted is her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. Any disputes regarding the copy right of the content is the sole responsibility of the author. The author holds the right to publish the content in any other format.

22/10/2020 Yuliia Zalomaikina

Signature

Acknowledgements I gratefully acknowledge the funding support received from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) to complete a Master’s degree program at the University of Stuttgart. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Christine Hannemann, whose expertise was invaluable in formulating my understanding of the subject matter. Her motivating guidance has helped me get through the research phase, and her constructive feedback has pushed me to sharpen my thinking. I would also like to thank my second supervisor Dr. Astrid Ley for her enthusiasm, thoughtful recommendations for this work, and attentive support throughout my period of study. The completion of this thesis could not be possible without the help of experts and residents who agreed to be interviewed, and were kind enough to guide me through the projects. In addition, I would like to heartily thank my parents for always cheering me on and being by my side despite the distance. I also wish to acknowledge the immense help of my partner Vlad, who has been my constant support through all the ups and downs, and the full stretch of this process.

Abstract Title of Thesis: Social mixing and design of physical space in cooperative housing A tale of two innovative projects – Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt Submitted by: Yuliia Zalomaikina This study aims to outline how the design of physical spaces addresses social mixing in cooperative housing. Specifically, it investigates planning and design solutions implemented in cooperative housing projects with respect to their capacity to promote social mixing across various spatial scales. To explore the relation between spatial and social dimensions, a combination of qualitative research methods was used – comparative case studies, desktop analysis, interviews, and on-site visits. Given the range of similarities, the cases of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt were selected for comparison as innovative projects that have both introduced social mixing as an objective in their planning and design. Interviews with residents helped capture everyday experiences of living in socially mixed housing projects and relate them to particular spatial offers. On-site observations aided in the crosschecking of information obtained from the interviews. The findings from the research were then categorized and arranged according to key topics that emerged from the data collection. This study illustrates a direct and implied interdependence of the design of physical spaces and social mixing through different spatial situations. It can be said that creating access for a broad range of income and social groups to affordable and high-quality housing opportunities constitutes a foundation for socially mixed residential areas. The research findings present some evidence of an association between the adopted dwellings typologies and residents’ composition. Being highly dependent on the contextual conditions, the spatial organization of housing developments tends to affect the interactivity between residents. The active initiative taken by residents to create opportunities to come together nurtures an environment with scope for exchange amongst residents from different backgrounds, and make use of the common facilities. Besides that, some small-scale design elements hold the capacity to draw the residents’ attention to one another. Key words: social mixing, design, cooperative housing III

Table of Contents 1

Introduction 1.1 Problem statement and research questions 1.2 Structure of the work

1 1 4

Social mixing: framing of research 2.1 The social mix concept, explained – origins and present discourses 2.2 Social mixing as an objective in housing policies and projects 2.3 Spatial scales of social mix

5 5 9 12

Cooperative housing: contextualizing research 3.1 Drive for social mix in cooperatives: from ideas to practice 3.2 Designing (socially mixed) cooperative housing 3.3 Research gap

15 15 19 23

Research design 4.1 Conceptual framework and research focus 4.2 Operationalization 4.3 Research methods 4.3.1 Selection of case studies 4.3.2 Interviews 4.3.3 On-site visits 4.3.4 Limitations and ethical issues

25 26 28 30 31 32 34 34

Overview and introduction of case studies 5.1 Zwicky Sud in Zurich-Dubendorf, Switzerland 5.1.1 Cooperative scene in Zurich 5.1.2 Social mixing concept: ‘Züri-Mischung’ 5.1.3 Location 5.2 WagnisArt in Munich, Germany 5.2.1 Cooperative scene in Munich 5.2.2 Social mixing concept: ‘Münchner Mischung’ 5.2.3 Location

37 39 40 41 42 45 46 47 48

Research findings: Zwicky Sud 6.1 Social dimensions 6.1.1 Residency structure 6.1.2 Motivation 6.1.3 Participation 6.1.4 Face-to-face interaction 6.2 Spatial dimensions 6.2.1 Spatial configuration of the site 6.2.2 Facilities and services 6.2.3 Spaces of encounter 6.2.4 Dwelling diversity 6.2.5 Design elements Research findings: WagnisArt 7.1 Social dimensions 7.1.1 Residency structure 7.1.2 Motivation 7.1.3 Participation 7.1.4 Face-to-face interaction 7.2 Spatial dimensions 7.2.1 Spatial configuration of the site 7.2.2 Facilities and services 7.2.3 Spaces of encounter 7.2.4 Dwelling diversity 7.2.5 Design elements Comparison: Interpretation of results 8.1 Social dimensions 8.1.1 Residency structure 8.1.2 Motivation 8.1.3 Participation 8.1.4 Face-to-face interaction 8.2 Spatial dimensions 8.2.1 Spatial configuration of the site 8.2.2 Facilities and services 8.2.3 Spaces of encounter 8.2.4 Dwelling diversity 8.2.5 Design elements

51 51 51 52 53 55 57 57 60 63 66 70 75 75 75 76 77 79 81 81 84 87 90 94 99 99 99 100 101 102 104 104 106 108 111 114 V

Conclusions

119

10 References

123

11 Appendices

135

List of Figures Image 1: Image 2: Image 3: Image 4: Image 5: Image 6: Image 7: Image 8: Image 9: Image 10: Image 11: Image 12: Image 13: Image 14: Image 15: Image 16: Image 17: Image 18: Image 19: Image 20: Image 21: Image 22: Image 23: Image 24: Image 25: Image 26: Image 27: Image 28: Image 29: Image 30:

The structure of the Master Thesis Key social dimensions for the study of social mix Key spatial dimensions for the study of social mix Conceptual framework of research The focus of research The cases of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt Location of case study projects Zwicky Sud Housing stock in Zurich: green - cooperatives, red - municipality of Zurich, blue - philantropic foundations “Kraftwerk1 sagt Ja zur Vielfalt der Menschen” Location of Zwicky Sud: city-scale perspective Location of Zwicky Sud: neighborhood-scale perspective Development stages of Zwicky-Areal The project’s site plan with regard to developers WagnisArt A backdrop of programs offered by the city of Munich to the housing cooperatives by target groups Location of WagnisArt: city-scale perspective Location of WagnisArt: neighborhood-scale perspective WagnisArt in the context of Domagkpark development Domagkpark, view at the Gertrud-Grunow-Straße View at the Zwicky Sud project Settlement organization Local transport conditions / scale 1: 5 000 Borderline territory of Zwicky Sud Arrangement of an inner space External bridge that connects parts of cluster apartments Facilities and services in Zwicky Sud View at the ZwiBack bistro A range of communal spaces present in Zwicky Sud Area around the playground as a place of interaction between parents and children of different backgrounds

4 11 22 26 27 31 37 39 40 41 42 42 43 43 45 47 48 48 49 49 50 53 57 58 59 59 60 61 62 63

VII

Image 31: Adaptation of open spaces by the community – outdoor platform (on the left), patio near the rooftop terrace (on the right) Image 32: Entrances to the building as sites of daily intermingling and children play Image 33: The use of outdoor galleries Image 34: A broad array of dwelling typologies present in Zwicky Sud Image 35: Compactness of dwellings in Zwicky Sud Image 36: Configuration of shared apartments in Zwicky Sud Image 37: Arrangement of facades in Zwicky Sud Image 38: Balconies as arenas for self-representation Image 39: View at the gallery with an abundancy of closed shutters Image 40: A variety of shared furniture and equipment introduced by the community Image 41: View at the WagnisArt project Image 42: Participation of residents in the planning and decision-making process Image 43: Pathways between buildings in WagnisArt Image 44: Arrangement of an inner space Image 45: Bridges as connecting elements Image 46: Facilities and services in WagnisArt Image 47: View at the intersection of Gertrud-Grunow-Straße and Margarete-Schütte-Lihotzky-Straße Image 48: A range of communal spaces present in WagnisArt Image 49: Inner courtyards – ‘Dorfplatz’ (on the left) and ‘Oasenhof’ (on the right) Image 50: The usage of green spaces around the area Image 51: Entrance areas Image 52: View at the staircases Image 53: View at the bridges and the rooftops Image 54: A broad array of dwelling typologies present in WagnisArt Image 55: Compactness of dwellings in WagnisArt Image 56: Configuration of shared apartments in WagnisArt Image 57: Example of social mix at the level of cluster apartment Image 58: Arrangement of facades in WagnisArt Image 59: Unique postboxes in WagnisArt VIII

64 64 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 77 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 88 89 89 91 92 92 93 94 94

Image 60: Arrangement of shared balconies within private apartments (one the left) and collective households (on the right) Image 61: A variety of shared furniture within open and in-between spaces Image 62: Participation of residents in the decision-making process in Zwicky Sud (on the top) and WagnisArt (on the bottom) Image 63: The permeability of the site arrangement in Zwicky Sud Image 64:

Image 65: Image 66: Image 67: Image 68: Image 69:

Image 70: Image 71: Image 72: Image 73: Image 74: Image 75: Image 76: Image 77:

(on the left) and WagnisArt (on the right) / scale 1: 3 000 The inner orientation of entrances to the buildings and facilities in Zwicky Sud (on the left) and WagnisArt (on the right) / scale 1: 3 000 Bridges as means of spatial interconnectedness in Zwicky Sud (on the left) and WagnisArt (on the right) / scale 1: 3 000 A range of facilities and services present in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt A range of communal rooms present in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt Key features to pay attention when designing the ground floor in mixed-use housing Key open spaces that provide opportunities for various levels of interaction between residents in Zwicky Sud (on the left) and WagnisArt (on the right) Key in-between spaces as contact points for daily interactions Distribution of dwellings across projects in regards to the total square meters Depth of buildings with collective households in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt The compact size of residential spaces across dwellings in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt Key points shown to be contributing to conflicts within shared apartments The features of the façade imperative to take into consideration when designing for socially mixed communities Arrangement of shared balconies in Zwicky Sud (on the top) and WagnisArt (on the bottom) Equipment mentioned in the context of narration about the interaction between residents of different backgrounds

95 96 101 104 105

105 106 107 108 109

110 111 112 112 113 114 115 116

List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6:

Operationalization of social and spatial dimensions of the research List of interviews with experts List of interviews with residents of Zwicky Sud List of interviews with residents of WagnisArt

Core characteristics of the Zwicky Sud project developed by Kraftwerk1 Core characteristics of the WagnisArt project

32 33 33

1 Introduction

1.1

Problem statement and research questions

Since the beginning of the 19th century, the idea of social mix in housing developments has attracted increased attention from academia, policy makers, and housing practitioners (see Arthurson 2012). What we know about social mixing is derived from various perspectives (including sociology, geography, urban planning, and housing policies) that, to a varying extent, are engaged with both social and spatial dimensions of residential mix. In spite of particular caution in the discourse about the relationship between social phenomena and the built environment, social mixing is generally identified in conjunction with its spatial dimension, acknowledging the design of built environment as significantly important for addressing social diversity in housing (see Talen/ Lee 2018: 69-71, also Harlander 2015, Groves et al. 2003, Kearns et al. 2013, Sarkissian/ Forsyth/ Heine 1990). The promotion of social mixing, understood in both distributive and interaction-based senses as neighborly cross-strata, cross-ethnic, and intergenerational mix in the community, is widely drawn as a policy objective for achieving diversity and inclusion at different spatial scales, such as neighborhood, block, or building (see Lees/ Butler/ Bridge 2011: 9, also Harlander/ Kuhn 2012c: 397). The specific design issues, however, often constitute “a marginal figure on the agenda of institutional policies” (Fry 2010: 17), despite wide recognition that spatial dimension provides context for social interactivity given its capacity to promote or hinder interactions among neighbors at the individual scale (see Aelbrecht/ Stevens/ Nisha 2019: 18, Talen/ Lee 2018: 171, Lelevrier 2013: 415, 1

INTRODUCTION

also Hanhörster/ Weck 2020: 263). Similarly, works that connect social mix with the spatial dimensions often leave out the aspects of design almost entirely (cf. Talen/ Lee 2018: 72, also Levin/ Arthurson/ Ziersch 2014: 23). With very little, if any, emphasis placed on the spatial dimensions, most of the existing studies on social mixing in housing are widely associated with the questions related to the social effects of mixing policies (cf. Levin/ Arthurson/ Ziersch 2014: 24), primarily outlining such topics as social interactions and networks (see Atkinson/ Kintrea 2000, Smith 2002), integration and segregation (see Kleit/ Carnegie 2011, Harlander/ Kuhn 2012b), social cohesion (see Kleit/ Carnegie 2011, van Kempen/ Bolt 2009), gentrification (see Lees/ Butler/ Bridge 2011, Rose 2014), stigma (see Arthurson 2012, Keene/ Padilla 2010) and perceptions of residents (see Arthurson 2005, Chaskin/ Khare/ Joseph 2012). Only a relative handful of studies have specifically examined the role of design aspects in the mixed communities, raising such matters as the scale of social mix implementation, the degree of integration or separation between various types of tenure, including their appearance, and the presence of shared public spaces (cf. Levin/ Arthurson/ Ziersch 2014: 24). Understanding the complexity of spatial dimension within social mix implementation is vitally important, if the objective of social mixing is to be achieved within the framework of emerging neighborhoods, which has proven to be the most effective way to regulate the composition of the population (see Programms Projets Urbains 2011: 17, also Busch-Geertsema 2007: 218). Nearly all of the existing studies on social mixing look into the context of state-led housing developments. This overlooks the efforts made by community-based and non-profit housing sector that proven to be effective in driving innovations for social cohesion and provision of affordable housing within communities through the means of spatial planning and design (see Evers/ Ewert/ Brandsen 2014, also Lang 2012: 585). Nowadays, more and more non-profit housing projects in Europe take social and functional mixing as an essential objective in design and operation, manifesting their socially-oriented intentions within spatial experiments. The consideration of spatial dimensions is something that could be learnt from these innovations from the perspective of rethinking the dominant approaches to designing the physical environment for creating socially mixed communities. The scarcity of data about the particular characteristics of physical spaces that affect spatial coexistence between 2

PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

different groups and dimensions of social interactivity is regrettable, because these are the sort of aspects project developers require when they conceive implementation of projects that imply social mixing. In light of the considerations mentioned above, the following questions will be addressed: How does the relation between social and spatial aspects of social mix implementation reflect across various spatial scales? How does the design of physical spaces address social mixing in cooperative housing? What are the key spatial characteristics that contribute to the coexistence and interactivity of different age, income, and ethnic groups in cooperative housing? This study attempts to contribute to the knowledge base by exploring the relationship between dimensions of social mix across scales and typologies. This thesis critically investigates particular planning and design solutions implemented in cooperative housing projects by taking into account their capacity to promote social mixing using the example of two case studies, Zwicky Sud in Zurich-Dubendorf and WagnisArt in Munich, that represent innovative approaches to non-profit housing developments in Switzerland and Germany.

INTRODUCTION

1.2

Structure of the work

The overall structure of the master’s thesis takes the form of nine chapters (see image 1). The first section provides background knowledge on the research, conveys the information about the research problem, and outlines specific research questions. Chapter two begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research and looks at how the concept of social mixing is understood and approached throughout history. The areas for further research are outlined based on the review of previous studies on social mix. With the focus on cooperative housing as a context of research, the third part gives a brief review of the relevant ideas on social mixing in non-profit housing and showcases the spatial manifestation of the ongoing experiments with planning processes and forms of living together. The fourth chapter is concerned with the research design and methodology employed for this study. The fifth chapter introduces the case studies within their context. The sixth and seventh sections present the research findings through the comparative perspective, focusing on the key themes that constituted the central thread of the research and showing the relation between spatial and social dimensions of social mixing throughout specific situations. The eighth part brings together the research findings from two case studies, drawing together the various strands of the thesis. The final chapter reflects on the conducted research and outlines recommendations for future work on the topic. Intro

Cooperative housing

Social mixing

Research Design

Entry into case studies

Case#1 7

Comparison

Conclusions

Case#2

Image 1: The structure of the Master Thesis (source: own drawing, 2020)

2 Social mixing: framing of research

This chapter outlines the development of ideas on social mixing over the years and the recent discussions surrounding the practical examples of socially mixed housing projects. It begins with an overview of the concept’s origins and the ideological underpinning of the social mix ideas through various contexts and discourses. The social mix is then discussed as an objective within housing policies and projects, raising four important social dimensions for social mixing implementation. It is followed by a definition of the term ‘social mixing’. The concluding part of the chapter provides a brief overview of the existing studies on spatial dimensions within mixed housing projects, making the rationale for consideration of social mix and physical space within the context of cooperative housing. 2.1

The social mix concept, explained – origins and present discourses

The origins of the concept of social mix can be traced back to the 19th century utopian visionaries and paternalistic factory owners, with the idealized notion of socially mixed villages, where, in contrast to the spatially segregated industrial cities, different classes coexisted in harmony (see Sarkissian 1976: 234, also Arthurson 2012). The process of rapid urbanization and migration to cities in 19th-century Europe and North America, commonly associated with the drastic changes in urban social structure, led to the debates about directions and causes of social change, including those of social polarization and spatial segregation of the poorest households (see Hamnett 2010: 17). While segregation, as a projection of the social structure onto space, denotes the empirical fact of the not even distribution of the social groups in the city among the certain 5

SOCIAL MIXING: FRAMING OF RESEARCH

areas (cf. Häußermann/ Siebel 2001: 70), the idea of social mixing generally stands for the blend of residents across various housing tenures, incomes, ages, and ethnicities usually in spatially defined areas (see Fincher et al. 2014: 16). The ideological underpinning of social mix has evolved at the intersection of different theoretical and practical positions with respect to the particular socio-spatial settings. The fundamental ideas underlying the notion of social mixing may diverge depending on the context, taking into account the differing patterns of segregation and differences in welfare systems in different countries. For instance, the distinction is frequently made between ethno-racial segregation, widely discussed in English-speaking context, and socioeconomic segregation often addressed across studies over European countries (see Andersson/ Lyngstad/ Sleutjes 2018). In the Anglophone context, the first ideas around the social mixing originated in mid-19th century England and appear to be rooted in the perception that the mixing of different social and income groups may bring benefits like improving education and the uplifting of disadvantaged groups employing the provision of middle-class role models (see Arthurson 2012: 24). Ebenezer Howard, an English urban planner and utopian sociologist, in his influential work ‘Garden City’ made a case for the promotion of “limited form of the residential mix”, even though Howard’s garden city seems to be segregated on the micro-level on the basis of class and income (cf. Sarkissian 1976: 235). In Germany, the emergence of the discussion of the concept of planned social mix seems to be connected to Germany’s period of rapid urbanization and a figure of James Hobrecht, a city planner responsible for the development of planes for Berlin’s city extension in the 1860s (see Kuhn 2012: 34). Being a supporter of the concept of socio-spatial mixing, Hobrecht has highlighted the importance of “fusion [Durchdringung]” of social classes, as opposed to “enclosure [Abschlissung]” noticeable in English cities of that time with whole houses or districts inhabited by residents with comparable income level or employment type (Kuhn 2012: 35). However, using rhetoric similar to English supporters of social mix, James Hobrecht linked the concept of the “living together [Durcheinanderwohnen]” of different classes with an educational effect and socialization of low-income residents, while at the same time preventing the potential class conflicts and stabilizing the society (cf. Kuhn 2012: 34). 6

THE SOCIAL MIX CONCEPT, EXPLAINED – ORIGINS AND PRESENT DISCOURSES

The concept of social mixing seems to be not distinctly defined by social and spatial sciences. As argued by Arthurson (cf. 2012: 8), the social mix is an ambiguous concept since its meaning can be contingent on who is utilizing it. Moreover, the debates on social mixing are embedded in the range of discourses via particular perspectives: sociological and geographical outlook with a focus on social research, alongside planning and housing policy perspectives, with emphasis on implementation practices. While through the years, planners continue to “advocate” for social mixing, sociologists often criticize planned mix, pointing out that “attempts to foster interaction are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the neighborhood as a social unit” (Sarkissian/ Forsyth /Heine 1990: 8). Garnier holds the view that Karl Marx’s idea1 about peasants’ lack of class consciousness dears “to the ideologists of ‘social mixing’, on the role of ‘transparency’ and of ‘communication’ in the evolution of relations between individuals and groups” (Garnier 1993: 99). Sociologist Herbert Gans pointed back in 1961 that the spatial proximity of a heterogeneous population urged by planners seems to support interaction predominantly in the cases when people possesses “similar background and/ or shared interests” (van Kempen/ Bolt 2009: 472, see Gans 1961). The number of recent empirical studies have also shown that spatial proximity does not always lead to the improvement of relations and mutual understanding, while in everyday life the promotion of contacts between different social milieus could also lead to the formation of asymmetrical relationships (see Pinçon/ Pinçon-Charlot cited after Programms Projets Urbains 2011: 12). All in all, geographer Ronald van Kempen is referring to the “strong intuitive appeal” of the mixing idea that restrains its relevance despite warnings of unrealistic expectations (van Kempen/ Bolt 2009: 472). Within the urban planning discourse, the social mix concept is often bounded to the notion of ‘community’ that is connected to its respective place of living (see Sarkissian/ Forsyth /Heine 1990: 5, also Healey 2007: 226), seeing a broad spatial planning apparatus as the matter of the promotion of the

1 In general, the ideas of Marx and Engels had a significant influence over the directions of radical geography, urban sociology and urban social movements on topics of social-spatial segregation and production of space, finding reflection in such works as ‘Social Justice in the City’ (1973) by Harvey, ‘The Production of Space’ (1974) by Lefebvre, ‘Social Relations and Spatial Structures’ (1985) by Gregory and Urry (eds.) and beyond (see Kipfer 2018).

SOCIAL MIXING: FRAMING OF RESEARCH

socially diverse places, the interaction between residents and community feelings. Jane Jacobs in her influential work ‘The death and life of great American cities’ was one of the first to articulate the connection between diversity and space, emphasizing the role of a range of uses and “scenes”, along with “a great variety in population” (Jacobs 1961: 143-151). Believing that community design holds the capacity to facilitate particular social patterns (see Fulton 1997: 1), the ideas of ‘new urbanism’ movement is rooted in the conception of connectivity between activities arising from physical proximity, along with the ideas about community involvement in planning activity (see Healey 2007: 224-226). Patsy Healey argues that in the interpretation of the physical environment as a provider of settings for social worlds, planners and politicians see their role as “to summon up the ‘essence’ of the ‘community-in-place’ and represent it defensively to an outside world” (Healey 2007: 226). From the policy perspective, social mixing is considered in the same vein as an instrument “embedded within normative notions of the community” (Ruming/ Mee/ McGuirk 2004: 234). To a great extent building upon Intergroup Contact Theory2 first outlined by Gordon Allport back in the 1950s, state-led social mixed residential areas have arisen from the policies founded on the strong welfare states across Western and Northern Europe3 (see Maloutas 2016: 19, also Enos/ Celaya 2017: 10). Throughout history, the concept of social mix endorses its renaissance with every intensification of social problems (cf. Häußermann 2009: 395). Over the last few decades, the internationally revived interest of governments on social mix policies has been induced by the debates around social polarization and spatial segregation between different socioeconomic groups and the perception of the problematic nature of the consolidation of disadvantaged residents within the particular areas (cf. Arthurson 2012: 7). Although the arguments for social mixing in housing policies have experienced some changes over the years, the housing question has persisted as the core question of housing policies, being “from the beginning closely linked to questions of social distribution” (Holm 2009; own translation).

2 The Intergroup Contact theory offers the view that contact between diverse groups has the ability to promote tolerance, acceptance, and reduce prejudice (Allport 1954). 3 In general, the interventionist welfare state that resists segregation constitutes an integral part of European cities, originating from the European bourgeoisie’s traditions in the 19th century (see Häußermann 2005: 247, also Andersson/ Lyngstad/ Sleutjes 2018). 8

SOCIAL MIXING AS AN OBJECTIVE IN HOUSING POLICIES AND PROJECTS

In summation, the normative concept of the social mix is linked to the idea of community, acknowledging the key role of the spatial dimension in casting social domain linked to the issues of distribution and interaction. At the same time, the social matters rather partially pertain to the physical environment, being notably dependent on the distinct social patterns embodied within particular socio-spatial realities, including residential diversity and similarity in residents’ backgrounds or interests. 2.2

Social mixing as an objective in housing policies and projects

Putting the ideas of social mixing ‘ad acta’, common definitions of social mixing often recall either policy objectives or planning approaches. The notion of the social mix seems to be transposable to that of interpretative definitions – such objectives as ‘balanced community’, ‘mixed neighborhood’, ‘socially diverse residential area’ and ‘socially-stable neighborhood’ could be found in the housing policies in Europe and beyond (for instance, in Germany, France, United Kingdom, United States of America and Australia) (see Busch-Geertsema 2007: 213, also Kofner 2017: 65, Carpenter 2018: 29, Cole/ Goodchild 2001: 351, Arthurson 2002: 246). Above all, the term social mixing refers to the balance between various types of housing tenure and socio-economic mix of residents (cf. Arthurson 2012: 8). Harlander and Kuhn interpret social mixing primarily in the sense of housing and planning approach that advocates for the socially open neighborhood and leaves opportunity for neighborly cross-strata, cross-ethnic, religious and intergenerational mix in the community, and, at the same time, standing against segregation enforced by housing market (see Harlander 2015). In the same vein, Fincher defines social mix as “planning efforts that strive for some combination of the following: balancing the socio-economic variance of residents; a mix of different housing tenures (…); facilitating a mix of age groups; and achieving the right variation in the ethnic or racial mix of residents, usually in a spatially defined area” (Fincher et al. 2014: 16). In the context of this thesis, social mixing is broadly defined as spatial coexistence and social interactivity of different social and ethnic groups achieved through the means of planning and design. German-speaking countries have a long-established tradition of mixing strategies devoted to desegregation, targeting ethnic and socio-economic segregation with the help of social and housing mix (see Münch 2009: 441, also Bolt/ 9

SOCIAL MIXING: FRAMING OF RESEARCH

Phillips/ van Kempen 2010). In general, the support of the mix of different social groups in new developments constitutes the particular strategy available for the achievement of social mix, along with the movement of residents to other localities (namely, “to move wealthier people into poorer areas; to move poorer people into wealthier areas”) (see Busch-Geertsema 2007: 218). Implementing policies through the housing programs on the municipal level contributes to the provision of access to housing to socially vulnerable population groups, defining the allowance for subsidized housing on the city level. For instance, the desired mixing ratio in newly established estates across German cities tends to vary significantly – from 20% of subsidized housing in Stuttgart and up to 50% of publicly funded housing in Munich, which includes housing of general interest and price-subdued housing construction (see Harlander/ Kuhn 2012c: 396-400). Previous studies have reported that the most effective way to regulate the composition of the population in emerging neighborhoods lies in the housing construction and housing rental policies; however, this is only possible given the condition that public sector itself rather significantly gets involved in the non-profit housing market (cf. Programms Projets Urbains 2011: 17). Moreover, it has been noted that within the non-profit housing projects tenants who are recipients of housing subsidy programs are much more respected; they also act as stakeholders with an interest in contributing social capital for the future development of the organization (cf. Evers/ Ewert/ Brandsen 2014: 63). Within the framework of the research project ‘Soziale Mischung in der Stadt’ lead by Tilman Harlander and Gerd Kuhn the term ‘social mixing’ is taken into focus not in isolation, but in relation to other mixing dimensions, such as functional mix, mix of the development models, mix of new and established, or a successful mixture of private and public spaces (see Harlander 2015). Recapitulating practical examples of socially mixed residential projects, the findings of this research indicate that all examples of the successful mixing employ engaged actions and motivated will for the active mix politics, seeing communal housing policy, urban planning, integration policy, and participation culture as valuable instruments for successful “active mixing policy” (Harlander/ Kuhn 2012a: 428). Other researchers recognize the importance of residents’ motives for living in the area alongside their motivation to interact with neighbors from different socio-cultural backgrounds for the development of the debate on social mixing (see Weck/ Hanhörster 2015: 484, also Costarel10

SOCIAL MIXING AS AN OBJECTIVE IN HOUSING POLICIES AND PROJECTS

li/ Kleinhans/ Mugnano 2019: 139). Taking further the argument of Münch that “mixing mostly does not lead to intermingling” even if physical distances are small but social distances are still present (Münch, 2009: 447), the key component of successful mixed communities seems to reside in the capacity of housing programming to influence social dynamics across the residents. The recent Swiss research project ‘Soziale Mischung und Quartierentwicklung: Anspruch versus Machbarkeit’ defines the problem of the housing market and the “mixing potential” through empowerment and participation as core issues for social mix implementation along with the spatial dimension (cf. Programms Projets Urbains 2011: 19).

Residency structure

Motivation

Social Mixing Participation

Face-to-face interaction

social dimensions

In summary, social mixing, defined as design and planning attempts focused on the coexistence of different age, income and ethnic groups, as well as the dimension of social interactivity within mixed communities, seems to be embedded in the larger framework of housing policies and programs. Non-profit housing seems to be a thriving player within the practice of social mix implementation, on the one hand, being effectively positioned within the system of housing provision (inter alia, in regards to the regulation of the residents’ composition), and, on the other hand, aiming at the social integration throughout the provision of affordable housing in the view of its organizational nature. The important social dimensions of social mix implementation duly considered within the projects are I. residency structure, II. motivation, III. participation, as well as opportunities for IV. face-to-face interaction between residents across incomes, ages, ethnicities (see image 2). Meanwhile, the role of the spatial dimensions in the context of social mixing seems to begin being considered more frequently within the research projects and in the practice of social mix implementation.

Image 2: Key social dimensions for the study of social mix (source: own drawing, 2020) 11

SOCIAL MIXING: FRAMING OF RESEARCH

2.3

Spatial scales of social mix

More and more scholars focused on studying social mixing patterns have been highlighting the importance of consideration of the spatial dimension as a context for social interactions (for instance, Sarkissian 1976, Arthurson 2010, Harlander/ Kuhn 2012c). A number of authors have considered the significance of the physical environment “as a mediator of social mixing” (see Aelbrecht/ Stevens/ Nisha 2019: 18, also Sarkissian/ Forsyth /Heine 1990, Talen/ Lee 2018). Though there are only a few studies on social mixing with a focus on urban or spatial design aspects in the mixed communities, they commonly raise such matters as the scale of social mix implementation, the degree of integration or separation between various types of tenure, and include such factors as the appearance of different tenure types and the presence of shared public spaces (cf. Levin/ Arthurson/ Ziersch 2014: 24). At present, different perspectives exist on the matters of the scale of social mixing. Considering the social mix in the context of gentrification and displacement taking place in cities, Spiegel argues that location plays an important role in the matters of choice of the place of residency (cf. Spiegel 2001: 75). Harlander and Kuhn reveal several scales within which social mixing takes place through the analysis of several projects in German context – quartier, block, and building (cf. Harlander/ Kuhn 2012c: 397). While some researchers embrace the idea that mixing should be accomplished at the “smallest feasible spatial scale” (Galster 2009: 26), Spiegel makes the point that “social mix should not only be understood on a small scale”, as the account should be taken of the different uses and of the evaluation of spatial concentration of different population groups (Spiegel 2001: 79; own translation). Recent studies have indicated that different “scales and arrangements of spatial proximity” contain the capacity to vary the opportunities and intensity of interaction between residents, either by “facilitating practices of avoidance or forcing residents into daily interaction” (Lelevrier 2013: 415). Overall, the site planning, architecture, design, and management of physical settings have begun to be acknowledged “as core determinants of successful social mixing and the essential tools to enhance social cohesions” (see Aelbrecht/ Stevens/ Nisha 2019: 18, also Sarkissian/ Forsyth /Heine 1990).

SPATIAL SCALES OF SOCIAL MIX

Despite noticeable ‘spatial turn’ within humanities and social sciences and respective ‘social turn’ in fields engaged with the built environment (see Warf/ Arias 2009), the particular features that describe and analyze physical spaces in their social context are often scarce in the writings on social mixing. Moreover, nearly all existing studies on social mixing look into the context of state-led housing developments, rather than into the community-based and non-profit housing sector, which has proven to be effective in driving innovations for social cohesion and provision of affordable housing (see Lang 2012: 585, also Evers/ Ewert/ Brandsen 2014). Therefore, considering the above conclusions (see chapter 2.2), this thesis engages the cooperative housing as a context for the research, looking at the issues of social mixing through various spatial scales within the housing projects given the complexity of the topic under review.

3 Cooperative housing: contextualizing research

This chapter showcases cooperative housing projects as a context for the study of physical spaces for social mixing. It gives a brief overview of ideas and practices of cooperative housing that underline the shift in recent years towards the promotion of socially diverse neighborhoods. Then the section ties together the set of spatial dimensions that touch upon the topic of social mixing in cooperative housing projects. The final section of the chapter summarizes the main findings and outlines the research gap in a given field of study, stating the key focus of the master thesis. 3.1

Drive for social mix in cooperatives: from ideas to practice

Despite the diverse patterns of development and legal forms among European countries, non-profit housing generally stands for affordable housing with services for and by the community (see Hugentobler 2016: 9) and refers to the rental housing owned and operated by community-based associations that, as a rule, do not imply profit from the real estate capital. Cooperative housing, being a non-profit organization, is an alternative form of homeownership where the property is in possession of the cooperative organization and shares are affiliated to the residents. Generally seen as the revival of the cooperative movement in Europe, the first cohousing projects in Denmark have mostly encompassed working families that seek better childcare and housekeeping opportunities (cf. ScottHanson/ ScottHanson 2004: 2). In the Netherlands, around one-third of all housing stock is rented by housing corporations, and the non-profit organizations are actively dedicated to the construction and maintenance of affordable housing (see Kuhnert/ Leps 2017a: 187). The idea of em15

COOPERATIVE HOUSING: CONTEXTUALIZING RESEARCH

powerment became crucial for the existence of cooperatives in Portugal where the cooperative housing model was introduced to the “least fortunate” groups of society through the ‘Serviço de Apoio Ambulatório Local’ (SAAL) process4 and included involvement of residents in the planning process, creation and management of new neighborhoods themselves (cf. Portas 2015). Cooperative housing in Germany has a rich history rooted in the culture of private self-help building that emerged in the middle of the 19th century (cf. Kleefisch-Jobst/ Köddermann/ Jung 2016: 77). Making a vast contribution to the provision of affordable housing, German cooperative movement from the beginning embraced the idea of “living in the community of like-minded people” which resulted in the establishment of working cooperatives, as well as cooperatives based on political beliefs or common lifestyles (cf. Kleefisch-Jobst/ Köddermann/ Jung 2016: 77). Developed in the 1920s with the aim of tackling housing shortages, the Swiss model of cooperatives has operated along two directions – the local state supports social housing for the people in need and provides the city infrastructures, at the same time the lower middle-classes are invited to establish and organize themselves in cooperatives (cf. Hofer 2019: 24-25). Nowadays, public and cooperative housing in Germany constitute around 4 percent of all housing stock (see Housing Europe 2015: 52, also Lutz 2019); in Switzerland, the non-profit housing sector5 likewise represents around 5 percent of total housing units (see Sotomo 2017: 13). Overall, housing cooperatives in the German-speaking context seem to be a firmly entrenched form of tenure that combines the advantages of renting and owner-occupied property, known for bearing “durably affordable rents” and “stable neighborhoods” (Lutz 2019). Although the ideas about cooperative housing across Europe initially were closely linked to the notion of intentional communities, targeting people with similar interest or needs that have chosen to live collectively (see Kozeny 1995: 18) and to the subject of affordable housing provision for low or moderate-income tenants, today new cooperative projects in German-speaking countries tend to consider housing as a social good for a broad range of population with

4 Translated as ‘Mobile Service for Local Support’. 5 In Switzerland, the non-profit housing is understood according to the notion of ‘gemeinnützige Wohnungen’, which can be interpreted as a ‘third way’ of housing development along with ownership and rent (see Wohnbaugenossenschaften Schweiz 2018: 4). Under the umbrella of non-profit housing may operate different housing models, including housing cooperatives and societies, joint building ventures, housing syndicates, as well as social housing. 16

DRIVE FOR SOCIAL MIX IN COOPERATIVES: FROM IDEAS TO PRACTICE

differentiated lifestyles. Such a shift in the ideas underlying cooperative movement seems to be linked to the rising challenges of post-modern society, meaning that the collective patterns have become more differentiated and individualized since the post-war period (see Hofer 2019: 32, also Bramham 1992). In general, the significance of housing as a social life practice became more important and diverse in the context of daily urban life and for the design of the urban fabric compared to the previous decades (cf. Hannemann 2016: 35). The new housing cooperatives across large German-speaking cities, such as Zurich, Bern, Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin, have emerged around the 1990s and 2000s on the principles of participation, often aiming to respond to the societal diversification and secure the community self-organization (see Hofer 2019: 32, Lutz 2019). On the whole, the process of participatory planning in recent cooperative projects focuses on the general collective interests through the complex discursive formats within the far-reaching involvement of residents, experts, and interested communities (see Hofer 2019: 34), varying from project to project. In this case, new socially-oriented cooperatives seem to underlay the argument that the dedication and willingness to the active participation of residents on the part of project developers are fundamental to the achievement of the successful mix, especially the more fine-grained the mixture is drawn up (see Harlander/ Kuhn 2012a: 428). Several cooperative projects, inter alia, Hunziker-Areal in Zurich, and WagnisArt in Munich, have received wide acknowledgment for the community commitment, “emphasizing collectivity and dialogue” over all stages of the project development – from concept development, planning, construction to management and living together (Lutz 2019). Margrit Hugentobler notes that young cooperative projects have a solid prerequisite of being “at the forefront of innovations” because non-profit housing does not require the production of returns on investment and insurance of short-term returns (Hugentobler 2016: 9). Through the project’s planning and implementation, the strong emphasis within such projects is often laid on shared spaces for the use of the whole community. Being in constant exchange with the other cooperatives, newly established projects tend to draw upon the experience of the ongoing practical experiments and current professional discussion (see Hofer 2019: 46, also Thiesen 2016: 28).

COOPERATIVE HOUSING: CONTEXTUALIZING RESEARCH

The recent innovative cooperative projects in Zurich and Munich have attracted the vast interest among the professional community, given the introduced range of shared facilities and innovative dwelling typologies (see Hugentobler 2016: 9, also Lutz 2019, Hofer 2019: 46). In the volume ‘Alle wollen wohnen’, ‘Zurich’ and ‘Munich’ models are acknowledged as distinct types of housing models that advocate for the mix of uses and living options, as well as for the cooperative development in the city (see Kleefisch-Jobst/ Köddermann/ Jung 2016: 110113). The alignment towards the objective of social mix promotion has firmly entrenched within the agenda of housing cooperatives and municipal policies in Zurich and Munich, termed as ‘Züri-Mischung’ and ‘Münchner Mischung’, being stemmed from the fact that the provision of affordable housing for the fast-growing and internationally diverse population constitute a central issue in both cities (see Wohnbaugenossenschaften Schweiz 2018: 6, Krafterwerk1 2014: 7, Landeshauptstadt München 2017: 7-8, Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung 2016: 24). Given the clear-cut social orientation, new cooperative housing Zurich and Munich are barely equating with the conventional perception of social housing (with their sole focus on the coverage of housing deficit) as they intend to provide sustainable and affordable housing attractive to a diverse society, rather than merely to the low-income population. Overall, more and more non-profit housing projects of recent years in Switzerland and Germany take social mixing as an essential objective in design and operation titled by the employment of a comprehensive process of participation through the stages of project development. In new cooperative projects, the intention to ensure affordable, high-quality housing is usually linked to the goal to accommodate the diversified society within socially stable neighborhoods. Moreover, the success of recent cooperative housing projects partially builds on the principles of the common good rather than a profit-driven model. The approaches to spatial and structural solutions, thereby, constitute the physical manifestation of the ongoing experiments with the planning process and forms of living together. The examination of physical spaces and opportunities that they provide for social mixing within recent cooperative projects provides an opportunity to reflect on the socio-spatial dimensions and propose further elements that could enhance the drafting of socially mixed neighborhoods. 18

DESIGNING (SOCIALLY MIXED) COOPERATIVE HOUSING

3.2

Designing (socially mixed) cooperative housing

In recent years, researchers have shown an increased interest in studying social and spatial dimensions of emerging typologies within the cooperative housing projects. The publication ‘Wohnvielfalt Gemeinschaftlich wohnen – im Quartier vernetzt und sozial orientiert’ provides a systematic comparison of communal housing projects of various spatial configuration with a focus on different dimensions of neighborly networking and issues of projects formation (see Wüstenrot Stiftung 2020). The work ‘CoHousing Inclusive’ focuses on the questions of affordability, participation and inclusion within self-organized cohousing communities across Europe, asking to what extent the community housing forms have the potential to be accessible to diverse social groups (cf. LaFond/ Tsvetkova 2017: 13). The interdisciplinary research project ‘Vokabular des Zwischenraums’ examines the different design options for interactions within in-between spaces of selected cooperatives projects in Zurich and Lucerne (see Juppien/ Zemp 2019). The recent research project on cluster housing typologies under the edition of Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBRS) provides a comprehensive review of collective living forms within experimental projects across Germany and Switzerland (see BBRS 2020). Still, most of the existing studies lack direct reference between the design of physical spaces and social mixing, or focus on studying only one or few spatial dimensions related to the issues of social diversity or interaction within cooperative housing projects. Taking into account the considerations mentioned above (see chapter 2.3), it is vitally important to consider the dimensions of social mixing within the housing projects in an integrated manner, specifically to look at the patterns of social mix implementation through different spatial scales and complexities involved. With a strong emphasis on the design of shared spaces, the recent cooperative housing projects often offer an integrated set of solutions comprising different spatial levels for living together in mixed communities. The role, tasks, and graining of collective housing projects differ depending on the city structure, and neighborhood characteristics and their spatial organization is shaped differently in regards to layout, building typologies, and organization of encounter spaces (cf. Dürr/ Kuhn 2018: 107-117). Dürr and Kuhn make the point that when considering social mix within communal housing it is important to explore the cleavage of private and public, namely forms of distance 19

COOPERATIVE HOUSING: CONTEXTUALIZING RESEARCH

and anonymity that to some extent lay down the new forms of living together (cf. Dürr/ Kuhn 2018: 13). In general, the latest empirical studies of state-led socially mixed neighborhoods have indicated that it is important to consider the spatial layout and physical arrangement of housing tenures in the context of social mix examination given their capacity to affect interactions between residents’ residential movements (see Lelevrier 2013: 414-415, also Kearns et al. 2013). Nevertheless, “the models that determine how these communities are physically shaped have often been ignored by the literature” (Levin/ Arthurson/ Ziersch 2014: 24). Hence, it is particularly relevant to consider the spatial configuration of layout and buildings within the mixed communities in the surrounding environment and its influence on social interactivity in the views of demarcation the levels of private and public. The mix of uses within cooperative housing often implies the wide range of facilities and services available within projects besides housing opportunities. In general, the functional offer for the community constitutes an important feature for the study within the context of cooperative housing (for instance, Dürr/ Kuhn 2018, LaFond/ Tsvetkova 2017). Whilst some authors highlight the potential of the mixed-used developments to attract various types of users with different needs and interests in regards to the presented array of commercial and non-commercial opportunities (for instance, Bailey et al. 2007 and Jacobs 1961), Montgomery argues that “the combinations of mixtures of activities, [and] not separate uses” are key to successful urban places (Montgomery 1998: 98). Given the fact that the relation between the mix of functional and social diversity in some aspects lacks sufficient rationale6, it is imperative to consider the range of uses and activities in the context of diverse interests of the heterogeneous population and patterns of social interactivity related to the functional mix. The outside and inside spaces usually make a significant contribution in enabling community life within the cooperative projects, providing potentials for concrete actions within the spatial environment (see Dürr/ Kuhn 2018: 8). At large, the way spaces come together, their location, physical characteristics, and linkage to the outer area can influence and develop movement patterns

6 For instance, Fainstein questions whether the sole “mix of uses along with a mix of structures produces social diversity” (see Fainstein 2005: 9). 20

DESIGNING (SOCIALLY MIXED) COOPERATIVE HOUSING

of residents, supporting or preventing interactions (see Hillier 2007: 22). Therefore, the hierarchy of spaces play an important role in interactions across different groups since residents have the ability to choose when to “mingle or stay apart as sociability cannot be dictated by design, only allowed or facilitated in non-threatening ways” (Arthurson 2010: 56). Daily encounters in outside and in-between shared spaces, including horizontal and vertical communication, hallways, playgrounds, local facilities, hold potentials for mediation of social mixing trough establishing boundary-crossing contacts, cross-group reencounters, public familiarity, mutual trust, as well as the exchange of help or information (see Hanhörster/ Weck 2020: 263, Talen/ Lee 2018: 182-183, also Pollak 2017: 137). Subsequently, the review of particular features of outside and inside spaces that provide opportunities for various levels of interaction between residents across ages, incomes, and ethnicities is of relevance for establishing an understanding of how to design for social mix more consciously. The recent communal housing projects actively experiment with new dwelling typologies for more collective households. Even though the fine mixing at the level of the house is an object of skepticism for most social scientists, the social mixing within the housing is deliberately used in practice as an instrument of active and successful mixing, possessing a variety of mixing options (cf. Harlander/ Kuhn 2012c: 402). Gerd Kuhn argues that “social diversity also calls for the structural diversity” involving diversity in dwelling floor plans, different apartment types, and sizes, acknowledging the variety of housing layouts as a litmus test of how different and pluralistic our society became (cf. Kuhn 2016: 47-48). While there is a consensus among scholars and practitioners that more differentiated housing demands result in a motion to new and diverse types of dwelling and household that cater to a wide variety of target and income groups (see Glaser/ Hilti 2016: 116, also Simon-Philipp 2017: 15), the empirical analysis of socially mixed neighborhoods has shown that the association between the mix of housing, tenure types and the social mix is not articulated clearly (cf. Musterd/ Andersson 2005: 78). The principle of ‘tenure blindness’, as avoidance of tenure type’s explicit indications in the design and layouts, is determined in the literature as an important guideline of design within mixed-income developments aimed to sidestep prejudice (cf. Bailey et al. 2007). Despite some evidence indicating that the capacity of housing to meet the differentiated needs of the heterogeneous population tents to vouch for social mixing, the 21

COOPERATIVE HOUSING: CONTEXTUALIZING RESEARCH

particular dwelling features that contribute to social mixing lack sufficient coverage within studies on the social mix. Given the specific organizational structure, residents of cooperative housing are often invited to engage with their physical environment by complementing existing structures or shared spaces. In previous studies on the social mix, it has been argued that specific design elements hold the potential to influence social interactions across people of different background, thereby, becoming substantial support or obstruction for interaction (see Levy/ McDade/ Dumlao 2010: 5, also Talen/ Lee 2018: 36, and Briggs 2005). The design elements in particular are seldom studied in the context of socially mixed housing projects, and it is unclear how much they contribute to the interaction between residents or social mixing.

Social Mixing

Neighborhood

Block

Building

Dwelling diversity Design elements

Image 3: Key spatial dimensions for the study of social mix (source: own drawing, 2020) 22

Spaces of encounter

Facilities & services

Spatial configuration ot site

spatial dimensions

Overall, the orientation of non-for-profit housing cooperatives provides an opportunity for the projects to experiment with typologies and spatial solutions and arrange the planning process proceedings based on their own strategic objectives. This section shows that the cooperative housing projects employ the complex set of interacting physical dimensions that, in one or another form, engage with the topic of social mixing. In view of a direct bearing on the residents’ compositions and interactions between residents, such typologies as A. spatial configuration of the site, B. facilities, and services, C. outside and inside spaces of encounter, D. dwelling diversity, and E. design elements should be considered in the complex in order to provide rounded, detailed illustrations of the relation between social mixing and features of the physical design (see image 3).

RESEARCH GAP

3.3

Research gap

In previous research, a majority of studies on social mix have sought to examine the physical environment and its social mix affects mostly within the state-led housing projects (for instance, see Morris/ Jamieson/ Patulny 2012, also Arthurson 2012). Until now, there have been little references in outlining or specifying the relation between design of physical space and issues related to social mix within the context of new cooperative housing projects. Moreover, a systematic understanding of how the design of physical space contributes to social mixing still lacks since what we know about the impact of the physical environment on the social mix is largely based upon empirical studies that usually focus on a narrower domains of particular spatial aspects (for instance, Lelevrier 2013, Kearns et al. 2013, Roberts 2007, Musterd/ Andersson 2005). In general, the relation between spatial and social dimensions of social mix implementation in cooperative housing has not been ascertained in complex in most previous studies. Subsequently, this study aims to provide insights into the practical examples of the implementation of social mixing within cooperative housing projects in regards to the situations and engagements in which the issues of physical space have been involved in a comprehensive manner.

4 Research design

The descriptive qualitative research is being undertaken for the purpose of depicting the perspectives on and experiences in cooperative housing projects designed to foster social mixing. Qualitative descriptive studies, first and foremost, are rooted in the naturalistic inquiry and are widely recognized as a consistent approach for gaining a deep understanding of the particular phenomenon “within its real-life context” (see Yin 2003). While quantitative research is engaged with the collection of numerical data that can be analyzed by using standardized procedures and testing theories deductively, the qualitative research employs a perspective-based approach and engages with the research inductively, focusing on individual meanings and depiction of the situation complexity (cf. Creswell/ Creswell 2018: 4). In the qualitative research process, the particular focus is laid on the meanings that participants hold about the issues with the overall flow remarkably dependent on the personal peculiarities of interviewees and researcher, as well as settings of the research environment; hence, the generalizability of the research finding in qualitative studies is not expected (Creswell/ Creswell 2018: 181-202). To guide the process of empirical data collection, the set of dimensions for the research was operationalized (see chapter 4.2) according to the conceptual framework outlined during the literature overview and specific research questions (see chapter 4.1).

RESEARCH DESIGN

4.1

Conceptual framework and research focus

The conceptual framework7 presented below (see image 4) strives to explain the logic embedded in the thesis narrations that leads to the research focus. Similar to the ‘onion principle’8, layers of the literature review that connect theoretical discussion and operational reality were covered by respective chapters underpinning the formation and contextualization of questions to be investigated in the study. social mix as a concept

chapter 2.1

social mix as an objective

chapter 2.2

II.

III.

chapter 2.3

IV.

research focus

operational level

discussion level

social dimensions of social mix impelementation

case studies A.

spatial dimentions of social mix implementation

chapter 3.3

typologies of physical spaces for social mix

chapter 3.2

ideas for cooperative housing

chapter 3.1

Image 4: Conceptual framework of research (source: own drawing, 2020)

The research focus, generally aimed to narrow the general subject into the more specific topic within the particular context, in this study is drawn upon the conclusions of the literature review and identified knowledge gap (see chapter 3.3). Tending to cover the complexity of the topic under review, this research considers the range of spatial and social dimensions of social mix implementation in the complex (see image 5). Proven to be important for consideration

7 The conceptual framework, in the understanding of the graphical explanation of the core dimensions to be studied, tend to capture the ideas and theories related to the research field into an organized structure in order to provide direction for the research (see Miles at al. 2014, Frey 2018, also Crawfold 2020). 8 The ‘onion principle’ broadly refers to the multifoldness of the phenomena in which one topic includes another. 26

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH FOCUS

within the projects that imply social mix implementation (see conclusions of chapter 2.2), the social dimensions under review involve I. residency structure, II. motivation for mixing, III. participation, and IV. interaction between residents across incomes, ages, ethnicities. The spatial dimensions under review include issues such as A. spatial configuration of the site, B. facilities and services, C. outside and inside spaces of encounter, D. dwelling diversity, and E. design elements (see conclusions of chapter 3.2). The particular focus of the research is set on spatial examples of the social mix implementation within cooperative housing projects comprising different spatial scales and typologies. The portrayal of particular contextual settings is also conducive to reflect on the practical examples undertaken more accurately.

research focus

social mix concept

I. Residency structure

project location

contextual settings

cooperative scene

social dimensions of social mix impelementation II. Motivation

III. Participation

IV. Face-to-face interaction

How does the relation between social and spatial aspects of social mix implementation reflect across various spatial scales? How does the design of physical spaces address social mixing in cooperative housing? What are the key spatial characteristics that contribute to the coexistence and interactivity of different age, income, and ethnic groups in cooperative housing? A. Spatial configuration of the site

C. Facilities & services

B. Spaces of encounter

D. Dwelling diversity

E. Design elements

spatial dimentions of social mix implementation

Image 5: The focus of research (source: own drawing, 2020)

The key research questions in this study address the following questions: How does the relation between social and spatial aspects of social mix implementation reflect across various spatial scales? How does the design of physical spaces address social mixing in cooperative housing? What are the key spatial characteristics that contribute to the coexistence and interactivity of different age, income, and ethnic groups in cooperative housing?

RESEARCH DESIGN

4.2

Operationalization

There is a consensus among research scientists that qualitative research generally follows a more open approach towards defining the concepts addressed by research questions (see DeCarlo 2018: 241, also Creswell/ Creswell 2018: 182). Despite the inher-

In general, the operationalization refers to the translation and specification of the anticipated notions into determined indications to be refined during the data collection, aiming to ensure consistency in interpretation and to set the stage for data gathering (see Rubin/ Babbie 2009: 170).

ited flexibility of qualitative research methods, the qualitative studies tend to involve operationalization if the study asserts relations or correspondence between variables (see Rubin/ Babbie 2009: 165). The operationalization process in this research took place in a way that is consistent with the research questions outlined in the previous chapter, tending to precisely define and consistently assess the dimensions of study across different contexts. Thus, the operationalization of outlined social and spatial dimensions, as illustrated below (see table 1), is partially based on the descriptions provided within scholarly sources on specific topics discussed within the literature overview (see chapters 2.2 and 3.2). All indicators were evaluated through the interview process. Then the dimensions and indicators were regrouped based on emerging topics during the interviews.

OPERATIONALIZATION

Table 1: Operationalization of social and spatial dimensions of the research Conceptualization

Operationalization

Thematic complexes

Dimensions

Operationalized definitions

Indicators

ocial S dimensions of social mix implementation

1. Residency structure

The level of economic, age and ethnic variation of residents within the area

— income level — age — citizenship

Residents’ motives underlying the choice of the place of residency

— motivation factors

Community participation in project planning and actions at the operational level

— involvement of residents in the decision-making process — self-organization of residents

Interactions and opportunities for social contact within the community between residents across incomes, ages, ethnicities

— situations that foster the commingling of residents — patterns of social contact

The spatial arrangement of layout and buildings that influence social interactivity within the community

— the stance of spatial openness to the surrounding environment — physical organization of trajectories for residential movements — the hierarchy of spaces in regards to levels of privacy and public

The variety of facilities and services that cater the interests of the heterogeneous population

— range of uses and activities present within the area — patters on social interactivity related to the present functional program

Outside and inside spaces that provide opportunities for various levels of interaction between residents across ages, incomes, ethnicities

— range of outside and insidecontact points — qualities of spaces mentioned in the context of narration about interaction between different groups or when describing an activity

The range of dwelling options that offers differentiated living opportunities

— range of dwelling typologies — qualities of dwelling mentioned in the context of narration on the variation of residents within the area

Elements of design that contribute to the interaction between residents of different backgrounds

— elements of urban design actively utilized, reshaped or introduced by residents — qualities of design elements reflected in the context of narration about the interaction between residents across incomes, ages, ethnicities

(Fincher et al. 2014: 16) 2. Motivation (Harlander/ Kuhn 2012a: 428 Weck/ Hanhörster 2015: 484, Costarelli/ Kleinhans/ Mugnano 2019: 139) 3. Participation (Harlander/ Kuhn 2012a: 428)

4. Face-to-face interaction (Lelevrier 2013: 410)

Spatial dimensions of social mix implementation

A. Spatial configuration of the site (Lelevrier 2013: 414-415, Levin/ Arthurson/ Ziersch 2014: 30, Kearns et al. 2013, Dürr/ Kuhn 2018: 13) B. Facilities and services (Bailey et al. 2007, and Jacobs 1961, Montgomery 1998: 98) C. Spaces of encounter (Talen/ Lee 182-183, Arthurson 2010: 56, Hanhörster/ Weck 2020: 263)

D. Dwelling diversity (Kuhn 2016: 48; Bailey et al. 2007)

E. Design elements (Talen/ Lee 2018: 36)

RESEARCH DESIGN

4.3

Research methods

Qualitative research usually employs the collection of multiple forms of data instead of relying on a single source of information (see Creswell/ Creswell 2018: 181). Therefore, the combination of different qualitative research methods (1. Comparative Case Studies, 2. Desktop Research, 3. Interviews, 4. On-site visits) was used for the data collection in this study. Deemed as a compelling method for generation of causal explanations (see Goodrick 2020) and exploring similarities and between and within different cases (see Yin 2003), the method of comparative case studies was applied for the research on how the particular design solutions influence the spatial coexistence and interactivity of different age, income and ethnic groups in cooperative housing (see chapter 4.3.1). The collection of secondary data (including reports, publications, and online sources) at the earlier stages of the research contributed to a better understanding of the research field and selected projects. Interviews and on-site visits were arranged for two cases (see chapters 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). In general, the flexible forms of data enable participants to share to their perspectives in a relatively free manner, “not constrained by predetermined scales and instruments” (see Creswell/ Creswell 2018: 181); after that, review and data organization is carried out by researcher according to codes and themes that emerge across the sources of data. Analysis of qualitative data in this thesis has encompassed the categorization of data and working with emerging themes based on dimensions previously defined.

RESEARCH METHODS

4.3.1 Selection of case studies

In this research, the case studies were chosen drawing upon the combination of the extreme case method and most-similar-case comparison – while the ‘extreme’ method aims to highlight the unusual variation of the phenomena, ‘most-similar’ cases allow tracing the interdependence of variables (see Mills et al. 2010). The selection of case locations, Zurich and Munich, resulted from the literature review (see chapter 3.1) and consideration of spatial proximity of the housing projects that would allow on-site visits. Concerning the rising numbers of innovative cooperative projects in Zurich and Munich, two projects were selected on the strength of research methodology and for reasons of accessibility. The selected projects, chosen carefully so within the research framework it was possible to predict similar patterns across the studies (see Yin 2003), employing the range of similarities that allows their comparability. At the same time, the projects’ selection was made through the initial (formal and informal) connections to professionals involved in the project’s development and residents of the housing projects. Eventually, the following cases were selected for the study – Zwicky Sud in Zurich-Dubendorf and WagnisArt in Munich. Being projects with intentive approaches towards social issues and forms of living, Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt are extreme representatives of Zurich and Munich models of cooperative housing due to their explicit intentions to foster social mixing. Both Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt introduce social mixing as an objective in planning and design, being newly constructed projects comparable in size. The range of architectural and organizational similarities is traced across the selected project, such as participation of residents and the presence of a wide range of common rooms and collective dwelling forms.

Zwicky Sud, Zurich-Dubendorf

WagnisArt, Munich

Image 6: The cases of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt (source: own photos, 2020) 31

RESEARCH DESIGN

4.3.2 Interviews

One of the aims of the research was to review the project from the perspective of experts and residents. In this study, expert interviews were conducted to better understand the case studies and ideas underlying the spatial solutions, while in-depth semi-structured interviews with residents were designated to capture everyday experiences of living in cooperative housing projects. Therefore, a total of 3 interviews with experts and 11 interviews with residents were held in order to cover all defined dimensions for the research (see chapter 4.2). According to the methodological debate, the conduction of interviews with experts tends to shorten the time-demanding process of data collection and to provide a focused first-hand perspective on (emerging) issues, particularly if the access to information is limited (see Bogner/ Littig/ Menz 2009: 2). The existent network of professional contacts enabled possibilities for interviewing experts involved in the development of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt projects, as well as professionals acquainted with both Zurich and Munich contexts. While interviews with Andreas Hofer and Julius Klaffke were project-specific, interview with Tommi Mäkynen and Mirjam Niemeyer aimed to better comprehend local cooperative scenes in Zurich and Munich, allowing finer linkage of research finding from both case studies. Following expert interviews were held: Table 2: List of interviews with experts Focus of the interview

Name

Organization

Position

Zwicky Sud

Andreas Hofer

cooperative Kraftwerk1, co-founder

architect, initiator and developer of Zwicky Sud project

WagnisArr

Julius Klaffke

Bogevischs buero, project architect

leading architect of WagnisArt project

Zurich and Munich cooperative scenes

Tommi Mäkynen Mirjam Niemeyer

Helsinki Zürich Office, architects and partners

experts with extensive knowledge on Zurich and Munich cities

RESEARCH METHODS

Initial contact with the residents was made through social media platforms and acquaintances who currently live in the area. Following recruiting of respondents was made through the Snowball Sampling technique. Selected interviewees varied in terms of household and dwelling type, age, and citizenship. Conversations took place over the phone in June 2020 and lasted on average from 25 to 60 minutes. Interviews were held in different languages according to the residents’ preferences – English, German, and Russian – providing interviewees with an opportunity to express their opinions and experience in the most convenient way. Later, interviews held in German and Russian were translated into English, maintaining accuracy in statements. The in-depth interviews were carried out in a semi-structured manner, focusing on individual paces of each conversation. Hence, the ability to dive deeply into different topics varied from interview to interview. Overall, following interviews with the residents of Zwicky Sud and Wagnis Art were held: Table 3: List of interviews with residents of Zwicky Sud Code

Gender

Household type

Dwelling type

Age

Citizenship

ZS1

female

family with children

4.5 apartment

mid-30s

Non-EU

ZS2

female

parent with child

unit in cluster apartment

mid-30s

Germany

ZS3

female

single dweller

studio apartment

early 20s

Switzerland

ZS4

male

single dweller

flat-share

early 20s

Switzerland

ZS5

male

family

3.5 apartment

early 40s

Switzerland

Table 4: List of interviews with residents of WagnisArt Code

Gender

Household type

Dwelling type

Age

Citizenship

WA1

male

single dweller

unit in cluster apartment

mid-50s

Germany

WA2

female

single dweller

studio apartment

early 80s

Germany

WA3

female

family with children

3.5 apartment

mid-30s

Germany

WA4

male

extended family

4.5 apartment

early 20s

Non-EU

WA5

female

single dweller

unit in cluster apartment

early 70s

Germany

WA6

male

family with children

3.5 apartment

mid-40s

Non-EU

RESEARCH DESIGN

4.3.3 On-site visits

In addition to conducting interviews with experts and residents, on-site visits to Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt were deployed within the research process. For each project the collection of observations and impressions on the surrounding environment and the residents’ daily life lasted for an average of three days by taking up temporary residence in the housing project with a local family. Given the fact that site visits were undertaken after the interview process, on-site observations aided in crosschecking and adding depth to the information obtained from the conversations with the residents and supported the capturing of the situation in a more comprehensive way. Besides, photos taken during visits provided the illustrative materials for the empirical part of research. 4.3.4 Limitations and ethical issues

The engaged qualitative study is based on non-representative sampling techniques, namely, Snowball Sampling. The research findings therefore outline perspectives on particular issues, rather than generalized inferences. The access to the numerical data related to the social composition of residents, including residency structure and background of tenants (factoring their age, income level, and ethnicity) was limited due to privacy protection regulations employed by both cooperatives. Subsequently, it is important to mention that the interpretation of the research findings is highly dependent on the personal opinions revealed during interviews, with particular circumstances affecting conversations and observations, among other things, considering the COVID-19 epidemiological context. However, the comparison of the results obtained empirically has allowed for a partial reassertion of the evidence base employed in the research. A number of ethical issues were anticipated during the study, based on ethical guidance outlined by Creswell & Creswell (see Creswell/ Creswell 2018: 89-90). Firstly, the research objectives were communicated to the interviewees verbally, including an explanation of how the data would be used. The verbal permission for the recording of conversations was then received. During the site visits, the consents for making photographs were taken. Afterwards, all conversations with residents were anonymized with the help of coding. The full transcription of conversations with residents was added to the thesis in the form of a separate document. Lastly, the funding acknowledgments were mentioned. 34 34

5 Overview and introduction of case studies

This chapter presents two case studies – Zwicky Sud in Zurich-Dubendorf, and WagnisArt in Munich. Being drawn from different historical and social contexts, Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt present innovative approaches to the development of cooperative housing and living together. Although the case studies selected for this research employ different housing finance and project development models, Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt have a range of spatial and organizational similarities. In the pages that follow, the contextual information from case studies is outlined in order to reflect accurately on the practical examples undertaken, which include an introduction to the local cooperative scene, employed within the project concept of social mixing and project location.

Munich Zurich

Image 7: Location of case study projects (source: own drawing, 2020)

5.1

Zwicky Sud in Zurich-Dubendorf, Switzerland

Image 8: Zwicky Sud (source: own photo, 2020)

Table 5: Core characteristics of the Zwicky Sud project developed by Kraftwerk1 Characteristic

Description

Address

Am Wasser 1, 3, 4, , 5, 9, 10, 11, 8600 Dubendorf / Switzerland

Project launch

2009

Project completion

2015 / 2016

Developer

Bau- und Wohngemeinschaft Kraftwerk1

Plot size

11 500 m2

Total usable area

17 000 m2

Program

280 households (from 29m2 to 430 m2), offices, dining areas, hotel, educational facilities, communal room, library, laundry, guest apartments, communal roof

Architecture

Schneider Studer Primas Architekten GmbH Zürich

Landscape architecture

Lorenz Eugster, Landschaftsarchitekten und Städtebau GmbH

Rental costs per square meter of living space

244 CHF per m2 / year

Acknowledgements

Architekturpreis Kanton Zürich 2016

OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION OF CASE STUDIES

5.1.1 Cooperative scene in Zurich

The history of the Swiss model of social and affordable housing provision as a means of tackling housing shortage dates back over a hundred years. Nowadays, more than 120 cooperatives in Zurich make up 20 percent of rental stock in the city (see Sotomo

Image 9: Housing stock in Zurich: green - cooperatives, red - municipality of Zurich, blue - philantropic foundations (source: Ledent/ Salembrier/ Vanneste, 2019, own scan from the book ‘Sustainable Dwelling Between Spatial Polyvalence and Residents’ Empowerment’, 2020)

2017: 13, also Hofer 2019: 25). The city of Zurich supports the development of cooperative housing through various means, including the organizational help, but with few subsidies (see Hofer 2020). Emerging from work of activists and cooperative movements in response to the housing shortage in the 1980s, the new housing cooperatives in Zurich (such as Wogeno, the PWG foundation, Karthago) have been working with a range of social issues such as social inclusion, connectivity, and societal transformation (see Hofer 2019: 32). Cooperative Kraftwerk1, founded in 1995 as an offspring of the local initiatives KraftWerkSommer 94 and 95, is one of the youngest cooperatives in Zurich (Hofer 2019: 35). It implements “ecologically and socially innovative” projects with high density and diversity in and around Zurich aiming to give the largest possible variety of people fair access to the apartments, with an attempt to include those who have “little chance on the regular market” (Kraftwerk1 2020b; own translation). During the last two decades, cooperatives have become more responsible for the development of quartiers, involving those at the fringe on the city (see projects Hunziker Areal in Zurich-Leutschenbach, also Heizenholz in Zurich-Hongg, Zwicky Sud in Zurich-Dubendorf). These places have become testing grounds for new ideas, typologies, and approaches.

ZWICKY SUD IN ZURICH-DUBENDORF, SWITZERLAND

5.1.2 Social mixing concept: ‘Züri-Mischung’

Similar to the other cooperative housing projects of Kraftwerk1, Zwicky Sud had a set objective to align with the ‘Züri-Mischung’, which tends to roughly reflect the average of the Zurich metropolitan area9 in terms of “age, gender, education, origin, citizenship, income, wealth, special needs and lifestyle” (see image 10) (Kraftwerk1 2014: 7). Kraftwerk1 holds the view that the budget required to enter a cooperative “should not be a restriction for anybody” to become a resident (Hofer 2020). Overall, the cooperative Kraftwerk1 does not rely on much support from the city and instead rent subsidies for lower-income residents are covered by the internal solidarity fund generated by contributions from other cooperative members (see Hofer 2020). Kraftwerk1 Strategie 2014–2024 – III. Kraftwerk1 sagt Ja zur Vielfalt der Menschen

III. Kraftwerk1 sagt Ja zur Vielfalt der Menschen •

Die durchschnittlichen Quadratmeter-Wohnkosten in Kraftwerk1-Siedlungen betragen höchstens 250 Franken (Zürcher Index der Konsumentenpreise per 1. Januar 2013).

“Es bestehen keine Einkommensgrenzen für das freitragende Wohnungsangebot”

•

• • •

Wohnungsgrössen für alle Lebenslagen und lebenslanges Wohnen und für alle Lebensformen in jeder Siedlung / Schaltzimmer, Satellitenzimmer, Unterteilbarkeit, Koppelbarkeit / Unterstützung interner Wohnungswechsel … Kraftwerk1 berücksichtigt die besonderen Bedürfnisse unterschiedlicher Menschen, verwirklicht das Prinzip der allgemeinen Zugänglichkeit und lebt gesellschaftliche Solidarität. Es bestehen keine Einkommensgrenzen für das freitragende Wohnungsangebot. Die Siedlungen verfügen über attraktive Gemeinschaftsräume.

Kraftwerk1-Siedlungen werden von einer Vielfalt an Menschen bewohnt. Die soziale Mischung der Bewohner_innen über alle Kraftwerk1-Siedlungen hinweg bildet in etwa den Durchschnitt des Metropolitanraums Zürich ab (Alter, Geschlecht, Bildung, Herkunft, Bürgerrechtsstatus, Einkommen, Vermögen, spezielle Bedürfnisse, Lebensform). Um dies zu erreichen, erstellt die Verwaltung regelmässig Ist-Analysen. Der Vorstand erarbeitet darauf basierend zuhanden der Generalversammlung Vorgaben für die Neu- oder Wiedervermietung von Wohnraum und die Planung neuer Siedlungen. Vorstand, Geschäftsstelle und Vermietungskommissionen sorgen aktiv dafür, dass innerhalb einer Siedlung sowie zwischen den Siedlungen bei Kündigungen Rochaden möglich sind, dass der Tausch von zu einer angemessenen ihren geänderten Bedürfnissen entsprechenden Wohnung zu verhelfen.

“Die soziale Mischung der Bewohner_innen über alle Kraftwerk1-Siedlungen hinweg bildet in etwa den Durchschnitt des Metropolitanraums Zürich ab (Alter, Geschlecht, Bildung, Herkunft, Bürgerrechtsstatus, Einkommen, Vermögen, spezielle Bedürfnisse, Lebensform)”

Kraftwerk1 fördert innovative Wohnformen und praktiziert selber gesellschaftliche Solidarität. Kraftwerk1 fördert das gemeinschaftliche Siedlungsleben. Grosshaushalte konzipiert (Gross-WGs ab 5 Personen, 2-Generationen-WGs, 3-Generationen-Haushalte, Cluster-Wohnungen, Suiten …). Kraftwerk1 praktiziert Solidarität mit auf dem Wohnmarkt Benachteiligten (z.B. Sans-Papiers, kinder werden an sie vermietet. Eine Mietpartei kann beiden Kriterien – gemeinschaftlicher Grosshaushalt / auf dem Wohnmarkt benachteiligt – entsprechen. Ziel 5: Für die nächste neue Siedlung hat die Genossenschaft ihre für neue Siedlungen verbindlichen

das gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Minimum (Barrierefreiheit gemäss Norm SIA 500). Bis 2024 hat die Genossenschaft in den bestehenden Siedlungen Massnahmen umgesetzt, um sie diesen Standards anzunähern.

“Kraftwerk1 praktiziert Solidarität mit auf dem Wohnmarkt Benachteiligten (z.B. Sans-Papiers, kinderreiche, ausländische, finanziell herausgeforderte Familien, Behinderte). Mindestens 10% der Wohnungen werden an sie vermietet”

Ziel 6: Kraftwerk1 entwickelt bis 2019 zusätzliche Werkzeuge, um auf dem Immobilienmarkt Benachteiligten den Zugang zu bezahlbarem Mietraum zu ermöglichen.

Image 10: “Kraftwerk1 sagt Ja zur Vielfalt der Menschen” (source: based on materials from Kraftwerk1 2014, own collage, 2020)

9 Based on the average of the statistical data from the city of Zurich and the canton of Zurich (cf. Kraftwerk1 2014: 10). 41

OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION OF CASE STUDIES

5.1.3 Location

Zwicky Sud is located in the fringe of Zurich city, within the fragmented urban environment (see images 11 and 12). The areas adjacent to the site appear to be mixed in regards to the social composition. The Schwamendingen area, being one of the post-war garden city developments, appears to be one of the impoverished areas in Zurich (cf. Hofer 2020), while new developments within the communities of Walliselen and Dubendorf have drastically thrived in the last few years. Wallisellen

1.7 km 1.3

Dübendorf

Zurich center

Image 11: Location of Zwicky Sud: city-scale perspective / scale 1: 10 000 (source: own drawing, 2020)

shopping

Richti-Areal Glatt center Zwicky-Areal

Schwamendingen garden city area

R&D

Sport fields

shopping low-rise housing Image 12: Location of Zwicky Sud: neighborhood-scale perspective / scale 1: 5 000 (source: own drawing, 2020) 42

Dubendorf center

ZWICKY SUD IN ZURICH-DUBENDORF, SWITZERLAND

The development of Zwicky Sud was launched in 2009 as a part of the redevelopment of an old industrial area – a family-owned spinning mill known by the name Zwicky. The new urban quartier Zwicky-Areal has grown in several stages on different plots (see image 13).

Image 13: Development stages of Zwicky-Areal (source: Hochparterre 2016)

Several development organizations took part within the building up of Zwicky Sud field – cooperative Kraftwerk1, real estate investment foundations Adimora/ Turidomus, and company Senn IFA AG (see image 14). In the case of Zwicky Sud, its location happens to be of particular significance within the project Wallisellen, Neugut was invited as a pioneering invesdevelopment, as the cooperative Kraftwerk1 tram stop tor, given its previous experience with difficult sites in bringing commercial and public functions (see Hofer 2020).

Adimora/ Turidomos

Kraftwerk1

Senn

Image 14: The project’s site plan with regard to developers (source: based on materials from Kraftwerk1 2020a, own editing, 2020) 43

5.2

WagnisArt in Munich, Germany

Image 15: WagnisArt (source: own photo, 2020)

Table 6: Core characteristics of the WagnisArt project Characteristic

Description

Address

Fritz-Winter-Straße 6-20 80807 Munich Germany

Project launch

2012

Project completion

2016

Developer

Wohnungsbau Genossenschaft wagnis eG

Plot size

20 275 m2

Total usable area

10 610 m2

Program

138 households (from 35m2 to 400 m2), ateliers, offices, dining areas, event space, communal rooms, workshops, laundry, sewing room, rehearsal rooms, guest apartments, communal roof gardens, communal terraces

Architecture

arge bogevischs buero architekten & stadtplaner GmbH/ SHAG Schindler Hable Architekten GbR

Landscape architecture

arge bauchplan und auböck/kárász

Rental costs per square meter of living space

9,6 – 13 EUR m2/month

Acknowledgements

Deutscher Städtebaupreis 2016 45

OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION OF CASE STUDIES

5.2.1 Cooperative scene in Munich

For more than 20 years, from 1996 to 2019, the city of Munich has been considered the most expensive city for renters in Germany (cf. F+B Forschung und Beratung für Wohnen, Immobilien und Umwelt GmbH 2019). The high price of building plots is the leading cause of expensive housing costs in Munich (cf. Merk 2016: 126). At the same time, Munich has one of the highest proportions of migrants among all German cities (see Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 2012). Aiming for the provision of affordable housing for lower and middle-income groups and the “introduction of sustainably stable social structures and high life-quality in the new quartiers” (cf. Merk 2016: 126-128), the city of Munich introduces the practice of the site plot transfer and various letting policies that promote the construction of cooperative rental housing and support of integrative solutions (see Landeshauptstadt München 2017: 63). Hence, becoming more important within the broader context of affordable housing provision when real estate in Munich city happens to offer far less inexpensive housing, the new housing cooperatives commonly form a part of the new development areas (see Mäkynen/ Niemeyer 2020). Tracing back to the introduction of Genossenschaftsgesetz in 1889, the new cooperative movement in Munich became particularly active since the 1990s with the establishment of such cooperatives as WOGENO in 1993 and Wagnis in 2000. With around 20 years of experience, the Wagnis cooperative has founded five housing projects in the Munich region. Benefiting from letting policies in the Munich city (see Thiesen 2016: 28), the Wagnis cooperative has been going through a unique process of project development with each venture. Known and considered “Germany’s most radical housing cooperative”, WagnisArt is the fifth project realized by the Wagnis cooperative (see Kaltenbach 2017).

WAGNISART IN MUNICH, GERMANY

5.2.2 Social mixing concept: ‘Münchner Mischung’

The receipt of ‘Münchner Mischung’ is a declared objective of Munich’s economic policy, targeting in particular new housing developments (see Landeshauptstadt München 2018). The latest housing program ‘Wohnen in München VI 2017-2021’ has set the distinct focus on the alignment towards ‘Münchner Mischung’ and provision of diversified housing supply for various income groups. If the land is city-owned, Munich city employs transfer of the site plot through the open method at a certain proportion to municipal housing associations, cooperatives, building assemblies, and developers (see Kleefisch-Jobst/ Köddermann/ Jung 2016: 112). Regarding housing cooperatives as an important actor10 in the process of affordable housing provision, Munich city supports the development of cooperative projects through the different programs, according to the particular target groups (see image 16) (cf. Landeshauptstadt München 2017: 15). Following particular obligations enshrined in the property purchase agreement, cooperative WagnisArt tends to provide living opportunities for different income groups with cooperation from the Munich city (see Meyer 2017: 83). Homeless

Trainee/ Students

Small households

Families

Elderly

City employee

Other target groups

Einkommensorientierte Förderung (EOF) München Modell

Image 16: A backdrop of programs offered by the city of Munich to the housing cooperatives by target groups (source: based on materials from Landeshauptstadt München 2017, own drawing, 2020)

10 Along with the municipal housing associations and building associations (cf. Landeshauptstadt München 2017: 15). 47

OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION OF CASE STUDIES

5.2.3 Location

WagnisArt is located at the premises of the former radio barracks with good transport accessibility to the center of Munich city. The adjacent areas to the site are strongly associated with production in one form or another (see image 18). The area Alte Heide was set up by the non-profit housing association for the industrial plant workers. The neighboring mixed-used quarter Parkstadt

5.5 k

Schwabing is located on former industrial sites.

Munich center

Image 17: Location of WagnisArt: city-scale perspective / scale 1: 10 000 (source: own drawing, 2020)

low-rise housing

BMW industry

Domagkpark

Milbertshofen

Israelite cementery

Parkstadt Schwabing

Alte Heide

Image 18: Location of WagnisArt: neighborhood-scale perspective / scale 1: 5 000 (source: own drawing, 2020)

sport facilities

WAGNISART IN MUNICH, GERMANY

WagnisArt project was launched in 2013 as a part of the new urban quarter Domagkpark as one of several plots established by different developers (see image 19) with overarching architectural qualities, such as the selection of finishing materials for the facades (see image 20). Legend: Gewofag

housing

Studentenwerk München

public facilities Domagk

cooperative housing

school Schwabing Plus Die Do-it-yourself-Bauherren kindergarten

Wogeno FrauenWohnen Wogeno

public housing

Gewofag WagnisArt Student housing

joint building ventures

ateliers

rail tracks

Image 19: WagnisArt in the context of Domagkpark development / scale 1: 5 000 (source: own drawing, 2020)

Image 20: Domagkpark, view at the Gertrud-Grunow-Straße (source: own photos, 2020)

Image 21: View at the Zwicky Sud project (source: own photo, 2020)

50 50

6 Research findings: Zwicky Sud

6.1

Social dimensions

6.1.1 Residency structure

Nowadays, in Zwicky Sud around 350 people reside in 125 apartments with a wide variety of residents who differ in terms of age, income level, citizenship, and household type (see Kraftwerk1 2019: 32). Overall, the settling of residents in Zwicky Sud implies the undergo of the selection process held by the cooperative that ensures the diverse composition of the community. At the same time, the cooperative looks for tenants who “appreciate good neighborhood, get involved and are open to new, sustainable forms of living” (see Kraftwerk1 2020b; own translation). When asked about the composition of the community, a majority of interviewees commented that Zwicky Sud is characterized by a wide variety of residents, a large number of families with small children, and a diverse population in regards to their ethnocultural background (ZS1, ZS2, ZS4, ZS5). As one interviewee put it: “Here a lot of different people are living together – you can find residents of any ages, nationalities, genders, and social statuses. Some people save every penny, while others live high off the hog” (ZS1). The organizational form of the Zwicky Sud project involves the rent of apartments, wherein around 11 dwellings out of all residential units are subsidized (see Schmid 2019: 262). The cooperative Kraftwerk1 provides the opportunity for low-income residents to apply for different forms of fee reduction, by deploying the money to cover the share in cooperative from the internal solidarity fund of the cooperative or state pension funds (cf. Hofer 2020). Moreover, the cooperative is also working with institutions that offering housing to people reliant on care (ZS5). 51

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

The increased proportion of young families (with parents in their 30s and 40s and small children up to ten years old) is clearly expressed in Zwicky Sud (ZS2, ZS4). Families and single household dwellers of the cooperative come from different parts of the world, bringing together their diverse backgrounds of 20 to 30 cultures (ZS2). In general, a higher share of residents in Zwicky Sud seem to have foreign backgrounds than that on average in Zurich (ZS2). Despite the presumably low number of older residents within the area, several informants explicitly referred that most of the elderly population of Zwicky Sud is actively participating in community live (ZS2, ZS5). One interviewee argued that the average age of residents in the cooperative is possibly below the average age across the demographic of Zurich (ZS2). Yet, students in Zwicky Sud seem to be underrepresented (ZS4). 6.1.2 Motivation

In the conversation with residents, it became clear that different factors affect the motivation of residents to choose Zwicky Sud as a their location of residency. First and foremost, the good quality affordable housing seems to be one of the important reasons why residents choose Zwicky Sud for living despite the certain remoteness of the area. According to Hofer, the low attraction of the site’s peripheral location allowed Zwicky Sud to draw diverse residents to the project, inter alia, “urban pioneers, people interested in being part of the Kraftwerk1 cooperative, but also low-income families that are desperately seeking for affordable accommodation in this area” (Hofer 2020). One interviewee alluded to the notion of “compactness of the apartments” compared to the other similar options on the Zurich housing market as an important aspect when choosing an apartment for families with many children (ZS1). In conversations, one resident particularly mentioned the interest in the cooperative living form as pull factor for moving into Zwicky Sud (ZS2). While some residents with the distinct interest in cooperative living actively use available facilities and opportunities to come together, another part of tenants live quite isolated and appreciate their privacy, happening to live in the area not due to the particular interest in the present organizational structure, but because they found in Zwicky Sud “nice” and “cheap” apartment (ZS2, ZS3, ZS4). All in all, what emerges from the interviews is that low rental costs for new apartments than that on average in Zurich, coupled with the particular interest in cooperative housing communities, appeared to be decisive factors in choosing Zwicky Sud as a place of residency. 52

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

6.1.3 Participation

The planning and design of the whole complex in the case of Zwicky Sud was a prerogative of the architecture team of Schneider Studer Primas Architekten that won the architectural competition by showing the potentials of the plot arrangements in regards to the site location (cf. Hofer 2020). The participatory involvement in the development of the Zwicky Sud project was organized by Kraftwerk1 cooperative and constituted the public nature where every interested in the project was able to become a part of the decision-making process (cf. Hofer 2020). Andreas Hofer remarked that the core rule in the participatory involvement was that participants were able to “talk about everything, but not about [their] own flat” (Hofer 2020). While the scope of participation remained mostly in the format of consultations through the concept development and the planning phase, during the project operation, cooperative members of Zwicky Sud were called for making their own decisions regarding the allocation of a part of the communal budget or usage of particular spaces. Zwicky Sud is a self-organized settlement where a great emphasis is placed on solidarity and provision of a framework for the initiatives taken by residents. Residents of the cooperative take part in the decision-making process via Plenum and self-organization of the complex maintenance and operation – in Zwicky Sud operate a settlement commission and various operational and working groups that have regular meetings (see image 22) (see Kraftwerk1 2018, Zemp et al. 2020). During Plenum meetings, cooperative members hold the opportunity to address particular questions, express an opinion through voting, and engage in the allocation of a part of the communal fund for setting up spaces or activities in particular interest for the whole community (ZS1, ZS2, and ZS5). Plenum selection

support office

exhange

SiKo/ core group coordination

KUK working groups Salle

operating groups supply library maintainance outdoor spaces

Kinderplenum

Oberstubli

Aktionstag Conflicts

activities Sommerfest Streitbar Sonntags Circolo kino Hasenstall

Image 22: Settlement organization (source: based on materials from Kraftwerk1 2018, own drawing, 2020)

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

A recurrent theme in the conversations was a sense amongst interviewees that the group responsible for meeting the decisions during Plenums only to a limited extent represent the whole community of residents (ZS1, ZS2). One resident put it: “We always have the same 20 to 30 people going to Plenum. They are white, middle-aged, highly educated Swiss or Germans. So they do not represent at all the mix of people who live here” (ZS2). For example, one resident shared that during one Plenum it has been decided to limit outdoor football time, which seems to indirectly address non-participant families with children of a certain age and background (ZS1). During the conversations, it became apparent that community participation is not on the agenda of a part of Zwicky Sud inhabitants. In part, the occasionally low level of engagement of particular groups may stem from Plenum meetings held in Swiss German makes the subject hard to understand for a large portion of the population with an international background (ZS1, ZS2). One interviewee suggested that due to the fact that “always the same people visit Plenum meetings”, some residents get an idea that Plenum meetings are “not for them” (ZS1). On the other side, the cooperative system generally requires a higher degree of participation, which is new for part of the residents regardless of their background (ZS5). The younger residents of Zwicky Sud hold the possibility of taking part in the KinderPlenum, which is a fun activity for children where they plan together spaces in the area (ZS1). Trying to enlist as many children as possible to KinderPlenum, especially children that are constantly present outdoors and whose parents “are not visible or present” in the area, organizers find it challenging to “fully involve everyone” (ZS1). In Zwicky Sud occur a range of activities initiated by working groups with different frequencies, from annual events to weekly activities. As one interviewee put it: “you always feel that something is being organized or is happening” (ZS1). While a quarterly Zwicky-Fest is a huge meeting ground for the whole community, smaller events are often attended by particular groups of residents. The maintenance and cleaning duties of shared spaces of Zwicky Sud is taken over to a great extent by residents to reduce operational costs.

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

6.1.4 Face-to-face interaction

Several interviewees noted that residents of the cooperative housing seem to have tighter connections between each other compared to tenants who live in the neighboring buildings around the cooperative with the similar design (ZS2, ZS3). In general, the combination of spatial features that draw residents outside and tend to support daily interactions and a range of activities held by and for the community that create occasions for residents to come together may explain the observed close ties between residents. It is important to highlight the distinct intent of the cooperative and its members to encourage interactions between residents. “In Zwicky Sud, there is quite a lot of effort people do to create a certain environment where people could come together” (ZS5). The language barrier was mentioned by several informants as one of the key challenges related to the interaction between neighbors and non-participation in the common activities (ZS1, ZS4). Besides, one interviewee shared that residents who are usually not very present in the area are “just happen to live here”, being “not very interested in the vision of the cooperative or living with others” (ZS2). A recurrent theme that emerged from the interviews is the involvement of children in the life of the community. Children in Zwicky Sud often seem to foster linkages and mix between parents of different backgrounds, being, in general, strongly present outdoors and more actively involved in different community activities (ZS1, ZS2). Andreas Hofer commented that the presence of children usually tends to “organize the social system”, acting as “a bridge for the parents” (Hofer 2020). Besides, talking about the social mix in Zwicky Sud, one resident mentioned that seeing families from various countries with their different ways of bringing up children has influenced her perception of parenting style (ZS2). The context of everyday interactions in Zwicky Sud is closely associated with the daily movements of residents in many shaped by the structural and spatial organization of the area (see chapter 6.2). In the case of Zwicky Sud, relatively high residential density itself seems to stimulate a certain degree of social interaction between residents. One interviewee put it: “When you have such a mix of everything, you have no chance, in a way, to solitude from it. Everything is open, everyone sees each other, everything is very close, and many people [live here] as apartments are small, and the density is quite high” (ZS1). 55

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

The patterns of social interactivity between residents of collective dwellings seem to depend, in part, on the spatial layout of dwellings, including the arrangement of shared facilities and entrances to the housing units. The organization of community life in the moderate number of collective household dwellings vary from apartment to apartment depending on the number of inhabitants and dwelling typology (see chapter 6.2.4). Cooperative housekeeping seems to be a common practice on a daily basis within bigger living arrangements inhabited by families and single dwellers (ZS2). It is important to mention that in their accounts of the events surrounding social contacts, several residents commented that the coronavirus epidemic and its restrictive measures had affected the patterns of daily encounters (ZS1, ZS3).

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

6.2

Spatial dimensions

6.2.1 Spatial configuration of the site

The spatial arrangement of Zwicky Sud greatly results from the particularities of the site location (cf. Hofer 2020). The core challenge of the project development was laid in establishing the connection to the surrounding area through opening up the area and solving the range of technical problems related to specific building constraints, such as protection from the noise and spacing to traffic (see image 23) (see Hofer 2020). Zwicky Sud is shaped by three core building types (blocks, halls, and slabs) that react to the complex spatial conditions. Linear buildings along the site perimeter act as a barrier to the noise and ensures a quiet inner yard, while deep blocks inside the site contribute to dense development. In general, the density of Zwicky Sud with FAR 1.8311 is high enough due to the fact that buildings of six and seven floors fit neatly in relation to each other.

uts

tra

Legend:

Wallisellen, Neugut tram stop

rail tracks

sse

road transport traffic noise

noise from train lines Dübendorf, Neugut Süd bus stop

paths to public transport

nd St

Uberla

Giessen tram stop

public transport spot

Image 23: Local transport conditions / scale 1: 5 000 (source: own drawing, 2020)

Gross floor area = 21 000 m2 / Size of site = 11 500 m2

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

The high degree of openness that allows spatial and visual continuity between spaces in Zwicky Sud from the side of the entrances to the area is an important feature of the site configuration that allows unobstructed neighborly movements (see image 24). The way how the space between buildings coming together directs the trajectories of residents’ movements towards space underneath the railway viaduct in the middle of Zwicky-Areal given the location of public transport and services frequently used by local residents, such as grocery store on the opposite side from the viaduct (ZS1, ZS3). According to on-site observations, the borderline territory under the viaduct between Zwicky Sud and other parts of Zwicky-Area serves as a meeting space for residents from the whole complex. west entrance

borderline area

left axis

right axis

Image 24: Borderline territory of Zwicky Sud (source: own photos, 2020)

The hierarchy of spaces is defined by the width of the passages between buildings, while gravel is used as the main material, covering the surface in a unifying way. The public and communal facilities are primarily grouped around the inner outdoor space. The entrances to the buildings in Zwicky Sud are arranged from the inner yard (see image 25) where, as observed on-site, occur the frequent encounters and small talks between residents of different age and background that share access to buildings, which seems to condense to a certain degree already large proximity of tenants to each other.

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

to train stop Wallisellen, Neugut

Legend:

pedestrian route entrances

to bus stop Dübendorf, Neugut Süd

playground

Image 25: Arrangement of an inner space (source: Deutsches Architektenblatt 2019, image by Schneider Studer Primas Architekten GmbH, own editing, 2020)

Two external bridges, which constitute an integral part of the internal movement of residents of collective dwellings (ZS2), link together volumes of building in Zwicky Sud at the fifth and sixth floors and visually amass buildings together (see image 26).

Image 26: External bridge that connects parts of cluster apartments (source: own photo, 2020)

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

6.2.2 Facilities and services

The high density of Zwicky Sud has allowed a finer-grained mix of public and communal facilities. To host non-residential uses, the height of the ground floor in Zwicky Sud constitutes around 4.5 meters. On the whole, commercial and public uses at the ground floor with a flexible layout in Zwicky Sud accounts for 3.850 square meters, about 22,8 percent of total usable space12 (see Kraftwerk1 2020c), which is quite a high rate compared to the similar new mixed-use developments on the city border. During the project development, cooperative Kraftwerk1 has set a particular emphasis on the diversification of uses across the whole Zwicky Sud site concerning the different owners of neighboring buildings (ZS5). The present uses, introduced to the part of Zwicky Sud owned by the cooperative, include food and beverage, educational and social facilities, ateliers, offices, services, and communal facilities (see image 27).

Legend: Quartierverein

housing education

commerce/ services

ZwiBack offices

communal facilities

shops

maintainance

communal room hotel Spiel and Sport Raum

Image 27: Facilities and services in Zwicky Sud (source: Deutsches Architektenblatt 2019, image by Schneider Studer Primas Architekten GmbH, own editing 2020)

12 Main usable area (SIA 416) = 16.885 m2

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

An important meeting point for residents of Zwicky Sud and neighbors from the surrounding territory is ZwiBack bistro (see image 28). For example, one resident commented: “In ZwiBack often sit people whom I do not know, and sometimes someone from our cooperative” (ZS1). Talking about important meeting spaces, the younger residents of Zwicky Sud explicitly referred to ZwiBack as a place where they regularly spend time or meet their neighbors (ZS3, ZS4). It is important to mention that ZwiBack, as socially responsible entrepreneurship, secures working opportunities for people with impairments and provides satellite living in Zwicky Sud for its employees (ZS5).

Image 28: View at the ZwiBack bistro (source: own photos, 2020)

The number of communal spaces, accounting for 285 square meters integrated into the rent, are intended mostly for the periodic use by residents of the cooperative (ZS5). During the interviews, it has been noted that the usage of public and communal facilities is determined by residents’ interests and needs, which does not necessarily imply the intermingling of different groups (ZS1, ZS2). For instance, one resident shared: “The biggest communal room at the ground floor is used by everybody because it is huge and fully equipped with the kitchen, and you can rent it. But people do not mix up there. For example, during the Ramadan, the Islamic community used it to have the Iftar festival there. (…) I think people with a foreign background, who invite their older relatives and friends, especially appreciate that room because it is so huge” (ZS2). While ‘Spiel und Sport Raum’ is predominantly used by residents interested in sports and children, the library is frequently used by older tenants and residents interested in books (ZS2, ZS5). It can be concluded that the different facilities seem to attract different groups, and the more diverse the offer is, including commercial and non-commercial usage, the higher the chance to cater to the needs of a hetero61

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

geneous population. Besides, the presence of communal facilities is important for providing an opportunity to come together as a group and acknowledging the neighbors. big communal room

library

1. OG laundry

‘Sport und Spiel Raum’

Image 29: A range of communal spaces present in Zwicky Sud (source: own drawing, 2020)

Evidence suggests that the cooperation of Zwicky Sud residents in sharing responsibilities is far from satisfactory. Several residents remarked about some incidents related to the misuse of shared facilities and cleaning (ZS1, ZS2). Talking about these issues, residents have explicitly referred to the need for the division of responsibilities and ensuring the necessary involvement of residents in taking care of the shared spaces. Overall, these results indicate that with such a diverse population, it is important to reach an agreement on the common ground for assuming shared responsibility.

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

6.2.3 Spaces of encounter

The design of Zwicky Sud generally ensures the availability of different spaces that provide opportunities for various situations for interaction between residents, including daily encounters and planned activities. One resident noted: “our communication mainly occurs inside the cooperative, it looks like the people from the cooperative are much more present outside” (ZS1). In conversations, residents of different ages alluded to the different outdoor spaces that they frequently use, which might be partly attributed to the present variety of interests. The overwhelming majority of interviewees stated that the inner yard with a playground constitutes a crucial space for interaction among residents from different cultural backgrounds. For instance, one resident put it: “at the playground, people, parents, and cultures come together” (ZS5). Another interviewee stated: “at places that everybody uses, we mix up… I would say it is all around the playground, (…) for everybody who has kids” (ZS2). Overall, the playground, being a social meeting place for a large portion of the population, targets mostly families with children.

Image 30: Area around the playground as a place of interaction between parents and children of different backgrounds (source: own photos, 2020)

It was observed that residents also actively make use of available surrounding open spaces for getting together in smaller circles of friends, arranging the different uses for common space. One resident remarked that it is important to have “different platforms on a low threshold, for people to interact, which is not necessarily Plenum (…). Sometimes you realize that if you do something else, 63

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

you grill something outside and eat without having to do something else, there is all of a sudden some other people showing up” (ZS5). It is interesting that tenants rarely use an open terrace on the rooftop of a block building. A possible reason for this might be that this area has no defined usage (ZS2). Another explanation is that the passage to the common terrace is organized through a private patio that belongs to a flat-sharing community and may seem too private for entering.

Image 31: Adaptation of open spaces by the community – outdoor platform (on the left), patio near the rooftop terrace (on the right) (source: own photos, 2020)

During the site visit, the numerous daily interactions between residents were observed near the buildings’ entrances and at vertical communications. One resident remarked on the high number of acquaintance-making in the elevator, especially “when you see a person for the first time” (ZS1). The entrance area in block building has a completely different character than ones in slab buildings due to the vast amount of space for movements and encounters; hence, children are often found playing there.

Image 32: Entrances to the building as sites of daily intermingling and children play (source: own photos, 2020)

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

In conversations with residents, it became possible to suggest that galleries, which face an inner yard, only to a limited extent support casual interactions between residents since not so many households use to share one floor (ZS1, ZS2). For instance, one resident commented: “there are people with whom I constantly stay in touch on every floor, except ours. So the fact that we have these galleries does not play a major role – either the communication is going well or not” (ZS1). Nevertheless, galleries’ arrangement provides an opportunity to use different entrances from one or other side of the building, thus intersecting with tenants from different parts of the buildings. Besides, it was observed that residents are occasionally watching their kids or pass the word to their acquaintances in the inner yard from the gallery level.

Image 33: The use of outdoor galleries (source: own photos, 2020)

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

6.2.4 Dwelling diversity

The structural and spatial structure of Zwicky Sud has allowed the introduction of a large variety of dwelling typologies into the project owing to the usage of non-loadbearing facades within the different building types – blocks, halls, and slabs (see Hofer 2020). In Zwicky Sud, housing typologies vary from studios (of around 30 m2) and more conventional multi-room apartments (of 60 – 120 m2) to deep collective dwellings forms for up to eleven tenants (up to 430m2), subsequently providing a comprehensive range of dwelling sizes and housing options (see image 34). In conversations with residents, a range of dwelling options was primarily described in relation to the wide variety of family situations present in Zwicky Sud. One resident remarked: “Initially, the idea was in the great diversity of dwelling types so that in the cooperative should be found suitable housing for any family or lifestyle situation. In the part of Zwicky Sud at free rent, they have more standard layouts of apartments. But here, in the cooperative, you can find a great variety of dwellings, including WGs” (ZS1). Different housing typologies are scattered across the complex – while in slab-shaped buildings more conventional dwellings typologies are to be found, the deep block building inside the site comprises the larger collective apartments. Compact dwellings with 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 rooms constitute the majority of housing stock totaling 98 apartments out of 125 housing units in general. The collective dwellings with 8.5, 11.5, 13.5, and 14.5 rooms provide the living opportunities to various individuals – students, young professionals, single parents with children, older tenants, and beyond. In general, during the project development, the cooperative was guided by the intention of having a structure “that has to do with a very complex society and that offers space to different lifestyles and life situations”, trying to “break up the house” in as many diverse stances (Hofer 2020). Given the particular planning solutions that respond to the complex situation with regard to the location of a housing project, the specific housing typologies came up in the discussion between architects and cooperative, at the same time reflecting the learning and experimenting process of the cooperative Kraftwerk1 concerning the introduction of various dwelling types from project to project (see Hofer 2020). At the same time, the specific 66

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

studio

4.5

3.5

11.5

14.5

6.5 Image 34: A broad array of dwelling typologies present in Zwicky Sud (source: Schneider Studer Primas 2016, own collage, 2020)

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

life situations of people involved in the participation process are also, in part, found their reflections in spatial configurations of the peculiar, non-standard dwellings (see Hofer 2020). An important issue that emerged from the interviews is that the compact layout of apartments constitutes a distinct feature conducive to attracting residents

to live in Zwicky Sud (see image 35). As one interviewee put it: “our 3.5 rooms apartment is quite small by Zurich’s standards. When we searched for apartments in Zurich and thought to move in Zwicky, we liked the fact that flats are rather compact. And, of course, this influences the price” (ZS1). Besides a rather modest number of square meters in apartments, the layout of most multi-room apartments allows compaction by the partitioning of the rooms’ into several divisions. At the same time, households different by size and income level in Zwicky Sud might occupy dwellings of similar sizes (ZS5).

2.5 m

3 m 2.7 m 2.5 m

Image 35: Compactness of dwellings in Zwicky Sud (source: Schneider Studer Primas 2016, own editing, 2020)

Collective apartments in Zwicky Sud possess different configurations and setups. During the conversations with tenants, it became apparent that the composition of the population in shared apartments varies from well-diversified residency structure in regards to the age, income level, and ethnicity in cluster apartments (ZS2) to the relatively homogenous in the case of households occupied by students (ZS4). While tenants of cluster apartments have all basic utilities (such as private bathrooms and small kitchens, in their private units), residents of flat-sharing communities are more dependent on the shared uses. One cluster apartment in Zwicky Sud also includes satellite living units connected to the main cluster with a bridge, ensuring a certain level of privacy for 68

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

families (ZS2). Subsequently, looking at the layouts, one can assume that the remoteness of living units frames the transition from a more public sphere in shared apartments to the private ones (see image 36).

kitchen

cluster dwelling kitchen

flat-sharing

6.5 flat kitchen

kitchen

Image 36: Configuration of shared apartments in Zwicky Sud (source: own drawing, 2020)

One of the social aspects of progressive cooperatives in Zurich is a designated solidarity regarding the right to occupy a certain amount of space as an individual (see Mäkynen/ Niemeyer 2020). In the case of Zwicky Sud, with a decrease in the number of inhabitants in the household, residents are obligated to move to the smaller apartment, allowing the bigger households to take up more space. Hence, several families in Zwicky Sud have seized the opportunity to move between apartments within the project when they required more or less living space with time (ZS2). Since every apartment in Zwicky Sud comes fully equipped with a kitchen and bathroom, when moving to the other apartment within the complex residents “know exactly how the dishwasher and cooker work in the new apartment” (ZS2). Besides, Zwicky Sud residents have the opportunity to add rooms to the living arrangements when needed (ZS5). Overall, aiming to prevent the underutilization of living space, the high quantity of the housing that belongs to the cooperative in the area, accompanied by the shared nature of cooperative ownership, enables the internal movement of residents inside of the complex when the household is changed in size with the time.

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

6.2.5 Design elements

In the context of narration about the interaction between residents of different backgrounds, residents of Zwicky Sud have described the elements of urban design as utilitarian (ZS1, ZS3, ZS4). One resident made an explicit illustration of the approach employed to the design of spaces in regards to the present social diversity: “If you look at other dwelling projects in Zurich, you can see a particular undertone in design, either Swiss or the other, so you have a shift in one specific way. Our house does not have any shift, which might be the reason why everybody likes it so much. (…) And maybe nothing really attracts you here, but nothing annoys you in it also – you can adapt it for yourself as you wish, as you understand, as you find comfortable” (ZS1). Aiming that residents had no feeling that “private life begins behind the threshold of your living unit”, the design solutions of Zwicky Sud are based on the idea that “people could add or redevelop spaces in front of the house” (ZS5). The high adaptability of the facades is achieved through the use of raw concrete, transparent mesh, and metal railing (see image 37). It can be assumed that the ‘blank’ design of Zwicky Sud provides an opportunity for residents with different cultural backgrounds if not to relate, but at least not to dissociate with the environment in the creation of which they are invited to participate.

Image 37: Arrangement of facades in Zwicky Sud (source: own photos, 2020)

One interesting observation was how diversely tenants in Zwicky Sud interact with their balconies that neighbors generally share with each other. The space between balconies, traditionally separated by the fence of any kind, the cooperative has decided to leave open – the idea underlying the open situation regarding the delimitation of balconies was to encourage residents, in a way, to “reflect their relation to the neighbors” (Hofer 2020). The design of balconies with 70

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

concrete floor, metal handrails, and stretched transparent mesh allow the introduction of the various adaptation options – the majority of residents use this area as an additional storage space, while a proportion of tenants leave space semi-open, some tenants have a room for dining outdoors, green up open space and cover the concrete surface, others completely close the transparent mesh by textile. Talking about important places for seeing neighbors, one resident said: “[living in Zwicky Sud], we felt that there was a connection between our balcony and the others – not only a physical, but also a mental connection between neighbors and us, because we were so close to each other” (ZS4). Another resident commented: “We do not relate either with neighbors from one side, or on the other side, so we store there our underutilized furniture. I think these shared balconies work nice when you are friends with the neighboring family with kids. (…) Some people install cupboards between balconies, in a way, to mark out their territory and put a flag of their country” (ZS1). Considering the fact that traditionally cooperatives forbid to hand out washed closes or close up the meshes (cf. Hofer 2020) and tenants of the neighboring buildings are not allowed to hang up flags or political messages outdoors (ZS3), the possibility of cooperative residents in Zwicky Sud to actively add to the existing structure seems to constitute a crucial aspect for self-representation of the existing diversity of expressions and cultures present in the project (see image 38).

Image 38: Balconies as arenas for self-representation (source: own photos, 2020)

In conversations with residents, it became clear that the buildings’ physical transparency on various fronts, which is a distinctive feature of Zwicky Sud, also reveals the issues related to privacy. One interviewee said: “[Here] all flats more or less are created very openly, so the idea is that you really see your neighbors; you live together. (...) Apparently, it seems to be too much for most people, 71

RESEARCH FINDINGS: ZWICKY SUD

because people either close their shutters or put curtains to their windows, which I find so sad because it makes the flat much darker” (ZS2). At the same time, a number of respondents explicitly referred to the acoustic problems associated with the presence of children outside and reflecting qualities of the facades (ZS2, ZS4), remarking that “(...) for some elderly people, [children] are just too loud” (ZS2). These evidence make rationale that it is important to address matters relating to the visual exposure and acoustic properties of the area through the design of socially mixed housing through the selection of appropriate materials and arrangement of buildings.

Image 39: View at the gallery with an abundancy of closed shutters (source: own photo, 2020)

Residents of Zwicky Sud have a common budget for the purchase of furniture and equipment targeting the arrangement of shared commons spaces; thus, a larger part of shared infrastructure in the area was introduced by the community, not the architectural team. Talking about spaces of interactions, interviewees often explicitly mentioned furniture and equipment introduced by them, either other residents or cooperative (ZS1, ZS2, ZS5). A possible explanation for this might be that residents have a much stronger relation with the places and furniture in establishing which they participated, even indirectly. Overall, the availability of shared equipment for sitting, cooking, or playing, seems to bring people of different backgrounds around the particular activity and space. For example, several residents remarked that with the emergence of heavy colorful chairs outside, residents often tend to go outdoors, sit there, and meet people (ZS1, ZS2). Another resident shared that with the purchase of a billiard table, “all of a sudden, people were playing billiards, which you would never see in any other 72

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

environment” (ZS5). To sum up, the shared access to the equipment that people can use improves the residents’ chances and interest in taking part in community life or interacting with their neighbors. Moreover, the more diverse the offer, the more chances are for covering the interest and needs of residents.

Image 40: A variety of shared furniture and equipment introduced by the community (source: own photos, 2020)

Image 41: View at the WagnisArt project (source: own photo, 2020)

74 74

7 Research findings: WagnisArt

7.1

Social dimensions

7.1.1 Residency structure

In WagnisArt reside around 300 persons in 138 households with a high level of mix in terms of age, income level, citizenship, and household type. As one interviewee put it, in WagnisArt there are tenants with “different incomes, ages, family situations, [and] nationalities – (…) a hundred percent mixture of everything” (WA1). The majority of interviewees emphasized the existing diversity of cultures and ethnicities in WagnisArt, where, in total, more than 30 nations are represented (WA1, WA3, WA4, WA6). The population of WagnisArt is, on average, proactive and interested or professionally engaged in the arts (WA1, WA2). The assistance of the city through the support funding programs allows WagnisArt to have a mixed composition of residents as to income, even at the level of collective households (WA3, WA5). On the whole, in WagnisArt, 30 percent of the housing is subsidized with the income-based additional subsidy, 40 percent are subsidized according to the ‘München Model’, and 30 percent of all the apartments are privately financed. Those interested in obtaining housing through such a program need to apply and undergo a selection process held by the cooperative that, among other things, could include questions regarding applicants’ interests and lifestyle (WA4). When the interviewees were asked about the composition of residents in WagnisArt, the majority commented that it is characterized by a high number of families and older residents, while the number of students is quite low. Children account for about a third of the population in WagnisArt. One resident shared 75

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

that WagnisArt has “quite an interesting mixture” as there live and share common facilities around 118 children and many elderly people that are in their 70s or 80s (WA1). A large part of older tenants live in cluster apartments mixed in terms of age, where they share facilities with single dwellers or residents with children (WA3, WA5). A number of informants suggested that the average age of the WagnisArt population might be higher than 40 years (WA1, WA3). Overall, it can be assumed that the proportion of older residents in WagnisArt could increase in the future. 7.1.2 Motivation

The affordability of dwelling and the artistic component of the housing project, along with the personal interest in more collective forms of living, were named among interviewees as core reasons for the selection of WagnisArt for living. One interviewee said that when choosing WagnisArt, they saw it as “long-term reliable and affordable housing for living”; secondly, given the employment in the music sphere, it was a better opportunity to combine living and working (WA6). It is interesting to mention that some of the present tenants were looking for larger accommodation to move in or purchase before the accidental acquaintance with WagnisArt at the early stage of the project development (WA3, WA6). For example, one family decided to enter WagnisArt after discovering its offers for artists and ideas about creating a community around the project (WA3). One resident said: “at least twenty percent of the people living here are tentatively interested in music, and twenty or thirty [percent] are interested in (…) doing photographs, painting, or sculpting” (WA1). According to conversations occurred during the visit, for some single parents, moving to the cluster apartment was the best-fitting option for economic reasons and the amount of available space. For older WagnisArt tenants, the decisive factor in choosing WagnisArt was a possibility to be actively involved in community life (WA2, WA5). In addition, for the most part, the elderly tenants see WagnisArt as a community where they would live for a lifetime (WA5); hence, the ambiance and social dynamics within their shared living arrangements are of particular importance for older cluster dwellers. The high quality of living space constitutes another important factor underlying motives to move into the project. A tenant of subsidized housing has addressed the fact that they decided on WagnisArt among other options proposed by the city due to the capacity of compact flat to conveniently accommodate their extended family featuring a pleasant 76

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

environment and facilities (WA4). Another resident referred to the availability of shared spaces for interaction with neighbors and a communal garden where it is possible to grow plants as an important pull factor for choosing WagnisArt for living (WA2). All in all, the social component of the project and high quality of the living environment of the WagnisArt project seem to be especially appealing with regard to the motivation of the residents across various income levels, household types, and ages in selecting WagnisArt as a place to live. 7.1.3 Participation

The participatory involvement in the planning process of WagnisArt has lasted for several years since the project launched in 2012, getting more complex over time – the group of participants grew from thirty to several hundred involved, which included a number of representatives for each of 138 households. The architectural team responsible for the WagnisArt design, Bogevischs buero architekten & stadtplaner, entered the project at the very early stage invited by Wagnis cooperative in order to support the outline of design proposals (see Klaffke 2020). In the case of WagnisArt, architects have tended “to implement the ideas that came from the group into the building design” (Klaffke 2020). The cooperative Wagnis has orchestrated the whole process, settling particular rules for the involvement. The discussion on shared spaces and facilities was continually meant to constitute the center of the process, as participants were not allowed to discuss the wishes about private apartments (see Klaffke 2020). Eventually, architects, future residents, members of cooperative and interested parties codetermined the project outline from the planning phase until the utilization, working together to develop site arrangement, linkages between shared spaces, and program for the common facilities (see image 42).

Image 42: Participation of residents in the planning and decision-making process (source: Bauchplan 2020)

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

During the operation phase, the particular emphasis in WagnisArt is laid on the residents’ active parting in the decision-making process and self-organization through the involvement in working groups. As cooperative members, residents participate in the recurrent Plenum meetings generally held in German, where they have an opportunity to address particular concerns or propose initiatives, meeting decisions by voting (WA3, WA5). At the beginning of the project operation, tenants have had a formalized obligation to perform community work for twenty-five hours a year, supporting the WagnisArt operation (WA3). Later, this contribution became rather voluntary due to the overwhelming calculations of residents’ hours spent within groups (WA3). In conversations, residents largely had a positive view of the opportunity to be responsible for the decisions that concern live in WagnisArt via Plenum (WA3, WA4, W6). Despite an overall high level of residents’ involvement in the decision-making process and self-organization, some of the inhabitants do not seem to actively participate in the community life. It might be attributed to various facets, including that these meetings might be tiring in some aspects and involve extensive discussion in German, making it potentially harder for residents who speak German as their second or third language to actively engage (WA3). However, one interviewee noted that for him, as a foreigner, the participation in Plenum seemed to be useful as language practice and provided an opportunity to be immersed in the German community (WA4). In the case of WagnisArt, self-organized working groups responsible for particular shared spaces seem to be of great importance for community life. In general, the overwhelming majority of interviewees noted that involvement in such group activities has substantially contributed to establishing contacts between the residents, including across residents of different ages and nationalities (WA1, WA3, WA4, WA6). Nowadays, being responsible for the organization of common spaces and finances related to the usage of facilities, self-organized groups cover the wide range of duties and activities – from the arrangement of laundry facilities, guest accommodation, and reversal rooms to the organization of gardening, yoga, music events, literature readings and beyond. Overall, the maintenance of common facilities in WagnisArt is done through the involvement of residents. This partially reduces operational costs, but may add on extra time in the process of solving problems as they arise (WA6). 78

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

7.1.4 Face-to-face interaction

A number of interviewees refer to WagnisArt as a “village” where everyone knows each other (WA2, WA3, WA5), which generally suggests the close bond between residents. For example, one interviewee said: “I just like the whole mixture [present in WagnisArt], like a big family or small village where you have everyone” (WA3). According to the conversations with residents, the present array of activities and meetings organized out of residents’ personal initiative constitutes important platforms for interactions between residents of different ages and backgrounds (WA1, WA2, WA3, WA4, WA6). One respondent commented: “some [residents] play boules together, sometimes people sing together or drink wine, or just sit and talk, and then go to the sauna. People organize little fests, little parties (…) or other celebrations, so everyone would bring their cake and meet” (WA3). What is particularly revealing is how residents described the present opportunities for interaction in the context of their interests and available facilities (WA1, WA2, WA3, WA4). For example, one interviewee noted: “as I like to have music around, for me, these places where we can make together music or jointly listening to music were quite helpful for interactions” (WA1). It is evident from the interviews that the communication between residents about the questions related to the community organization has been moved mostly in an online format during the introduced social distancing measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, wherein the usage of open-door common spaces was retained (WA1, WA3, WA6). The presence of children within the area generally seems to be important to bring together parents of different backgrounds around the playground (WA3, WA6). In WagnisArt, young families generally seem to actively take part in various getting together, including barbequing or community activities (WA3). The daily situations of encounters seem to be directly linked to the specific types of spaces introduced in WagnisArt and the way in which connective spaces come together (see chapter 7.2). The particular site arrangement of WagnisArt around inner courtyards and the introduction of bridges that link all buildings together seem to facilitate bumping of residents into one another even under the moderate density of WagnisArt. The topic of interaction between residents of collective households frequently emerged during the interviews owing to a high number of cluster apartments 79

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

within the project. A variety of perspectives were expressed in regard to the inner social dynamics that take place in cluster dwellings owing to the diverse characters of present apartments. Several interviewees noted the emergence of friendly relations between residents of shared apartments that vary in tightness (WA1, WA5). One resident stated that in cluster apartments is present “a high potential for stress”, as sometimes residents may “get into fights about the shared areas – some people want to buy the cheap fridge, some people have more money and want to buy a larger fridge” or have “different perceptions of the way to live” (WA3). Wrong or different “expectations” regarding the life in cluster apartments were named among the key reasons for conflicts or moving out from WagnisArt (WA3, WA5). In general, on the smaller scale of cluster dwellings, the community life organization often seems to take additional time and effort, being mostly focused on the arrangement of the daily life in an apartment and budget planning (WA1, WA3, WA5).

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

7.2

Spatial dimensions

west entrance

7.2.1 Spatial configuration of the site

Surrounded on four sides of the site by streets, housing cooperative WagnisArt is shaped by five solid building volumes linked together through the external bridges. The scale of four- and five-story buildings tightly fitted into each other allows WagnisArt to have a moderate density of FAR 1.3213. The intention of the cooperative was to establish connections to the neighboring area across the streets through opening up of the development; hence, the housing development has “only front sides” (see Klaffke 2020). Accordingly, the structural buckling of the buildings results in the porosity of boundaries particularly noticeable when visiting the area (see image 43). The area at the intersection of Gertrud-GrunowStraße and Margarete-Schütte-Lihotzky-Straße constitutes a main touchpoint of the site with the surrounding communities due to its form and introduced uses that allow opportunities for conversations and spending time. The cropped shape of the building provides additional situations for gathering and navigates visitors towards the public facilities.

south entrance

north entrance

east entrance

Image 43: Pathways between buildings in WagnisArt (source: own photos, 2020)

13 Gross floor area (not accounting basement) ≈ 14 900 m2 / Size of site = 11 250 m2

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

The arrangement of walkways and segmentation of the inner space into two courtyards ensures a certain degree of privacy for the residents (WA4). The materials used for coverage of the coaxial inner yards, ‘Dorfplatz’ and ‘Oasenhof’, demarking public and more private spaces within the area. It is apparent that the walkways inside of the area are not arranged according to the principle of the shortest path, but encircle the entrances to the buildings that are organized around the courtyards (see image 44). During the site visit, it was observed that a high number of residents cross the territory along an east-west direction owing to the position of public transport and local services, including school and kindergartens. Subsequently, the particular way how the inner space is shaped seems to channel the movement of the residents towards the common route and the majority of the entrances, increasing the chances of casual meetings. Legend: to school/ kindergarten

pedestrian route threshold/ change of heights or materials

Dorfplatz

to bus stop Gertrud-GrunowStraße

Oasenhof

entrances to DomagkAteliers

Image 44: Arrangement of an inner space (source: Bogevischs buero architekten stadtplaner GmbH/ SHAG Schindler Hable 2016, own editing, 2020)

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

External bridges that connect building volumes in WagnisArt at the third and fourth floors (see image 45) are distinctive elements of the project, constituting a notable part of residents’ daily movements between buildings (WA1, WA3, WA4). During conversations on-site, one resident remarked pointing to the bridges that he feels as if the whole territory belongs to him, not only an apartment or building he lives in. It is assumed that the physical capacity of the structural elements to connect buildings might correlate with how residents perceive the residential environment.

Image 45: Bridges as connecting elements (source: own photos, 2020)

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

7.2.2 Facilities and services

The cooperative housing project WagnisArt accommodates a wide range of facilities and services that extend far beyond the conventional spatial program. Most of the available public premises are based on buildings ground floors of around 4 meters tall, accounting for 8,5 present of all usable space14 with 900 square meters. The variety of uses present on the ground floor includes café, cultural facilities, common room, laundry, atelier and offices (see image 46). While several facilities are also available for rent and use by all interested people, a big part of communal facilities is intended for the internal use by cooperative members (WA1, WA3, WA4, WA6).

offices

atelier

Legend: commerce/ services

laundry

communal facilities Lihotzky

communal room Gasthaus Domagk guest rooms

offices maintainance

Image 46: Facilities and services in WagnisArt (source: Bogevischs buero architekten stadtplaner GmbH/ SHAG Schindler Hable 2016, own editing, 2020)

During the site visit, it became apparent that the west entrance to the area constitutes a key gathering point for WagnisArt residents and people who live or work nearby owing to the presence of several different public facilities (see image 47). Residents of WagnisArt are often seen in Gasthaus Domagk, a cooperatively run guest house that provides working opportunities for elderly

14 Main usable area = 10.610 m2

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

people. People outside of the cooperative use the opportunity to rent a venue space Lihotzky for meetings or music rehearsal rooms (WA1, WA3). Besides, one interviewee has mentioned that a small farmer market, which operates twice a month opposite the café, is a common place to meet for WagnisArt residents and people from the neighborhood (WA1).

Image 47: View at the intersection of Gertrud-Grunow-Straße and Margarete-Schütte-Lihotzky-Straße (source: own photos, 2020)

Residents of WagnisArt maintain a high number of communal rooms that provide a rich offer for the community, including big and small communal rooms, rehearsal facilities, atelier, workshop space, quest rooms, and sauna (see image 48). Since the territory of WagnisArt was intermediately used as artist studios before, the introduction of extended facilities for arts and music has become an important aspect in the development of the project concept (WA1), becoming a pull factor for a part of residents to choose WagnisArt for a living (see chapter 7.1.2). It might be assumed that the introduction of unorthodox activities within the project holds the potential to attract residents with particular shared interests, forming a sealed community around it with time. During the site visit, a vast amount of interaction between a number of residents with different ages and backgrounds on the grounds of the organization or participation in the collective activities related to engagement in arts was observed. A number of communal rooms have multiple functions, being used differently throughout the day by various groups (WA1, WA3, WA4, WA6). For instance, laundry room was actively referred to by interviewees as an important contact point for people across age groups in addition to its utilitarian role (WA1, WA4, 85

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

WA6). One resident remarked the positive aspects of the fact that the community contains a range of spaces for internal use in the context of the current situation with the coronavirus (WA6). big communal room

laundry

atelier

workshop

climbing room

rehersal facilities

Image 48: A range of communal spaces present in WagnisArt (source: own drawing, 2020)

During the visit, it became apparent that several premises with specific allocation requirements have issues related to their usability. The means of ventilation for the climbing room seem to only partially cope with the demand for fresh air supply, while the bigger rehearsal room has additionally installed soundproof equipment already during the operation phase with the support of working groups (WA4). One resident mentioned that despite the fact that a large number of concerts in the venue space initially were planned, concerts are held rarely and without sound amplifiers due to the strong audibility that disturbs residents of the house (WA3). According to these evidences, when introducing a vast range of facilities, it is important to consider the difficulty of meeting diverse utilization needs for the specific uses within the context of residential construction and agree to reasonable expectations. 86

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

7.2.3 Spaces of encounter

In WagnisArt, the accommodated range of situations for social interaction is grouped around the inner yards and entrances to the area. Talking about major areas for community gathering and activities, one resident referred to the inner yard as a place of “spontaneous get-together”, remarking that “everyone uses everything, just some people may use space more often than the others” (WA3). Open space is versatile in use by different groups and, in conversations, residents referred to the range of collective outdoor practices, including children pay, dining, gardening, sports, and artistic performances (WA1, WA3, WA4, WA6). The inner space with ‘Dorfplatz’ and ‘Oasenhof’ is a key space for the interaction between residents of different ages and backgrounds (see image 49). It was observed that communication between tenants often occurs when someone crosses the area and stops to chat with the neighbors. Although the presence of children outside is constant, it does not create the impression that the inner yard is entirely dedicated to their use (WA3, WA4). Several interviewees remarked that the area near the sandbox constitutes a place for exchange among parents from a wide range of cultural backgrounds (WA3, WA6).

Image 49: Inner courtyards – ‘Dorfplatz’ (on the left) and ‘Oasenhof’ (on the right) (source: own photos, 2020)

The green spaces around the buildings, being arranged through the residents’ engagement, are also occasionally used by residents for spending time with children, barbequing, sports, or calm activities in a company of friends (WA2, WA3). The use of outdoor sitting location and greenery mark different zones. 87

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

Besides, residents settled tall greenery at the borderline of the area for the clearer separation of the green space used by the community and pedestrian zone (where, inter alia, dogs are often walked).

Image 50: The usage of green spaces around the area (source: own photos, 2020)

It was observed that entrances to the buildings appear to be informal meeting points for residents in WagnisArt. The particular arrangement of entrance areas, which are recessed in the body of the buildings, allows carrying out various activities there, including meeting, looking after children playing outdoors, and organization of clothing swap (see image 51).

Image 51: Entrance areas (source: own photos, 2020)

Each of the five buildings in WagnisArt is structured around vertical communications with vast staircases that support neighbors’ casual meetings (see image 52). The staircases in WagnisArt are arranged by going around, so residents pass by the doors of their neighbors when going up or down. One resident said: “(…) you meet people at the bridges and at the staircases, (…) and you have lots of space to meet people on the stairs, so kids sometimes play there” (WA3). In several cases, the staircase space was used for music events attended by around 88

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

fifty listeners (WA1, WA3). The upper light in the staircases provides an enabling growing environment for the growth of plants. It was noted that residents of WagnisArt often practice the arrangement of spontaneous storage spaces in front of their front doors, which is not always complied with fire regulations, but might serve as spatial evidence that residents tend to feel ownership besides the doors to their private arrangements.

Image 52: View at the staircases (source: own photos, 2020)

In conversations, it became apparent that residents generally perceive bridges as a spatial element that connects residents from different buildings (WA1) and “makes it easier to meet people” (WA3). During the on-site visit, the regular residential movements at bridges between were frequently observed. Tenants of apartments with terraces that face bridges actively utilize open space as a dining area or garden; some WagnisArt residents use open spaces for leisure. Along with bridges, the green rooftops on two buildings occur to be an important space for seeing other people and spending time together (WA1, WA2, WA3, WA4, WA6). It is important to mention that some residents of WagnisArt take a proactive position when arranging open spaces on the bridges and rooftops, providing opportunities for other residents to “benefit” from such areas (WA1).

Image 53: View at the bridges and the rooftops (source: own photos, 2020) 89

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

7.2.4 Dwelling diversity

The deep width of blocks and non-loadbearing facades in WagnisArt has allowed the introduction of a high number of collective dwellings along with more conventional multi-room apartments (see Klaffke 2020). In WagnisArt, housing typologies vary from studios (of around 30 m2) and multi-room apartments (of 80 – 120 m2) to deep collective dwellings forms for up to nine tenants (up to 400 m2) (see image 54). The complex geometry of buildings itself contributed to the diversification of dwelling options owing to the fact that the configuration of similar apartments at times differs from floor to floor due to the arrangement of external bridges. Out of 138 dwellings in total, nine are cluster apartments with 57 housing units. Hence, many residents in WagnisArt reside within collective households and share the collective dwelling with six to eight people, holding a possibility to live relatively independently due to staged place for a small kitchen and bathroom within a private living unit. During on-site conversations and interviews, some residents outlined a high number of older tenants in WagnisArt in the context of narration about collective households (WA3). In general, the introduction of such a large number of cluster apartments in WagnisArt appeared to be an innovative practice for the Wagnis cooperative and Munich city (see Gollan cited after Konzept 2018). Overall, housing in WagnisArt have relatively compact layouts (see image 55) (see Klaffke 2020). At the same time, during the site visit, it became clear that the arrangement of spaces in dwellings is often demanding due to the complicated building geometry with the high number of non-90-degree angles inside the apartments. For instance, the kitchen and storage furniture often have to be ordered according to individual measurements.

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

studio

6.5

3.5

4.5

cluster / 4 units

cluster / 5 units

cluster / 7 units

cluster / 8 units

Image 54: A broad array of dwelling typologies present in WagnisArt (source: Bogevischs buero architekten stadtplaner GmbH/ SHAG Schindler Hable 2016, own collage, 2020)

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

3.5 m

4.8 m

2.4 m

5.5

2.5 m

2.9 m 3.7 m

3.3 m

Image 55: Compactness of dwellings in WagnisArt (source: own drawing, 2020)

kitchen

kit

kitchen

During the site visit, it became clear that life in cluster apartments takes various forms, which affects the number and quality of encounters. For instance, in some cluster apartments there is often not much going on in shared facilities, as each dwelling unit possesses its own kitchenette (WA1). In contrast, in another apartment that was attended during the site-visit, residents seem to be often found in communal spaces as they prefer to use communal facilities and reclined to arrange small personal kitchens for several reasons (inter alia, due to the lack of ventilation equipment in private arrangements). Recurrent topic derived from the interviews relates specifically to the issues of privacy within shared apartments. One explanation for this is that the entrances to the private arrangements are often organized throughout the shared spaces such as dining areas or commons rooms (see image 56), and residents at times might feel exposed to their neighbors.

cluster/ 5 units

cluster/ 7 units

Image 56: Configuration of shared apartments in WagnisArt (source: own drawing, 2020)

kit

kitchen

cluster/ 4 units

cluster/ 8 units

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

One interesting finding is that social mixing in WagnisArt is extensively present on the level of collective households, as in one cluster apartment, as a rule, live people of different age and under different financial models consistent with the income level (see image 57) (WA1, WA2, WA3, WA5, also Klaffke 2020). Residents of cluster apartments need to commonly decide on the design and usage of common space, including the kitchen arrangement. This could be a challenge for the residents, as, coming with different expectations and financial possibilities, they can have different opinions on the matters of organization of everyday life (WA3, WA5). In the conversation with residents, it became clear that the close spatial proximity of tenants within collective apartments holds the capacity to build the friendly relations between residents, as well as to lead to the conflicts related to the process of settling together (WA1, WA3, and WA5). It is important to mention that most of the residents who left the WagnisArt project were tenants of cluster apartments (WA5). Subsequently, it was of particular importance for Wagnis cooperative to assist new tenants when choosing a cluster apartment to take comfort in making the best decision possible (WA2). PresentPresent financial financial modelsmodels 2 x income 2 xbased income subsidy based subsidy 2 x München 2 x München Model Model 1 x privately 1 x privately financed financed

shared shared cluster units cluster units facilities facilities 20% 20% 80% 80%

Image 57: Example of social mix at the level of cluster apartment (source: based on observations during the site visit, own drawing, 2020)

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

7.2.5 Design elements

The selection of the facade material was predetermined by the design guidelines fixed by the city of Munich for the whole neighborhood (see chapter 5.2.3), involving the particular color range and usage of plaster finishing (see Klaffke 2020). During the on-site visit, several residents commented that they find it frustrating that it is not allowed to amend and green up the existing façades in WagnisArt owing to the passive technology introduced in the houses (WA2).

Image 58: Arrangement of facades in WagnisArt (source: own photos, 2020)

An important element of design that displays the individual dimensions of residents is an unique arrangement of postboxes for every household (see image 59), possible by the fact that a relatively moderate number of residents share one entrance. When visiting WagnisArt, residents on several occasions showed their mailboxes, telling stories about other peculiar or interesting designs and owners who are behind them. It can thus be suggested that the design of postboxes, offering the opportunity for self-representation, is a part of solutions for the attraction of residents’ attention to each other.

Image 59: Unique postboxes in WagnisArt (source: own photos, 2020)

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

In most cases, balconies and terraces in WagnisArt are arranged in a shared way. While balconies shared by two apartments are partially separated from each other by a partition, balconies with the collective household are arranged openly (see image 60). Residents of private apartments mainly keep the space between balconies open (WA3) and the installed partitions ensure a reasonable level of privacy. For instance, one interviewee said: “We usually have one balcony for two families, and we have a small partition wall, but space is always left, so that you can go there. Sometimes we go over and talk to our neighbors, or their cat comes over” (WA3). During the visit, it was observed that the windows of private living units that face balconies are often remain closed within cluster aparments. A possible explanation for this may be the certain inconvenience caused by the residents’ exposure under the condition that other tenants can use the balcony space right in front of the private window.

Image 60: Arrangement of shared balconies within private apartments (one the left) and collective households (on the right) (source: own photos, 2020)

At bridge level, private terraces are often separated from the common spaces by high plants in the pots. It was suggested that a large number of residents tend to keep shutters and blinds constantly closed in the summer period as it could be relatively hot inside the apartments due to the passive technologies used in buildings. The issue of privacy inside of collective households was partially addressed through the installment of the soundproof doors to the private units. During one of the visits to the cluster apartment, residents shared the concerns that in several cases they were not able to hear fire alarm ringing in shared facilities due to the soundproof features of the doors. What emerges from the interviews is that residents’ participation in the co-creation of open spaces constitutes an important part of the living in the cooperative (WA1, WA3, WA4). Describing particular activities and shared spaces, 95

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WAGNISART

residents often portrayed common furniture made or introduced by tenants (WA1, WA3, WA4, WA6). In general, a large part of shared facilities in WagnisArt has been constructed with the help of self-organized working groups initiated during the first years of project operation, including communal storerooms in the basement, music studios, and street furniture (WA3, WA4, WA6). One resident commented: “a lot of the people living here have invested with their goods”, placing in the public area barbecue machines or furniture like chairs and tables (WA1). Overall, a great number of outdoor furniture of different sizes, shapes, and materials within open and in-between spaces were observed during the site visit (see image 61).

Image 61: A variety of shared furniture within open and in-between spaces (source: own photos, 2020)

8 Comparison: Interpretation of results

This chapter compares and summarizes the research findings presented in previous parts across the topics, looking at the linkages between Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt projects across dimensions and scales. 8.1

Social dimensions

8.1.1 Residency structure

Overall, the selection process of residents undertaken by the cooperative constitutes is an important element to ensure mixed residency structure in both projects, being partially based on aspirations to depict the particular demographic mix and willing to have engaged residents. In practice, the reassurance of an economically diverse resident population in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt is possible through the employment of different housing subsidies for low-income renters and insurance of housing affordability, inter alia, through the design capabilities. With regard to the composition of residents, the overwhelming majority of residents interviewed in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt highlighted the present diversity of residents in terms of incomes, ages, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds. In the context of both cases, it is clear that families with young children constitute the great proportion of residents within the projects. It is acknowledged in both projects that there is a high degree of ethnic and cultural heterogeneity among families and single dwellers.

99 99

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

A detailed look at the age composition within two projects reveals the noticeable difference between Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt, which might be partially attributed to the present range of dwelling options. While in Zwicky Sud numerous compact apartments of different sizes host a large number of families, the increased proportion of elderly residents particularly evident in WagnisArt correlates with the high number of cluster housing. At the same time, the generation of college-aged adults is hardly represented in both projects. The economic reasons can justify this as entering the project tenants need to cover the particular amount of fees to cover the membership in the cooperative and, even with the common practice of fees reduction, it can be an overwhelming amount for young people who lack income stability. The social mix in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt also takes place on the level of apartments as collective living arrangements in both projects might also host tenants with different income levels. Overall, flat-sharing communities and cluster dwelling present in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt often provide living opportunities for single household dwellers and lone-parent families. 8.1.2 Motivation

The review of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt manifested similar reasons associated with moving to the projects. Based on interviews with residents of both projects, fair rental prices and high quality of area seem to be particularly decisive factors when choosing a place to live. In the case of Zwicky Sud, such aspect as housing affordability was named by families and young tenants as a core driver for moving to the project, while the desire to live in the community and the particular interested in the project itself did not play such a large role compared to WagnisArt, where interest in the collective living was particularly prominent during the interviews with residents. The possibility of taking an active part in community life seemed to be the crucial criteria for selecting the project for living among older tenants of WagnisArt. At the same time, families and older residents in both Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt named shared infrastructure within the project as an important motivation to move in. In general, WagnisArt is a good illustration of how the introduced program may attract the particularly interested groups to the project – a large part of interviewees taken an interest in WagnisArt owing to the 100

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

introduced artistic components, including rehearsal facilities and ateliers. Some of the residents came across the project by chance. The good quality of new apartments in such cases has been a deciding factor in choosing the project for living. While the compact size of apartments reduces rent costs and, therefore, provides access to decent, affordable housing to residents with lower or moderate incomes, the high spatial qualities of area hold capacity to attract residents regardless of income level. 8.1.3 Participation

The present findings partially support the argument of Harlander and Kuhn (2012a: 428) that the practice of participation constitutes an important factor for promotion of social mixing. The process of project development moderately differed among Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt, thus, the scope of participation employed during the project planning and design was divergent in two cases (see image 62). While the particular site arrangement of Zwicky Sud results from the architectural competition, in WagnisArt, buildings’ structural configuration has emerged from the participatory involvement where architects acted as moderators. In general, the participatory engagement in the development of Zwicky Sud has had a consultative character, while in the case of WagnisArt participants were involved in the collective determination project framework, from the development of the planning solutions to the selection of finishing materials in apartments. One interesting finding is that participants were focused on drafting communal spaces in both cases during the participation process, as they were not allowed to decide on private arrangements. architectural competition

consultation concept development

planning and design

housing allocation (50%)

consultation

consultation codetermination

concept development

planning and design

housing allocation

informing

codetermination

construction

utilization phase

housing allocation

construction

utilization phase

Image 62: Participation of residents in the decision-making process in Zwicky Sud (on the top) and WagnisArt (on the bottom) (source: based on interviews and adaptation of data from BBRS 2020, own drawing, 2020)

101

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The decision-making process related to the management of the cooperative projects Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt occurs via Plenum, where, among other things, takes place the allocation of a common budget. Though the majority of respondents perceive the participation process as a consistently positive aspect of living in the cooperative community (but tiring in some moments), the evidence from both projects suggests that Plenum meetings seem to involve a relatively limited mix between residents. The potential conflict of interest resides in the fact that for various reasons, including a language barrier, some residents do not (regularly) attend Plenum meetings where the decisions are being made that affect the whole community, including non-participant households. Hence, it is important to beware of social dynamics that lead to the asymmetric relationships within the community when a portion of residents meet decisions that are one-sidedly reconciling the views that exist on the issue. Given the abovementioned evidence, it can be concluded that the interest in the balancing interests associated with the decision-making process makes it more important to involve residents in participation through different types of assistance, which may include translating help or rethinking present formats of participatory involvement. At the same time, the reviewed case studies provide compelling evidence that self-organization and involvement in the community activities lead to the intermingling of residents across ages, incomes, and ethnicities. In particular, the case of WagnisArt illustrates how the activity of working groups formed around common interests holds the capacity to support the interactions across residents of different backgrounds. The economic factor also underscores the importance of collective commitment to the living environment – shared labor duties, such as cleaning and maintenance, aimed to reduce partly the operation and renting costs. 8.1.4 Face-to-face interaction

In outlining face-to-face encounters in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt, it is important to highlight the present tight connection between residents in both projects. These observations are likely to be related to the active involvement of the community into collective activities, supported by the adoption of particular spatial solutions that tend to foster daily encounters between residents. The 102

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

diversification of activities forms a basis for the involvement of a big part of inhabitants into the community life under the conditions that the part of offers is organized by working groups or proactive residents of the cooperative. Hence, self-organization appear to be an important aspect for getting together, being a crucial facet of living in cooperatives. The results also indicate that residents who are not actively included in the community life are often the ones who happened to live in the project by chance, rather than due to the interest in the cooperative living forms. The evidence from the case studies suggests that children and their constant presence outdoors are important for bringing together residents and facilitation of interaction between parents with various cultural backgrounds, being more likely to transcend the language barrier. The language barrier was mentioned as a frequent obstacle for communication in the case of Zwicky Sud, where a large part of the population has a migrant background. The research shows that the self-organization within shared apartments often implies a greater involvement of tenants. It is apparent that collective living arrangements have particular advantages and disadvantages often related to established social dynamics within the apartment. According to the respondents, residents of collective apartments tend to spend quite time together, make friends with each other, and at times share housekeeping and childcare responsibilities. On the other hand, it was stressed that conflicts in shared apartments are a critical subject that often relate to the organization of common budget and daily life in the apartment, particularly associating with a blend of residents across different income levels and lifestyles. The case of WagnisArt, with a high number of tenants leaving cluster apartments due to inner conflicts, illustrates the difficulties that arise when shared facilities, including kitchen and common rooms, need to be organized commonly by residents with different expectations and economic capacities. The concerns related to the changes of the familiar patterns of social interaction related to the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic were brought up during the conversations by a number of residents from Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt.

103

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

8.2

Spatial dimensions

8.2.1 Spatial configuration of the site

The present findings specify how the spatial arrangement of layout and buildings affects social interactivity within the cooperative housing projects through the benefit of the openness of the boundaries, alignment towards the inner spaces, and physical unity of the development. Overall, the evidence supports the claims made by several researchers in their studies (including Lelevrier 2013, Kearns et al. 2013, Levin/ Arthurson/ Ziersch 2014) that the site planning and spatial layout are of importance for consideration in the context of social mix. Openness of dense structure to the outer via parting public and private

Despite rather similar intentions to open up the developments towards the neighboring areas, there is a particular divergence between WagnisArt and Zwicky Sud in matters of the approaches towards the delineation of open spaces with different intensity of use. To a greater or lesser degree, site boundaries in both projects are permeable and open enough to allow the entrance. Zwicky Sud takes advantage of the openness of the area to draw residents from adjacent areas to the present facilities and promote connections between the cooperative and all complex. In the case of WagnisArt, the crafting levels of housing porosity contour the passages of residents and remedy for invasions of privacy. The zoning of private and public spaces is defined through the hierarchy of spaces and usage of the material that covers the surface.

Image 63: The permeability of the site arrangement in Zwicky Sud (on the left) and WagnisArt (on the right) / scale 1: 3 000 (source: own drawing, 2020)

104

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

Alignment around the inner yard

Evidence suggests that the area orientation around the inner open space, positioning the entrances to the buildings and facilities from the inner yard(s), is among the most important factors for support of daily encounters between residents. The structure of Zwicky Sud is rather enclosed along the perimeter, given the needs of noise regulation, which offers several wide open spaces that recapture residential movements towards a specific axis. The site arrangement in WagnisArt defines inward-looking focus around vast inner spaces that flow into one another.

Image 64: The inner orientation of entrances to the buildings and facilities in Zwicky Sud (on the left) and WagnisArt (on the right) / scale 1: 3 000 (source: own drawing, 2020)

Physical unity

The spatial interconnectedness of structures in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt seems to constitute an important means of supporting the mental image of a cooperative entity bound together. The outside bridges that link building volumes together form distinctive elements in both cooperatives, to which often appeal residents when describing communicative spaces within the area. 5th floor

6th floor

3rd floor

4th floor

Image 65: Bridges as means of spatial interconnectedness in Zwicky Sud (on the left) and WagnisArt (on the right) / scale 1: 3 000 (source: own drawing, 2020) 105

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

8.2.2 Facilities and services

The review of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt revealed a slight difference in approaches between two projects associated with the formation of mixed-use areas. Although both cases employ a range mix of available facilities and services at the ground floor that constitutes a relatively high percentage of all usable areas compared to conventional housing projects, they are different in the ratio of introduced commercial and communal spaces. While a greater number of public facilities in Zwicky Sud operate relatively independently as renters, communal amenities that are under the handling of the residents constitute the majority of non-residential spaces in the case of WagnisArt. Quality facilities to attract visitors

WagnisArt

Zwicky Sud

Daily encounters between residents and neighbors usually occur at the borderline of housing projects where various public facilities are situated. In general, the evidence shows that the introduced combination of uses and activities within both projects seem to support the attendance of the area by visitors, endorsing the statement of Montgomery (1998: 98) that the diversity of activities is essential to attract people with different interests. It is important to mention that a great emphasis in both projects is placed on the diversification of public uses and the quality of food operators. ZwiBack and Gasthaus Domagk are working in the field of social entrepreneurship that addresses employment inclusion, serving as a meeting point for residents and people who work or live around. While ZwiBack is situated in the depth of Zwicky Sud, thereby attracting visitors inside the area, Gasthaus Domagk is positioned on the edge of WagnisArt, facing a relatively busy street with other newly constructed housing developments. communal rooms 285 m2 1.5 %

commercial/ public uses 3.850 m2 22.8 %

Σ usable area 16.885 m2 communal rooms 420 m2 4.0 % Σ usable area 10.610 m2

commercial/ public uses 900 m2 8.5 %

ZwiBack cafe hotel Quartierverein educational facilities shops/ services offices creative studios

Gasthaus Domagk cafe venue space Lihotzky guest apartments offices creative studios

Image 66: A range of facilities and services present in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt (source: own drawing, 2020) 106

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

The mark of communal facilities on the social mix: from acknowledging the others to catering for diverse needs

One interesting finding based on conversations with residents is that the bigger communal room in cooperative housing projects is not necessarily associated with the mix between residents, but rather with the provision of opportunities for different groups to arrange meetings. Overall, this seems to add on to the

Zwicky Sud

certain acknowledgment of diverse groups present within the area. At the same time, the case of Zwicky Sud illustrates challenges that arise with the intentional use of a bigger common room related to the process of its reservation. On the other hand, the available offer of communal facilities that covers the diverse needs of tenants is heavily related to residents’ participation in coinage and maintenance of shared spaces, leading to a higher presence of the particular interested groups. In view of the fact that the availability of communal amenities is partially dependent on the rents and shared responsibility borne by tenants, when designing it is critical to consider the impact of additional communal premises on the affordability of housing and following efforts from the community related to the maintenance of these spaces. communal room

50 m2 / EG

175 m2 / EG

communal rooms

WagnisArt

‘Spiel & Sport Raum’

75 m2 / EG

laundry + sewing

30 m2 / 3. OG

laundry

40 m2 / 1. OG

atelier 30 m2 / EG 75 m2 / EG

library

sauna 40 m2 / UG

workshop 50 m2 / UG climbing room

20 m2 / 1. OG

rehersal rooms Σ100 m2 / UG

20 m2 / UG

Image 67: A range of communal rooms present in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt (source: own drawing, 2020)

107

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Technical features involved with the introduction of functional mix

Following the spatial analysis results, it is noteworthy to consider several technical factors during the introduction of a wide range of public and communal facilities into housing projects. Firstly, the ground floor’s height should constitute optimally 4 to 4,5 meters to accommodate the public facilities. Secondly, the introduced construction system needs to allow layout flexibility, so the structure could adapt to the (changing) needs of particular operators. Lastly, the different operational demands for facilities and infrastructure, including ventilation, acoustic, and lighting requirements, are onerous to reflect in full within the residential construction that might result in compromising solutions. acoustic

4 -4.5 m

ventilation daylight/ lighting

flexible layout

Image 68: Key features to pay attention when designing the ground floor in mixed-use housing (source: own drawing, 2020)

8.2.3 Spaces of encounter

Overall, the presence of diverse spaces within cooperative housing projects substantially supports the interrelations of residents across ages, incomes, and ethnicities through different situations and ways of how spaces come together. The open and in-between spaces Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt are creating various opportunities for planned and daily encounters in different settings, including inner yard, entrances to the buildings, vertical communications, bridges, galleries, and rooftop terraces.

108

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

Agile open spaces for diversified potentialities of getting together

The inner yard in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt provides the common ground for communication between residents, being used most often by children and their parents. The particular case of Zwicky Sud shows how the constant presence of children outdoors leads to the formation of connections between parents from different cultural backgrounds. Residents in both projects also actively use open spaces for getting together during the common events and in smaller friend circles. The use of open space, hence, transforms depending on the specific application when holding events or during the day. The ambiance of diversified options open in the courtyard and beyond, such as sitting spaces, barbeque pits, places for sports, attracting different social groups with different interests. In both projects, residents tend to actively take part in the defining of open and in-between spaces. The case of WagnisArt shows how the individual initiative of residents can transform the project; thus, when designing, it is important to allow for loose spaces for further adaptation by the community.

playground

rooftop of the cycle station

common garden

main entrance

playground

barbecue place

tennis patio

sitting area near the river

rooftop terrace

‘Dorfplatz’

rooftop terrace

green space

platform

‘Oasenhof’

Image 69: Key open spaces that provide opportunities for various levels of interaction between residents in Zwicky Sud (on the left) and WagnisArt (on the right) (source: own drawing, 2020)

109

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Spacious in-between areas for daily interactions

Overall, the public and communal facilities in both projects are primarily organized around the inner space. Similarly, apartments are converging on vertical communications, including galleries and staircases. The entrance areas to the buildings in both projects constitute an important place for the community where spontaneous meetings often arise. Hence, the design features of building entrances, including the introduction of spacious halls, are of particular relevance for the support of daily encounters. In both projects, the numerous encounters occur at vertical communications, such as elevators and staircases. The particular arrangement of wide shared staircases converged by apartments has illustrated its advantage in support of commingling within a circulation space, including acknowledging one another, small talks when residents pass by, children play, and organization of common activities. In addition, the wide hallways enable the partial expansion of the apartments into the shared space. It is important to mention that in WagnisArt the presence of horizontal communications such as bridges was in general positively associated with the support of spontaneous meetings between residents, while in the case of Zwicky Sud the present gallery system seems to have a limited contribution in support of interaction between neighbors, but rather promote visual communication with the area. entrances recessed in the builing body

wide shared staircases

spacious halls

Image 70: Key in-between spaces as contact points for daily interactions (source: own drawing, 2020)

110

galleries

connection between buildings

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

8.2.4 Dwelling diversity

The research findings generally support the thesis that the diversity of dwelling offers is important for the endorsement of residents’ variation and social mix. The cases of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt set out the importance of the diversified housing options with respect to the intentions to cover the needs of a heterogeneous population. Two projects in different ratios incorporate a wide variety of dwelling types and sizes, from studios to collective households. The selected construction technologies for buildings, therefore, should allow the flexibility of layout solutions. Noted association between dwelling offers and variation of residents

Zwicky Sud

The comparison of two case studies reveals a particular correlation considered by the residents between housing offers and variation of residents in the areas. In conversations, Zwicky Sud residents often connected a high number of families that live in the cooperative in conjunction with the presence of a large number of compact multi-room apartments suitable for families and couples. In the case of WagnisArt, several respondents noted a significant number of older residents and single dwellers present in the area that reside in cluster apartments. rooms for rent WG 5.5+6.5

studios 2.5 3.5

4.5

dwelling type studio 2.5 apartment 3.5 apartment 4.5 apartment 5.5-6.5 apartment WG / cluster rooms for rent Σ apartments - 125

WagnisArt

studios 2.5

cluster 4.5

3.5

≈m2

≈Σ m2

11 32 33 33 11 4 14

50 55 85 120 135 365 25

550 1750 2800 3950 1490 1450 100 ≈Σ m2

num.

≈m2

studio

40-70

620

2.5 apartment

1750

3.5 apartment

2450

4.5 apartment

100

2000

cluster apartment

390

3500

rooms for rent

35-45

dwelling type rooms for rent

num.

Σ apartments - 135 (57 units in cluster apartments) Image 71: Distribution of dwellings across projects in regards to the total square meters (source: own drawing, 2020)

111

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The capacity of deep buildings to host collective households

The deep build structures adopted in both projects hold the potential for introducing flat-share and cluster apartments, while the non-loadbearing façade system allows particular flexibility of dwelling layouts. It is important to mention that the complexity of the spatial situation, namely when building implies rather large depth or irregular shape, stands a chance to differentiate dwelling typologies. ≈ 25 m 40

≈ 45 m

≈

Image 72: Depth of buildings with collective households in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt (source: based on materials from Schneider Studer Primas 2017 and Bogevischs buero architekten stadtplaner GmbH/ SHAG Schindler Hable 2016, own editing, 2020)

Compactness and tenure blindness of dwelling design

The crosscutting topic among two cases is the compactness of dwellings as a particular spatial quality that, on the one hand, reduces the renting cost making housing offer more attractive to low-income groups, and, on the other hand, provide the sufficient density for the introduction of communal facilities. The fact that in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt all dwellings are designed according to the overarching standards (thus, residents’ income level cannot be assumed based on the characteristics of dwellings), serves as an illustration of the principle of tenure blind design described by Bailey et al. (2007: 53) put ‘ad acta’.

5 3.5

5 12

3 3

3.5 7.5

6.5

4 5

2 2.5x2 3

5.5

4.5

3.5x6

7.5

3 4.5

5 2.5 8

7.5

6.5 7.5

5 5.5

9 11

Image 73: The compact size of residential spaces across dwellings in Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt (source: own drawing, 2020) 112

5.5

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

The conflict potential within shared apartments

One key finding from the interviews is that the need for collective arrangements of shared facilities within the collective households is firmly associated with the emergence of clashes between tenants. The topic of conflicts between residents in collective apartments was raised particularly acutely in the interviews with residents of WagnisArt where (unlike to Zwicky Sud, where essential shared facilities are provided collectively by the cooperative) tenants of cluster apartments were needed to commonly decide on the setting up the kitchen and shared equipment. As the orientation of entrances to the private housing units in shared apartments is directly related to the issue of visual exposure, when designing, it is important to consider the crafting levels of privacy within the layouts of shared apartments. arrangement of shared facilities in the kitchen

orientation of entrances to private residential units

budget planning

? cleaning

less privacy

more privacy

Image 74: Key points shown to be contributing to conflicts within shared apartments (source: own drawing, 2020)

113

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

8.2.5 Design elements

Based on a review of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt, it can be reasoned that the particular design elements, namely finishing materials for the façade, smaller design elements, and shared furniture, have the potential to influence the interplay between residents of cooperative housing in different ways. This supports Talen and Lee observations (2018: 36) on the importance of small design elements for social interactivity, at the same time, giving some insights to the nature of these processes. The importance of façade design

The comparison of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt reveals the importance of choosing adequate finishing materials for the cooperative housing projects in the context of its possible support of the residents’ engagement with the outside spaces and securing the acoustic comfort. The design solutions employed for the façade in Zwicky Sud to a greater extent provide the opportunity for adaptations and adding on the personal touches of residents, while the materials expression of WagnisArt is rather modest in offering opportunities for the alteration of facades due to the specificities of the introduced passive housing technologies. The particular case of Zwicky Sud shows how the strong echo from children playing outside is hardly muted partly owing to the used materials, disproportionately affects specific groups, such as the older residents. At the same time, the review of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt manifested similar issues related to the visual exposure of residents and usage of shutting systems – the greater physical transparency of apartments, in case of facing horizontal communications, seems to simulate residents in some cases to extensively close blinds or curtains for privacy reasons. low sound absorption capabilities of raw concrete

high amenability of facade system

redundant transparency — closed shutters

moderate sound absorption capabilities of plaster

passive technology prohibits intervene with facades

Image 75: The features of the façade imperative to take into consideration when designing for socially mixed communities (source: own drawing, 2020) 114

SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

Leaving open what might be open: shared balconies

One of the particular elements introduced into the design of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt is an open arrangement of balconies that residents share with each other. In both cases, shared balconies’ organization seems to encourage social interaction between direct neighbors only to a limited extent, being an intriguing element tended to incite the interest of residents to the mutual spaces and acknowledging their next door neighbor. Due to the greater degree of openness, the interventions of residents in Zwicky Sud in terms of rethinking the spaces of balconies are especially varied within their spatial expression. apartment 1

apartment 1

apartment 2

cluster unit

shared kitchen

Image 76: Arrangement of shared balconies in Zwicky Sud (on the top) and WagnisArt (on the bottom) (source: own drawing, 2020)

115

COMPARISON: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Shared equipment for getting involved in the use of spaces

Evidence suggests that the introduction of furniture by the community residents is vitally important for creating a strong relation between residents and common space. The cases of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt illustrate the potentials that arise when residents extensively contribute to the construction of shared spaces. It is important to mention that both cooperatives have a common budget for the arrangement of shared facilities. In conversations, residents of both cooperatives particularly emphasized the usage of opportunities related to sitting and food preparation (especially, communal kitchen and barbeque pits) by the community in the context of narration about the interaction between tenants of different backgrounds. shared kitchen

equipment for sport and play

outdoor barbecue pits

outdoor chairs

dining furniture

mechanical tools

Image 77: Equipment mentioned in the context of narration about interaction between residents of different backgrounds (source: own drawing, 2020)

116

9 Conclusions

The idea of social mixing in cooperative housing initiatives is relatively new, but well expressed spatially through the built environment. The recent cooperative projects generate new experiences of social mix implementation, which stand at ongoing experiments and are at an early stage of being examined. This research aimed to explore the interrelation of social and spatial aspects of social mix implementation, focusing on how particular design solutions influence the spatial coexistence and social interactivity between residents with different backgrounds. Based on the qualitative study conducted with two cooperative housing projects in question, it can be concluded that the design of physical spaces directly and indirectly affect the mix of residents and their patterns of social interactions across residents of various incomes, ages, and ethnicities throughout different spatial scales and design solutions. The results indicate that when bringing such a diverse population to the projects it is important to constitute the complex structure that, on the one hand, stages together core housing needs and brings people together, and, on the other hand, is flexible enough to allow adjustments with the needs of residents changing in the long run. It can be stated that the access to affordable, high-quality housing opportunities to a broader range of income groups constitutes a ground for creating socially mixed residential areas, achieved by employing a combination of comprehensive spatial framework and organizational measures within the cooperative housing projects. The city’s effort to employ different types of financial and organizational support in order to create new living space is an important component underlying the formation of a socially mixed community. However, 119

CONCLUSIONS

if the non-profit-housing organization has sufficient funds on its own to cover part of the rent for low- and moderate-income residents, the cooperative became even more independent to identify its own perceptions about the allocations process and aimed residential mix. To begin with, the process of resident selection held by the cooperative plays a crucial role in ensuring the social mix. To add to that, the research findings provide some evidence of an association between the adopted dwellings typologies and the residents’ composition within the projects. The key spatial feature associated with housing affordability is the compactness of dwellings that differ in sizes and typologies, ensuring the high density needed to introduce shared spaces and facilities in the area. The principle of tenure blindness constitutes another important aspect in the design of apartments within socially mixed housing. Besides, the high quality of housing tends to attract residents regardless of income to move into the area. While the open arrangement of the area may in part result in drawing neighbors from adjustment areas to the present facilities, the grouping of buildings around the inner space is able to support casual meetings of residents. At the same time, the clear visual hierarchy of spaces is important for the delineation of the privacy boundaries and the support of navigation. The pieces of evidence show that the variety of uses introduced through the project hold the potential to attract visitors and, in certain cases, even serve as a motivating factor for residents when they are choosing a location to live in. The inner yard, the entrance areas, the vertical and horizontal connections constitute important contact points for residents. Therefore, it is important to consider their location and the communicative function of such places over and above economic factors when designing. Small-scaled design elements like outdoor furniture, postboxes, and partitions between balconies hold the capacity to draw the residents’ attention to each other; thus, it is necessary to consider the design of these details as it enables residents to participate in the arrangement of the shared spaces, including through the allocation of communal funds. The selection of structural systems and finishing materials also plays an extensive role in the context of design for social mix. The adoption of non-loadbearing facades ensures flexibility of layouts within the project construction, while the increased depth of the buildings allows for an introduction of collective households. The introduced finishing materials directly affect the spectrum 120

of possibilities for residents to engage with outside spaces, issues of privacy and acoustic comfort that constitute valuable aspects in the formation of socially mixed housing projects. Given the common practice of the introduction of a wide variety of public facilities and services on the ground floor of cooperative housing projects, considering the difficult decisions around meeting the operational needs in regards to the diverse uses is important for making well-informed design decisions. It is imperative to reflect on the use of physical spaces for social mixing in connection with the active involvement of residents in the creation of activities that set a particular environment for people to come together. Hence, the availability of certain spaces only partially contributes to the observed interaction between residents, allowing activities to happen far easier. The resident-based initiative in cooperative housing projects allows the diversification of uses and activities available within the project; hence, it is beneficial to assure outside and inside spaces of different shapes and configurations that can be equipped according to tenants’ wishes. In the context of the most diverse population setting, wherein residents possess different interests, worldviews, and needs, it is crucial to work with the interfaces of different logics and expectations for balancing relations among residents through the areas of common interest. During the design phase, it is vital to consider the impact of additional communal premises on the affordability of the housing and the efforts that follow, as the community would be likely engaged in the maintenance of these spaces in the long run. Acknowledging the high conflict potential when arranging shared areas in collective households (settled often by residents of different incomes, ages, and backgrounds), the appropriate assistance from the cooperative side is crucial to achieving consensus in configuring collective spaces and grounds for living together, especially during the initial phases when residents begin to enter the project. Besides, it can be assumed that the introduction of high-quality kitchen amenities into the collective households by the cooperative is likely to reduce the potential for conflicts around the organization of shared facilities.

121

CONCLUSIONS

This thesis offers a systematic approach for linking the practical experience of the cooperative housing projects to the present discourse on social mixing. The specific features of physical spaces that in a few ways address the composition of residents and interaction between tenants of different backgrounds are described and illustrated through the prism of residents’ perception. While the employment of qualitative research methods limits the generalizability of the results, the approach taken up by this thesis provides insights into residents’ experiences living in mixed communities by relating them to the spatial setups of the area. The knowledge gaps identified in the case study analyses illustrate some key areas where further research is necessary in order to better inform practices and policies that aim to promote social mixing. The implementation of such further research on social mixing should be cross-sectional in nature and constitute a collaborative process involving established and emerging cooperative projects, which can ensure contextual learning in a rapidly evolving practice. Based on the research conclusions, policies and programs targeting state- or municipality-led housing developments should consider using an integrated approach when designing for social mix, addressing living together and interaction of a diverse society through the adopted design and planning solutions and provision of opportunities for the self-organization. Besides, the collaboration between the city and cooperatives in creating new housing through the help of different programs has proven to be quite successful in the practice of social mix taking the example of WagnisArt, which potentially could be considered as an appealing experience for other cities to adopt. I believe that fostering more consciousness when working with the design and planning instrumentarium, multiplied by an attentiveness for emerging social dynamics within the built environment, would allow us to ‘have what it takes’ to create socially diverse and spatially vigorous housing opportunities, with scope for constant learning and advancing through review processes.

122

10 References — Aelbrecht, Particia/ Stevens, Quentin/ Nisha, Bobby 2019: Introduction From Mixing with Strangers to Collective Placemaking: Exusting Theories, Policies and Practices around Social Cohesion in Public Space Design. In: Aelbrecht, Particia/ Stevens, Quentin (eds.): Public Space Design and Social Cohesion. An International Comparison. New York: Routledge, pp. 1-23. — Allport, Gordon 1954: The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company — Andersson, Eva K./ Lyngstad, Hovde Torkild/ Sleutjes, Bart 2018: Comparing Patterns of Segregation in North-Western Europe: A Multiscalar Approach. In: European Journal of Population Nr. 34: 151–168. — Arthurson, Kathy 2002: Creating inclusive communities through balancing social mix: A critical relationship or tenuous link? In: Urban Policy and Research Nr. 20: 245-261. — Arthurson, Kathy 2005: Residents perspectives about social mix. In: Social City Nr. 18: 1-12. — Arthurson, Kathy 2010: Operationalising Social Mix: Spatial Scale, Lifestyle and Stigma as Mediating Points in Resident Interaction. In: Urban Policy and Research Nr. 28/1: 49-63. — Arthurson, Kathy 2012: Social Mix and the City: Challenging the Mixed Communities Consensus in Housing and Urban Planning Policies. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing. — Atkinson, Rowland/ Kintrea, Keith 2000: Owner occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts. In: Policy & Politics Nr. 28: 92-108. — Bailey, Nick/ Haworth, Anna/ Manzi, Tony/ Paranagamage, Primali/ Roberts, Marion 2007: Creating and Sustaining Mixed Income Communities in Scotland: A Good Practice Guide. Edinburgh: Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland — Bauchplan 2020: Wagnisart – participation in planning, In: http://bauchplan.de/projekt.php?name=12wag; Accessed: 21.06.2020. — Bogevischs buero architekten stadtplaner GmbH/ SHAG Schindler Hable 2016: https://www.archdaily.com/889159/cooperative-housing-complexwagnisart-bogevischs-buero-architekten-stadtplaner-gmbh-plus-shagschindler-hable?ad_medium=gallery; Accessed: 27.08.2020.

123

REFERENCES

— Bogner, Alexander/ Littig, Beate/ Menz, Wolfgang 2009: Introduction: Expert Interviews – An Introduction to a New Methodological Debate. In: Bogner, Alexander/ Littig, Beate/ Menz, Wolfgang (eds.): Interviewing Experts. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-13. — Bolt, Gideon/ Phillips, Deborah/ van Kempen, Ronald 2010: Housing Policy, (De)segregation and Social Mixing: An International Perspective. In: Housing Studies Nr. 25/2: 129-135. — Bramham, Peter 1992: Change, Postmodernism and Postmodernity. In: https://www.reading.ac.uk/RevSoc/archive/volume10/number1/10-1a.htm; Accessed: 05.08.2020. — Briggs, Xavier de Souza 2005: ‘Social Mixing and the Geography of Opportunity’: Lessons for Policy and Unanswered Questions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. — Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung BBRS (eds.) 2020: Cluster Wohnungen Eine neue Wohnungstypologie für eine anpassungsfähige Staftentwicklung. Forschung für die Praxis Band 22. Bonn: Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung — Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung BBSR (eds.) 2016: Wohnungsgenossenschaften als Partner der Kommunen. Bonn: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung — Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 2012: Statistik: Migrantenanteil in deutschen Großstädten wächst from Markus Engler. In: https://www.bpb. de/gesellschaft/migration/newsletter/148820/migrantenanteil-in-deutschen-grossstaedten-waechst; Accessed: 05.06.2020. — Busch-Geertsema, Volker 2007: Measures to Achieve Social Mix and their Impact on Access to Housing for People who are Homeless. In: European Journal of Homelessness Nr. 1: 213-224. — Carpenter, Juliet 2018: ‘Social Mix’ as ‘Sustainability Fix’? Exploring Social Sustainability in the French Suburbs. In: Urban Planning Nr. 3/4: 29-37. — Chaskin, Robert/ Khare, Amy/ Joseph, Mark 2012: Participation, deliberation, and decision making: The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in mixedincome developments. In: Urban Affairs Review Nr. 48: 863-906. — Cole, Ian/ Goodchild, Barry 2001: Social mix and the ‘balanced community’ in British housing policy – a tale of two epochs. In: Geo Journal Nr. 51: 351360.

124

— Costarelli, Igor/ Kleinhans, Reinout/ Mugnano, Silvia 2019: Reframing social mix in affordable housing initiatives in Italy and in the Netherlands Closing the gap between discourses and practices? In: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning Nr. 90: 131-140. — Crawfold, Linda M. 2020: Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks in Research. In: https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/105274_ book_item_105274.pdf, Accessed: 10.08.2020. — Creswell, John W./ Creswell, J. David 2018: Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Fifth Edition. London: SAGE — DeCarlo, Matthew 2018: Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Roanoke: Open Social Work Education — Deutsches Architektenblatt 2019: [MISCHUNGS-PIONIER] “Man muss es einfach machen”. In: https://www.dabonline.de/2019/02/23/andreas-hofer-urbane-mischung/; Accessed: 31.09.2020. — Dürr, Susanne/ Kuhn, Gerd 2018: Wohnvielfalt Gemeinschaftlich wohnen – im Quartier vernetzt und sozial orientiert. Ludwigsburg: Wüstenrot Stiftung — Enos, Ryan D./ Celaya, Christopher 2017: The Effect of Segregation on Intergroup Relations. In: Journal of Experimental Political Science Nr. 5/1: 1-13. — Evers, Adalbert/ Ewert, Benjamin/ Brandsen, Taco (eds.) 2014: Social Innovations for social cohesion. Transnational patterns and approaches from 20 European cities. In: http://www.wilcoproject.eu/downloads/WILCOproject-eReader.pdf; Accessed: 17.04.2020. — F+B Forschung und Beratung für Wohnen, Immobilien und Umwelt GmbH 2019: F+B-Mietspiegelindex 2019 Veröffentlicht. In: https://www.f-undb.de/beitrag/fb-mietspiegelindex-2019-veroeffentlicht.html; Accessed: 31.05.2020. — Fainstein, Susan S. 2005: Cities and diversity should we want it? Can we plan for it? In: Urban affairs review Nr.41/1: 3-19. — Fincher, Ruth/ Iveson, Kurt/ Leitner, Helga/ Preston, Valerie 2014: Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating diversity or reinforcing difference? In: Progress in Planning Nr. 92: 1-55. — Frey, Bruce B. 2018: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE — Fry, Toni 2010: Design as politics. Oxford/ New York: Berg

125

REFERENCES

— Fulton, William 1997: The New Urbanism: Hope or Hype for American Communities? In: https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/thenew-urbanism-full.pdf; Accessed: 12.08.2020. — Galster, George C. 2009: Neighborhood Social Mix: Theory, Evidence, and Implications for Policy and Planning. In: http://archive.clas.wayne.edu/ Multimedia/DUSP/files/G.Galster/ Galster_Neighborhood_Social_Mix_Israel_paper_1-2010.pdf; Accessed: 31.05.2020. — Gans, Herbert 1961: The balanced community — homogeneity or heterogeneity in residential areas? In: Journal of the American Institute of Planners Nr. 27/3: 176-184. — Garnier, Jean-Pierre 1993: Marxist space, Marxian space. In: L’Espace géographique H-S: 97-107. — Glaser, Marie Antoinette/ Hilti, Nicola 2016: Trying out something new in Zürich: Community living on the Hunziker Areal. In: Hugentobler, Margrit/ Hofer, Andreas/ Simmendinger, Pia (eds.): More than housing: Cooperative Planning - a case study in Zurich. Basel: Birkhäuser, pp. 116-118. — Gollan, Rut cited after Konzept 2018: Genossenschaftliches Projekt wagnisART München: Herzstück ist aas Miteinander. In: https://konzept.conturpublisher.de/konzept-ausgaben/welche-wohnungen-brauchen-wir/muenchen-wagnis-art/; Accessed: 19.08.2020. — Goodrick, Delwyn 2020: Comparative Case Studies. In: http://methods. sagepub.com/foundations/comparative-case-studies; Accessed: 27.07.2020. — Groves, Rick/ Middleton, Alan/ Murie, Alan/ Broughton, Kevin 2003: Neighbourhoods that work A study of the Bournville estate, Birmingham. Bristol: The Policy Press — Hamnett, Chris 2010: Urban Inequality and Polarization. In: Wu, Fulong/ Webster, Chris (eds.): Marginalization in Urban China Comparative Perspectives. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17-28. — Hanhörster, Heike/ Weck, Sabine 2020: Middle-class family encounters and the role of micro-publics for cross-social interaction. In: Musterd, Sako (eds.): Handbook of Urban Segregation. Northamphon: Edwards Elgar Publishing, pp. 254-269. — Hannemann, Christine 2016: Wohnen neu bedacht. Eine soziologische Einschätzung. In: BDA – Bund Deutscher Architekten (eds.): Neue Standards. Zehn Thesen zum Wohnen. Berlin: Jovis, pp. 31-35.

126

— Harlander, Tilman 2015: Tilman Harlander und Bernhard Schäfers im Gespräch 2015: Soziale Mischung in der Stadt und Wohnungspolitik, Interview. In: https://iwesoziologie.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/soziale-mischungharlander-schaefers.pdf, Accessed: 13.04.2020. — Harlander, Tilman/ Kuhn, Gerd 2012a: Aktive Mischung – zur Zukunft der Stadte. Ein Resumee. In: Harlander, Tilman/ Kuhn, Gerd/ Wüstenrot Stiftung (eds.): Soziale Mischung in der Stadt Case Studies – Wohnungspolitik in Europa – Historische Analyse. Neustadt: Karl Krämer Verlag Stuttgart + Zürich, pp. 420-429. — Harlander, Tilman/ Kuhn, Gerd 2012b: Europa – im Spannungsfeld von Mischung und Segregation. In: Harlander, Tilman/ Kuhn, Gerd/ Wüstenrot Stiftung (eds.): Soziale Mischung in der Stadt Case Studies – Wohnungspolitik in Europa – Historische Analyse. Neustadt: Karl Krämer Verlag Stuttgart + Zürich, pp. 182-199. — Harlander, Tilman/ Kuhn, Gerd 2012c: Deutschland – “Mischung” in Kommunaler Praxis und Wohnungswirtschaft. In: Harlander, Tilman/ Kuhn, Gerd/ Wüstenrot Stiftung (eds.): Soziale Mischung in der Stadt Case Studies – Wohnungspolitik in Europa – Historische Analyse. Neustadt: Karl Krämer Verlag Stuttgart + Zürich, pp. 387-407. — Häußermann, Hartmut 2005: The End of the European City? In: European Review Nr. 13/25: 237-249. — Häußermann, Hartmut 2009: Behindern ‘Migrantenviertel’ die Integration? In: Gesemann, Frank/ Roth, Roland (eds.): Lokale Integrationspolitik in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft. Migration und Integration als Herausforderung von Kommunen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, pp. 393-406. — Häußermann, Hartmut/ Siebel, Walter 2001: Integration und Segregation – Überlegungen zu einer alten Debatte. In: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kommunalwissenschaften (DfK) Nr. 1: 68-79. — Healey, Patsy 2007: Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge — Hillier, Bill 2007: Space is the machine A configurational theory of architecture. London: Space Syntax — Hochparterre 2016: Offene Burg Im Areal Zwicky Süd im Glattal wohnt man in einer Schallschutzwand oder in dreissig Meter tiefen Wohnungen ohne Ausblick. Was bekommt man dafür? Urbanität. In: https://www.kraftwerk1. ch/assets/Offene_Burg_Hochparterre_2016.pdf; Accessed: 17.09.2020. 127

REFERENCES

— Hofer, Andreas 2019: Utopian pragmatism – Grassroots urban movements rejuvenating the Swiss housing cooperative tradition. In: Ledent, Gerand/ Salembrier, Chloe/ Vanneste, Damien (eds.): Sustainable Dwelling Between Spatial Polyvalence and Residents’ Empowerment. Brussels: Presses universitaires de Louvain, pp. 23-47. — Hofer, Andreas 2020: Personal interview from 02.06.2020. In: Appendices. — Holm, Andrej 2009: Soziale Mischung. Zur Entstehung und Funktion eines Mythos. In: https://gentrificationblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/mythossoziale-mischung/; Accessed: 17.09.2020. — Housing Europe (eds.) 2015: The State of Housing in the EU 2015. Brussels: Housing Europe, the European Federation for Public, Cooperative and Social Housing — Hugentobler, Margrit 2016: Introduction. In: Hugentobler, Margrit/ Hofer, Andreas/ Simmendinger, Pia (eds.): More than housing Cooperative Planning - a case study in Zurich. Basel: Birkhäuser, pp. 8-11. — Jacobs, Jane 1961: The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books — Juppien, Angelika/ Zemp, Richard 2019: Vokabular des Zwischenraums. Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten von Rückzug und Interaktion in dichten Wohngebieten. Zurich: Park Books — Kaltenbach, Frank 2017: Housing Cooperatives Community Instead of Property. In: https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/arc/20894807.html; Accessed: 31.05.2020. — Kearns, Ade/ McKee, Martin J./ Sautkina, Elena/ Cox, Jennifer/ Bond, Lindal 2013: How to mix? Spatial configurations, modes of production and resident perceptions of mixed tenure neighbourhoods. In: Cities Nr.35: 397408. — Keene, Danya E./ Padilla, Mark B. 2010: Race, Class and the Stigma of Place: Moving to ‘Opportunity’ in Eastern Iowa. In: Health & Place Nr. 16/6: 1216– 1223. — Kipfer, Stefan Andreas 2018: Marxism, space and a few urban questions: a rough guide to the English language Literature [Sur la production de l’espace et quelques questions urbaines: tour d’horizon de la littérature anglophone]. In: http://revueperiode.net/sur-la-production-de-lespace-et-quelquesquestions-urbaines-tour-dhorizon-de-la-litterature-anglophone/; Accessed: 19.04.2020 128

— Klaffke, Julius 2020: Skype Interview from 03.06.2020. In: Appendices. — Kleefisch-Jobst, Ursula/ Köddermann, Peter/ Jung, Karen (eds.) 2016: Alle Wollen Wohnen. Berlin: Jovis. — Kleit, Rachel Garshick/ Carnegie, Nicole Bohme 2011: Integrated or isolated? The impact of public housing redevelopment on social network homophily. In: Social Networks Nr. 33: 152–165. — Kofner, Stefan 2017: Social Housing in Germany: an inevitably shrinking Sector? In: Critical Housing Analysis Nr. 4/1: 61-71. — Kozeny, Geoph 1995: Intentional communities: lifestyles based on ideals. In: Communities directory: a guide to cooperative living. Langley, WA: Fellowship for Intentional Community, pp. 18-24. — Krafterwerk1 2014: Kraftwerk1 Strategie 2014–2024 So wollen wir handeln. In: https://www.kraftwerk1.ch/assets/downloads/publikationen/genossenschaft/strategieprozess/Kraftwerk1-Strategie%202014-24.pdf; Accessed: 01.06.2020. — Kraftwerk1 2018: Prasentation ‘Ein Quartier schaffen und beleben’ by Monika Sprecher, Geschäftsführerin a.i. Genossenschaft Kraftwerk1, Zwicky-Areal Wallisellen, In: https://lebendige-quartiere.ch/cmsfiles/6-kraftwerk-d.pdf; Accessed: 21.06.2020. — Kraftwerk1 2019: Bau- und Wohngenossenschaft Kraftwerk1 Jahresbericht 2019. Zurich: Vorstand Bau- und Wohngenossenschaft Kraftwerk1 — Kraftwerk1 2020a: Siedlungsprojekt Zwicky Süd Bau- und Wohngenossenschaft Kraftwerk1. In: https://www.kraftwerk1.ch/assets/downloads/ publikationen/siedlungen/zwicky_areal/KWE784_Zwicky_Sued_03.pdf; Accessed: 08.06.2020. — Kraftwerk1 2020b: Über uns. In: https://www.kraftwerk1.ch/genossenschaft/ueber-uns/; Accessed: 01.06.2020. — Kraftwerk1 2020c: Zwicky Süd Steckbrief In: https://www.kraftwerk1.ch/ zwicky-sued/zwicky-areal.html; Accessed: 14.09.2020. — Kuhn, Gerd 2012: Durcheinander Wohnen und Zonierung im Kaiserreich. In: Harlander, Tilman/ Kuhn, Gerd/ Wüstenrot Stiftung (eds.): Soziale Mischung in der Stadt Case Studies – Wohnungspolitik in Europa – Historische Analyse. Neustadt: Karl Krämer Verlag Stuttgart + Zürich, pp. 28-47. — Kuhn, Gerd 2016: Von der Familienwohnung zum Clusterwohnen. Wohngrundrisse im Spiegel des gesellschaftlichen Wandels. In: Kleefisch-Jobst, Ursula/ Köddermann, Peter/ Jung, Karen (eds.): Alle Wollen Wohnen. Berlin: Jovis, pp. 46-49. 129

REFERENCES

— Kuhnert, Jan/ Leps, Olof 2017: Die gemeinnützigen Woningcorporaties in den Niederlanden. In: Neue Wohnungsgemeinnützigkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 187-212. — LaFond, Michael/ Tsvetkova, Larisa (eds.) 2017: CoHousing Inclusive Selbstorganisiertes, gemeinschaftliches Wohnen für alle. Berlin: JOVIS Verlag — Landeshauptstadt München (eds.) 2017: Wohnungspolitisches Handlungsprogramm ‘Wohnen in München VI’ 2017–2021. In: https://www.muenchen-transparent.de/antraege/4631369; Accessed: 12.08.2020. — Landeshauptstadt München 2018: Münchner Wirtschaftsstruktur. In: https://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/wirtschaft/wirtschaftsstandort/wirtschaftsstruktur.html; Accessed: 19.08.2020. — Lang, Richard 2012: Social Capital of Residents in Cooperative Housing: Empirical Evidence from Vienna. In: Brazda, Johann/ Dellinger, Markus/ Rößl, Dietmar (eds.): Genossenschaften im Fokus einer neuen Wirtschaftspolitik. Wien: Lit Verlag — Lees, Loretta/ Butler, Tim/ Bridge, Gary 2011: Introduction: gentrification, social mixing and mixed communities. In: Bridge, Gary/ Butler, Tim/ Lees, Loretta (eds.): Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth? Chicago: The Policy Press, pp. 1-16. — Lelevrier, Christine 2013: Social mix neighbourhood policies and social interaction: The experience of newcomers in three new renewal developments in France. In: Cities Nr. 35: 409-416. — Levin, Iris/ Arthurson, Kathy/ Ziersch, Anna 2014: Social mix and the role of design: Competing interests in the Carlton Public Housing Estate Redevelopment, Melbourne. In: Cities Nr. 40: 23–31. — Levy, Diane K./ McDade, Zach/ Dumlao, Kassie 2010: Effects from living in mixed-income communities for low-income families: A review from literature. Washington: The Urban Institute. — Lutz, Manuel 2019: Lived Solidarity: Housing Cooperatives. In: https://assemblepapers.com.au/2019/11/20/lived-solidarity-housing-co-operatives/; Accessed: 08.08.2020. — Mäkynen, Tommi/ Niemeyer, Mirjam 2020: Skype Interview from 25.06.2020. In: Appendices. — Maloutas, Thomas 2016: Introduction: Residential Segregation in Context. In: Maloutas, Thomas/ Fujita, Kuniko (eds.): Residential Segregation in Comparative Perspective: Making Sense of Contextual Diversity. New York: Routledge, pp. 1-36. 130

— Merk, Elisabeth 2016: Das “München Modell” WohnungsbaufÖrderung bei Eigentum und Miete. In: Kleefisch-Jobst, Ursula/ Köddermann, Peter/ Jung, Karen (eds.): Alle Wollen Wohnen. Berlin: Jovis, pp. 126-131. — Meyer, Friederike 2017: Polygonale Genossenschaft Wohnanlage von bogevischs buero und SHAG Schindler Hable Architekten in München. In: https://www.baunetz.de/meldungen/Meldungen-Wohnanlage_von_bogevischs_buero_und_SHAG_Schindler_Hable_Architekten_in_Muenchen_5105970.html; Accessed: 25.08.2020. — Miles, Matthew B./ Huberman, Michael/ Saldana, Johnny 2014: Qualitative data analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, third edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE — Mills, Albert/ Durepos, Gabriel/ Wiebe, Elden (eds.) 2010: Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Newbury Park: SAGE — Montgomery, John 1998: Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design. In: Journal of Urban Design Nr. 3: 93-116. — Morris, Alan/ Jamieson, Michelle/ Patulny, Roger 2012: Is social mixing of tenures a solution for public housing estates? In: Evidence Base Nr. 1: 1-21. — Münch, Sybille 2009: “It’s all in the mix”: constructing ethnic segregation as a social problem in Germany. In: Journal of Housing and The Built Environment Nr.24: 441–455. — Musterd, Sako/ Andersson, Roger 2005: Housing Mix, Social Mix, and Social Opportunities. In: Urban Affairs Review Nr. 40/6: 761-790. — Pinçon, Michel/ Pinçon-Charlot, Moniqie 2008: Cited after: Programms Projets Urbains (eds.) 2011: Soziale Mischung und Quartiersentwicklung: Anspruch versus Macharkeit. Bern — Pollak, Sabine 2017: Denke nich in Korridoren! In: BDA – Bund Deutscher Architekten (eds.): Neue Standards. Zehn Thesen zum Wohnen. Berlin: Jovis, pp. 137. — Portas, Nuno 2015: The SAAL Process: Housing in Portugal 1974–76, interview with Nuno Portas. In: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_ continue=227&v=NPQ7b8fUbqY; at 8:57. — Programms Projets Urbains (eds.) 2011: Soziale Mischung und Quartiersentwicklung: Anspruch versus Macharkeit. Bern — Roberts, Marion 2007: Sharing Space: Urban Design and Social Mixing in Mixed Income New Communities. In: Planning Theory and Practice Nr. 8/2: 183-204.

131

REFERENCES

— Rose, Damaris 2004: Discourses and Experiences of Social Mix in Gentrifying Neighbourhoods: A Montréal Case Study. In: Canadian Journal of Urban Research Nr. 13/2: pp. 278-316. — Rubin, Allen/ Babbie, Earl R. 2009: Research Methods for Social Work, sixth edition. Belmont: Broocks/ Cole — Ruming, Kristian J./ Mee, Kathleen J./ McGuirk, Pauline M. 2004: Questioning the Rhetoric of Social Mix: Courteous Community or Hidden Hostility? In: Australian Geographical Studies Nr. 42/2: 234–248. — Sarkissian, Wendy 1976: The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical Review. In: Urban Studies Nr. 13: 231-246. — Sarkissian, Wendy/ Forsyth, Ann / Heine, Warwick 1990: Residential “Social Mix”: The Debates Continues. In: Australian Planner Nr. 28: 5-16. — Schmid, Susanne (eds.) 2019: Eine Geschichte des gemeinschaftlichen Wohnens: Modelle des Zusammenlebens. Base: Birkhäuser — Schneider Studer Primas 2016: Zwicky Süd. In: https://www.worldarchitects.com/de/schneider-studer-primas-zurich/project/zwicky-sud; Accessed: 23.06.2020. — Schneider Studer Primas 2017: Zwicky Areal in Dübendorf Süd. In: https://afasiaarchzine.com/2017/07/schneider-studer-primas/; Accessed: 27.08.2020. — ScottHanson, Chris/ ScottHanson Kelly 2004: The Cohousing Handbook Revised Edition Building a Place for Community. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. — Simon-Philipp, Christina (eds.) 2017: WohnOrte 2: 90 Wohnquartiere in Stuttgart von 1890 bis 2017 – Entwicklungen und Perspektiven. Stuttgart: Krämer — Smith, Alastair 2002: Mixed-income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. Cambrige: Harvard Joint Center on Housing Studies — Sotomo 2017: Gemeinnütziges Wohnen im Fokus. Ein Vergleich zu Miete und Eigentum. Grenchen: Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen — Spiegel, Erika 2001: Soziale Stabilisierung durch soziale Mischung. In: vhw FW Nr. 2: 75–80. — Talen, Emily/ Lee, Sungduck 2018: Design for Social Diversity 2nd Edition. London: Routlege 132

— Thiesen, Claudia 2016: Ein Wagnis der besonderen Art. In: Zeitschrift Wohnen Nr. 9: 28-31. — van Kempen, Ronald/ Bolt, Gideon 2009: Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands. In: Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Nr. 24: 457–475. — Warf, Barney/ Arias, Santa (eds.) 2009: The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge — Weck, Sabine/ Hanhörster, Heike 2015: Seeking Urbanity or Seeking Diversity? Middle-class family households in a mixed neighbourhood in Germany. In: Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Nr. 30: 471-486. — Wohnbaugenossenschaften Schweiz (eds.) 2018: Der gemeinnützige Wohnungsbau in der Schweiz Ein Gewinn für die ganze Gesellschaft. In: https:// www.bwo.admin.ch/dam/bwo/de/dokumente/01_Wohnungsmarkt/14_Gemeinnuetzige_Wohnungen/der_dritte_weg_imwohnungsbau.pdf.download.pdf/der_gemeinnuetzige_wohnungsbau_in_der_schweiz.pdf; Accessed: 26.05.2020. — Wüstenrot Stiftung 2020: Wohnvielfalt. Gemeinschaftlich wohnen – im Quartier vernetzt und sozial orientiert. In: https://wuestenrot-stiftung.de/ sozial-und-quartiersorientierung-gemeinschaftlicher-wohnprojekte-undgenossenschaften/; Accessed: 28.08.2020. — Yin, Robert K. 2003: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Third Edition. Applied Social Research Methods Series Volume 5. London: SAGE — Zemp, Richard/ Juppien, Angelika/ Jacobi, Katharina/ Winterberger, Franziska/ Schwehr, Peter/ Rupp, Hans/ Lehni, Faust 2020: Überblick Innovative Wohnformen Kontext, Typologies und Konsequenzen. In: https://www. hslu.ch/-/media/campus/common/files/dokumente/ta/ta-forschung/forschung/cctp-innovative-wohnformen.pdf?la=de-ch; Accessed: 26.08.2020.

133

11 Appendices A total of 3 expert interviews and 11 interviews with residents were conducted in June 2020. The tables below give information about all respondents and the dates of interviews. Table 1: List of interviews with experts: Focus of the interview

Name

Organization

Position

Date of interview

Zwicky Sud

Andreas Hofer

cooperative Kraftwerk1, co-founder

architect, initiator and developer of Zwicky Sud project

02.06.2020

WagnisArr

Julius Klaffke

Bogevischs buero, project architect

leading architect of WagnisArt project

03.06.2020

Zurich and Munich cooperative scenes

Tommi Mäkynen Mirjam Niemeyer

Helsinki Zürich Office, architects and partners

experts with extensive knowledge on Zurich and Munich cities

25.06.2020

Table 2: List of interviews with residents: Case study

Code

Gender

Household type

Dwelling type

Age

Citizenship

Date of interview

Zwicky Sud

ZS1

female

family with children

4.5 apartment

mid-30s

Non-EU

04.06.2020

ZS2

female

parent with child

unit in cluster apartment

mid-30s

Germany

09.09.2020

ZS3

female

single dweller

studio apartment

early 20s

Switzerland

09.06.2020

ZS4

male

single dweller

flat-share

early 20s

Switzerland

15.06.2020

ZS5

male

family

3.5 apartment

early 40s

Switzerland

21.06.2020

WA1

male

single dweller

unit in cluster apartment

mid-50s

Germany

06.06.2020

WA2

female

single dweller

studio apartment

early 80s

Germany

10.06.2020

WA3

female

family with children

3.5 apartment

mid-30s

Germany

17.06.2020

WA4

male

extended family

4.5 apartment

early 20s

Non-EU

18.06.2020

WA5

female

single dweller

unit in cluster apartment

early 70s

Germany

19.06.2020

WA6

male

family with children

3.5 apartment

mid-40s

Non-EU

19.06.2020

WagnisArt

135

APPENDICES

The transcripts of interviews with experts are added below (see Appendices 1-3). An interview guide for in-depth semi-structured interviews with residents with a list of topics and respective questions topics covered during the interview is indicated below (see Appendix 4). The order of the questions and the depth of diving into the different topics varied from interview to interview, being dependent on the pace of conversations. To maintain the right to privacy, the transcripts of interviews with residents are added to the Master Thesis as a separate document as they contain, among the other things, private information regarding residents of Zwicky Sud and WagnisArt shared during the conversations. Hermit, I declare that all employed information in the Master Thesis that refers to conversations with residents is provided in the accurate form based on interview transcripts. The transcription of interviews with the residents could be provided upon request by contacting the author: julia.zalomaikina@gmail.com

136

Appendix 1 Interview with Andreas Hofer Interviewed: June 02, 2020 Transcribed: June 10, 2020 (partial transcript) Interviewer:

— Working on the Zwicky Sud case study, I want to look at the perspective of a designer and users of the space.

Interviewee:

— I think in the Zwicky case, it is not only planer versus resident, but it is also the site that was very deciding with all these constraints with noise and traffic around and also planning.

Interviewer:

— Because it looks a bit like an island?

Interviewee:

— Yes, it was because of the surrounding, and then we always tried not to be just the island, to break it up and open it. But there were many constraints from around which you have to fight to achieve it. It is a triangle between the site conditions, the people and the aims of the cooperative, and the planners.

Interviewer:

— I wonder how much this idea of connectivity of the site and surroundings was important for the design? I brought some maps. The Zwicky Sud is only this part?

Interviewee:

— The Zwicky Sud is this [showing all the site size], but this is owned by the cooperative. But this was from the beginning, we always said that we could not invest all the development financially, but we can be part of it. In the end, there are three investors.

Interviewer:

— Senn, Adimoras and Turidomus?

Interviewee:

— Yes, they are two investment instruments from the same foundation. Pensimo is a quite sustainable and socially responsible pension fund. They are public bodies that give their pension money to Pensimo, and Pensimo develops the projects with different strategies.

Interviewer:

— But how were the decisions made on who would take part in the project?

Interviewee:

— There is Wüest & Partner – an advisor in Zurich, which does much research in real estate. (…) Senn is a general contractor that comes from Saint Gallen, they tried to enter the Zurich market. And they asked Wüest & Partner to search for projects for them. And an old textile family Zwicky has searched investors for their different plots. Zwicky family asked Wüest & Partner whether they have an investor, and they proposed Senn. They said that they would do it, but this is a very high-risk place. Then Wüest & Partner asked me from Kraftwerk1 whether we would be a pioneering investor. They asked Kraftwerk1 because we have many experiences with difficult sites, because we are very engaged in bringing some commercial and public functions, they took us kind of an anchor. Then Senn said that they would build these houses and own it. In the end, they decided to keep apartments and rent it out as a private rent. And when the project was quite defined after the competition, we searched the third a real estate investor, and it was Pensimo. It is also like splitting up the risks a little bit if you have different investors and different market segments.

Interviewer:

— I read that Kraftwerk1 tries to introduce the “Zuri-Mischung” in every project. I wonder to what extent it was possible here in Zwicky?

Interviewee:

— I think it was easier than in other projects. If you take Kalkbreite, for instance, the site is quite attractive. In the middle of the city. They had to actively search for people that are not so rich, not so hipster, not so fancy, in order to reach social mixture. We are at the border of Zurich, near the Schwamendingen area, where are many migrant families. This area adjacent to Zurich is one of the poorest. We are in the socially quite mixed area. And you have all these constraints from noise, and “Is it attractive enough?”… So it was quite easy to have some of the urban pioneers, people interested in being part of the Kraftwerk1 cooperative, but also lowincome families that are desperately seeking for affordable accommodation in this area.

Interviewer:

— To which extent future residents could influence the design?

137

APPENDICES

Interviewee:

— The future residents perhaps is the wrong questions. We had an experience in Kraftwerk, in Mehr als wohnen, in Zwicky Sud that you cannot find the future residents in the very early stage. And then you have these people for seven years, or so, as such a huge project takes time. In the end, people move in the flats they discussed around seven years ago. So the participation process is kind of different. We say we are public, so everybody interested in the project can be part of the decision-making process. It can also be people from the cooperative, who don‘t want to move in there, but they are feel responsible for the project of the cooperative. It can be neighbors around. Some social-democratic politicians from Dubendorf, for instance, were engaged in the process because they felt, in a way, responsible for the development of Dubendorf. There were probably some people who wanted to move to the flat-sharing community or were directly interested in the flats in this project. But this is the mixtures of different approaches and perspectives on the project that we tried to bring in this participation process. And when it gets more realistic, then in one year – two years before the project is finished, there is the shift – more people who are concretely interested in moving come to the meetings and come to the discussions. It is also a little difficult because these people can ask “Why have you decided five years ago?”. So this is a very important difference to the Baugruppe. WagnisArt was also not a Baugruppe, and they are also kind of a political project. And many people took part in discussions but did not move in at the end if I know the story right.

Interviewer:

— Have you ever reached the point when the perspectives of planners and people who were involved in the project were contradicting a lot during the preparatory phase?

Interviewee:

— Again, it is a triangle. Kraftwerk is a cooperative, and we are professionals. We have much experience with such projects. So we, in a way, build bridges between the planner’s views and the user. You have the planers with their ideas. It was also the competition with a jury, you decide about the project. And then you have people, which is also a heterogeneous group. (...) There are also very different people, with very different histories and perspectives; some of them are professionals also.

Interviewer:

— My question is how you take this heterogeneous group and somehow display this diversity into the layouts. How you came up with the specific types of dwellings?

Interviewee:

— This is a very Zurich specific situation. We are going from one project to the next project for 20 years. And in the first project, perhaps, you do some experiments. And then see how these experiments work and how people who moved in react to this. Out of this, there is a permanent discussion. For instance, single-parent families, elderly people, what could be typologies that fit for these people? This was step by step, the project to project. We developed from the first Kraftwerk project to the Heizenholz, where we experimented for the first time with these cluster typologies. Then in Zwicky, it is bringing all experiences. This is a process that goes much beyond the specific project. And what is very important in this participation – you start with many blank sheets at the beginning, you have no images, no project, no competition. (…) And then we tried to define what questions are relevant at what stage of the project. And then we made the public event at a certain point. Here you need to decide about the energy concept. And then we invite experts, we make workshops, and we invite people to discuss about energy concept. Here you need to decide about the typologies of the flats, so we tried to give a schedule – when what questions are relevant. And then we invite people to discuss these questions. This is completely different from the German approach – here you come and ask people about their wishes, collect all these materials, go the professionals, to planners, to banks, and recognize that it is not possible. Then you make a standard house. We try to be very clear and very open on which stage you can decide the range of the issues. You could say it is top-down participation, but I would say that it is a real participation. Participation is not fantasy land, participation is optimizing a project in its real constrains. This is a very Zurich specific story because we know each other, we discuss a lot about different projects, we try to learn, and try to develop. And we see the cooperative movement as a whole. And projects are part of this story. We try to discuss, to publish, we try to learn in this long history.

Interviewer:

— I wonder if the idea of interconnection between residents was important for the project? And how this reflected in the design of the spaces or site design?

Interviewee:

— The site has so many restrictions, so we had to solve do many technical problems with architects. That the form in a way arrived from the restrictions around. (…) Schneider Studer Primas was very clever in showing us the potentials of different typologies. Their idea in the competition was to have these very different typologies of the bars, that solve the noise problem. Then the huge blocks that are very deep. And the ground floor that is very commercial, very flexible, very open. And they showed us the potentials of each of these three typologies. So we could puzzle together and experiment with different possibilities that were a kind of ‘baukasten’. They proposed a system, also the construction system. This was very intelligently done. So you have the facades that are nor loadbearing, and you are completely flexible in the inside, we really search system that you could adapt, that you can experiment with different housing typologies. It was not the group of 15 who designed their cluster apartment. This cluster apartment came in discussion with architects and other projects, and then we said – “let’s try it”. Perhaps you are searching for some direct influence of people in the process. In the end, it is not so easy to find it. But I would not say that it is ridiculous. An example, one rule in the participation discussion – you can talk about everything, but not about your own flat.

138

APPENDIX 1 / INTERVIEW WITH ANDREAS HOFER

Interviewee:

— This is very different from the German approach. We try to bring together different ideal flats in the ‘Baugruppe’. We are interested in a structure that has to do with a very complex society and that offers space to different lifestyles and life situations. We know that houses are a bit more permanent than personal wishes. So you have to move with you personally in the complex structure. We do not try to stick together with different personal wishes in the house. We try to break up the house in as much different situations. Some of these situations come from the discussion with people at the participation process. But we do not make a one-to-one relation between the future resident and the project.

Interviewer:

— What went well in terms of the interaction between residents?

Interviewee:

— In the Kraftwerk where I live, in Hardturmstrasse, there was a similar configuration – we worked with Stiftung PWG, one house is owned by a third investor, so normal rent apartment. And there we perceived that may people began to move between these two projects. I think this also happens here, but I don‘t have the numbers.

Interviewer:

— What would you change if you would have an opportunity to develop the project anew?

Interviewee:

— A project is a one-shot operation. It is in its time, in its restrictions. It is kind of a story. You cannot go back and talk to the story the other way around. We went very far in this project, also the expression is radical, and I am not sure whether we, in some aspects, did not ‘overwhelm’ people who moved in in the end. We ask quite a lot of energy from the people. Some people reacted well, some of them developed a pioneering spirit, they took this as an opportunity to develop own the external spaces and bring in plants and all this. But I can also imagine that some of the people, in a way, suffered a bit. Perhaps they would be more comfortable with a nice conventional flat with a balcony, a garden. As a project developer, you have a big power over people, so in a way, you decide a bit about the quality of life for other people. But, in a way, you can also heart people with this. This is the power of the material world. This also a reason that the democratic-control mechanisms (such as participation) are so important.

Interviewer:

— (…) I wonder, was it supposed that people could move between apartments through the balconies that face the river?

Interviewee:

— Traditionally you separate it always all flats with a kind of fence. One day we decided not to do this. If people like to separate themselves – they can do it, but they have to do it themselves. It is kind of an open situation. This is very Kraftwerk.

Interviewer:

— (…) I observed how some people appropriate these spaces; others leave it open. And I found it very playful.

Interviewee:

— This is a certain ambivalence we like in the project. We also try to force people a little bit to reflect their relation to the neighbors. If they don‘t like it, they can make the border, but perhaps they perceive that this is no problem.

Interviewer:

— (…) Then somehow, with this mesh, you can see some signs or flags. For me, this looks like an arena for selfrepresentation.

Interviewee:

— Yes, this exactly this. Traditionally the old cooperatives they forbid to hang out your washed cloth or stuff like this. They forbid to close the mesh. They try to have this homogenous exterior – Swiss, clean, sober. And we do the opposite. We do the mesh with offers little privacy, but if people react by adding things, we are completely open to that.

Interviewer:

— What about communal spaces? I wonder how the use of these places is through?

Interviewee:

— This is done with groups. We just reserve some spaces, and there is also a financial aspect. In the project’s basic calculation, we have one or two percent we reserve for such spaces. And then, we discuss with the architects what could be a reasonable space. But then it is processed with the people – they decide about the furniture or the use. Would it be more intimate or the place for teenagers? And this also develops and changes. It is the same with the outdoor – we do minimal furniture. But there is some money that can be spend the first two years to make playgrounds, or put up some furniture outside. This again, is a provocation. The normal investor would do it nicely everything, a then people are invited to use it. And possibly there are also some wrong investments – so the kids would play there, but the playground in there. But we say – we just open the space and then you have to do kind of contribution to the site. It is the complete opposite of this social-democratic caring investor – “Wir gestalten für euch alles schon”, oder [laugh]?

139

APPENDICES

Interviewer:

—

Interviewee:

— That’s the hope. There was a survey at Mehr als wohnen, people were asked: “what do you like? And what do you dislike?” Most people liked the possibility to participate. And most of the people disliked the need to participate. And we as a cooperative liked this kind of dilemma. And many private investors tried to solve this dilemma in deciding everything for the people… — What do you think about the project?

Interviewer:

— (…) I think it is about building this mutual culture of respect, of caring.

Interviewee:

— It is a very heterogeneous society. Very different people live there, also many migrant people, who have other cultures, other languages that it is very different to communicate.

Interviewer:

— (…) I have observed how in the family with two working parents, one of which does not speak German so well, kinds could be more included in the participation through different activities, such as KinderPlenum, than parents.

Interviewee:

— And often the kids are kind of a bridge for the parents also. We perceived this in Mehr als wohnen very strongly that the kinds related to different parents together and they kind of organize the social system.

Interviewer:

— (…) It is interesting how you can easily divide rooms when your family gets bigger. Then you can close this window if it is noisy, but you still have a window here.

Interviewee:

— That was one of the basic principles that came from the law. Every room needs a window to the courtyards.

Interviewer:

— And some of the windows that face the gallery are closed most of the time.

Interviewee:

— That’s the same with the separation on the balconies. We say it is allowed to close it, but you have to deal with this question personally. You have to decide how much privacy you like to have.

Interviewer:

— (…) And while visiting the upper level of this building with the 13-room apartments. I felt like this is a very privileged place and situation, with the direct sunlight and inner courtyard.

Interviewee:

— But this is also very Kraftwerk. We are not private investors who do rich people in the upper store.

Interviewer:

— (…) But was it designed in the first place like this?

Interviewee:

— The architects proposed solutions for spatial situations, also this bridge has something to do with the old industry, where buildings are related with technical bridges. This was again the element which made certain special configuration possible. So it was a dialog between the architects who tried to demonstrate us potential how powerful is their ‘baukasten’, our discussions about living together. Some people also brought in ideas. For instance, this 30 meter deep flat here, which at the end turned out to be quite difficult to rent out, actually [laugh]. But this typology was developed with elderly artists. There was a group of elderly artists, about 60 – 65, very creative people. They have produced much artistic staff, and most of them have an apartment and the studio. And after 65, you also get this pension... So they discussed bringing things more together. And this for us was the perfect opportunity to propose this 170 m2 flat that has much space inside. In a way, it is a 4-room flat on the façade, conventional, at the façade here is a kind of a living room with kitchen. And in-between there is a 70 m2 space. We said OK – perhaps you have a library, or many sculptures or painting you have done, you like to make invitations for 20 people – go for it [laugh]. So this 70 m2 space is an optional space. Also, in the calculation of the rate, we said – this area is a conventional flat, and this is a storage place, so only half the price. And this idea came with this group of artists, and finally, they decided to go to the different project. That what I mean with the direct relation between people and flat typologies. We are searching for stories, and if in the end the people who discussed with you this story moves in, is not so important. If we didn‘t have these talks with these artists, with these artists, we would have the idea to do such a flat. — It is really a very radical project. In Hardturm, the financial restrictions were so cruel, so we planned the whole project till the construction as conventional flats. And then when we were sure that we have these flat-sharing groups – then we made some openings in the walls to put together different flats. And here [in Zwicky Sud] we had much more the experience, and also much more money. Money security. We had more than ten years of experience with the Hardturm so that we could be more radical, and here we decided to go as far as possible. And also to risk that perhaps some of the flats are difficult to rent out. But then there was a budget reduced as such as possible.

140

I wonder to what extent this contribution support some interaction between residents?

APPENDIX 1 / INTERVIEW WITH ANDREAS HOFER

Interviewer:

— I wonder what your exact role in the Zwicky Sud project was?

Interviewee:

— I did much in the Hardturm project, and then I was in the board of directors - I was a director of the cooperative. And then Hardturm was finished, two years later, I moved out of the board of directors. But I was the consultant for the cooperative, for the future projects. Meanwhile, I had quite a good network, for instance, with Wüest & Partner. We had a group of four to five people from the cooperative, and we had a budget to search for projects and to bring projects to the decision point. So we actively search for project opportunities. We mare the application for Heizenholz, then we won this competition, then we organize an architectural competition. And here in Zwicky Sud, it was the first phone call from a friend of mine who works as Wüest & Partner. And he said, “We have an impossible plot of land, no ideas. Are you interested?” At the beginning, this zoning was for the shopping center. This was a three-story mall, whole surface, and when he send me plan… and there was an expectation of thousands of square meters, and an impossible density. Then I said, “OK, it is interesting, we believe in the project, but we have to restart, we have to adapt”. And then with the competition, we had the proof of concept, that this density is possible with other typologies. And then we had to change the building plans legally and all this to convert it into housing. And then we prepared the competition, and we invited very different architects. I was in the jury of the competition. And the was till the contraction site, and then Claudia took over as a project leader. But I was still I this group that met regularly, to discuss about the projects, to make concepts. I also organized some of the planning meetings and participation processes. (...) And then I switched more to Mehr als Wohnen where I was really a part of the project till renting out. Then I did two-years research and evaluation.

Interviewer:

— (…) I visited Mehr als Wohnen a couple of times. And the first time I was not really aware why this area is so special, I mean from the outside look. But when I looked into the plans and read about participation, I understood how different this project is.

Interviewee:

— It is completely different strategies. Zwicky is a radical project, an experimental space. And when you come from outside, Mehr als Wohnen is very familiar. Older people from the neighborhood walking by and “oh, look, finally a good-looking modern architecture which can be beautiful”. But in the inside, it is very radical.

Interviewer:

— (…) Mehr als Wohnen area is looking nice outside, with all this flags and strings…

Interviewee:

— Perhaps it’s the better strategy, Mehr als wohnen, to give people a kind of ‘Heimat’. Because the relation which people have to modern architecture is a kind of complicated story, perhaps it is really the better strategy to get them in kind of conservative way, to give them certain security. Then they begin to experiment. Here I think we overwhelmed a bit many of the people with a quite radical project.

Interviewer:

— Have you heard anyone complaining?

Interviewee:

— I think that for several of the families… Also, it is the first time that they moved to the cooperative, they have to learn. If you are not so rich in these Northern areas of Zurich, you are just moved around by gentrification, by private speculation, you are not invited to express yourself. Just be quiet and pay your rent. And when you enter such a space. And you see “OK, now I am the member of the cooperative, I have a vote, I can decide, I can change”. And this is a learning process for the people.

Interviewer:

— I know that to move to the cooperative you need to have some amount of money to pay. I wonder for people who lack some savings, what is the process there. Can they still move to the cooperative?

Interviewee:

— If you normally rent a flat of the normal market, you have to pay a three-month deposit. And we say – if you don‘t have money, you have to pay this amount, you also would have to pay to the private investor. And then there is a solidarity fund which covers this money for these people. So it should not be a restriction for anybody, this sum. Also young people, you can also use your money from the pension fund in Switzerland to pay, because it is kind of a share. You, in a way, buy a part of a cooperative. If you have ten years of normal income, this is not a restriction.

Interviewer:

— I was wondering if cooperative receive any programs or help from the city?

Interviewee:

— No, this is an internal solidarity fund from a cooperative. We have to raise this for the Zwicky, because there were so many people with low income, with no assets. Then we decided as a whole. Since then, I pay double per month [laugh]. You put some money in solidarity, to cover people with low income. And then you are invited to self-declare yourself. Then we decided to increase it. So I pay 150 CF per month for people who have not so much money.

141

APPENDICES

Interviewer:

— For me, it is very interesting to compare Swiss approach with the German one. Tomorrow I will discuss WagnisArt, and I am very interested in the process that occurred there.

Interviewee:

— WagnisArt is the most Swiss cooperative in Germany. There are also personal links between Munich and Zurich. Also, many Munich architects worked in Zurich offices and viceversa. And there is also Wogeno in Munich. Wogeno was one of the first cooperatives in the 1980s in Zurich, and they tried to buy houses where people lived in. And then it was kind of a branch to the Munich that applies the same approach. And Wagnis is a kind of offspring of Wogeno Munich. There are many discussions, and also institutional links, we learn from each other. It is completely different from the Baugruppen story in Freiburg or Tubingen, this is a completely different culture.

Interviewer:

— (…) Thank you so much!

142

Appendix 2 Interview with Julius Klaffke Interviewed: June 03, 2020 Transcribed: June 11, 2020 (partial transcript) Interviewer:

— I know that Bogevischs buero was responsible for the architecture and design of the WagnisArt project. I wonder during which stage at the project development did you entered the project?

Interviewee:

— As an office, we entered at a very early stage. We were commissioned directly by the Wagnis cooperative, there was no competition. We had already done one housing project for Wagnis, also in Munich. So we knew them, and they knew us. And we were looking forward to doing this second project for them with even more user participation than in the first projects that we did. And we started together with Wagnis and a small group with maybe 30 people who were at that time a part of the Wagnis design team, maybe one can say, who was planning to move into the project once it was finished. And at that time, we knew some of the people who wanted to move into this project. But we didn‘t have the site, or the client did have the site yet. They were starting at the same time - they were starting talks with the city for this site. There was an urban design competition for this site, which was won by Ordner & Ordner architects in Berlin, they were doing the urban design for the whole area, and this site where Wagnis wanted to build on was a small part of this whole urban design scheme. And the city was doing the legal planning for this area, and at the same time, Wagnis was starting talks with the city to buy a site. And parallel to these negotiations with the city, they commissioned us to start the design process for the building, and we started to do not to do concept sketches or anything like that. We didn‘t have the real size of the site of that time. We didn‘t know how much we are allowed to build the site at that time. So we started with workshops with these people. And we wanted to find out what these people were actually thinking about what living together as a community is and were thinking about communal living. Because they said “we want to do a housing project with a higher level of communal spaces, many communal spaces of different kinds”. But they couldn‘t really say what they were actually imagining. And we were interested in the relationship between the private areas and the communal areas. Because sometimes we had the experience when we do the housing design, that in the beginning, people say - OK, we want to do everything together and, once they know which apartment will be theirs, they start only to look at their apartment and are not interested in the communal spaces anymore. And for us, but also for the client, it was more interesting to keep talking about the communal spaces and keep reminding the future inhabitants that the private areas are not so important. Once the communal spaces work, the private spaces are not that important anymore. So we did two or three workshops of different kinds before we did the first sketches and the first concept models of the architecture.

Interviewer:

— These future residents, I wonder how much they vary in terms of background, income, or tenancy right. Were there only people who interested in cooperative housing or also in other types of tenure?

Interviewee:

— Wagnis is a housing cooperative, and it was clear from the beginning that they were doing a cooperative housing project. There was never a discussion of doing private housing or anything like rental housing. And also that was clear from the very early stage on that the city of Munich wanted to sell this plot to the housing cooperative. The idea of this project started with the contact between Wagnis housing cooperative and the group of artists, who at that time had their artist studios on that site. There was a kind of intermediate use in former military barracks. There were military barracks on that site that were used by artists as artists studios. And these artists had the idea to build a housing project together with Wagnis, where they could live and work. And that’s why it’s called WagnisArt, it is very simple [laugh].

Interviewer:

— What impact did these future residents have in regards to planning and design? To what extent could they influence?

Interviewee:

— They were not professionals, and they didn‘t have any experience in designing housing. They were just interested in doing just a special project. And the process was very long, so it took several years to get to the real design and project, and, therefore, some of the members of this first group they dropped out, because it took too long for them and was too exhausting, or they could not wait so long, I don‘t know.

Interviewer:

— You mentioned that WagniasArt is a part of the bigger development. And I wonder how much the interconnectivity of the WagnisArt site and surrounding areas was important for the design?

143

APPENDICES

Interviewee:

— It was very important for several reasons. One reason was the site itself. The site is surrounded by the little streets on four sides of the site. So it is kind of an ‘island’. And our client had the idea to open up the development to all four sides and to be able to connect to the neighbors across the street. So there are only front sides of this building development, there were no backsides, there is not back of the site. Everything is front, and everything is the facade. To all sides, you have neighbors that you can connect to. And then, our client wanted to integrate several communal spaces and also commercial spaces that could be of use for the whole neighborhood, so they needed the contact to the neighbors, to attract the neighbors to what they could offer to the neighborhood. To support certain parts of the program, they wanted to build. For example, they had a restaurant on the ground floor. And of course, they want the neighbors to come there to eat and drink there, so the restaurant works. And they have a big, at least for the housing project, a big venue space of about 110 square meters. And they also want to rent the space out self-supported. And they have direct neighbors that are also housing projects by other housing cooperatives, and they wanted to interact with them, to share certain things. And to you some parts that the neighbors would probably offer. So there were ideas about implementing the project in its surrounding.

Interviewer:

— From your perspective, what introduced design and planning measures worked well for the interconnection of the residents of WagnisArt?

Interviewee:

— Maybe it is a bit difficult to say because we didn‘t design things that were supposed to work as something they could use to connect to each other. It was more like that we tried to implement the ideas that came from the group into the building design. And we hoped, and I think that it worked quite to extent, by defining the whole design together with this group would develop quite a strong connection between this group and the project. And, therefore, see the value of the whole thing and identify with the project. And through this process also, of course, they could to know each other very well. And they could maybe start together once they moved in. Because when we finished the project, they moved in and started the project, because they started to live in there.

Interviewer:

— During this participatory involvement, what were the crucial ideas from the community regarding the spaces that would promote gathering or encounters. I know that there are bridges that connect all the housing together. I know that there is a certain mix of functions on the first floor. I wonder what other ideas that the community brought into the discussion with you were?

Interviewee:

— They were discussing quite on the very early stage of the project quite a lot of questions - whether it would be better for the group to have one big building surrounding one central open space, like a courtyard? And everyone looking into this place. It would form the center of the whole development. Or because it is quite big and there are 138 apartments in this housing Project or whether it would be better to create this whole development into the several pieces and then try to connect these pieces. And kind of have something like subdivisions and form something like a flowing space that would connect these different parts of the project. And we proposed design concepts for these both ideas, and in the end, they discussed these design proposals and decided on the concept that would break the project up into five pieces. And we had the idea to connect these pieces with these bridges. But we didn‘t have this idea ourselves - it was an idea that came out from one of these workshops when we were using the shoeboxes. And we experimented with these shoeboxes to form different kinds of assemblies, basically, for this project. And one of these shoebox models had these connections on these upper floors in the area between these shoeboxes. And at the beginning, they were not meant as bridges, but more like an idea that we have a connection between maybe two buildings. And we said, “yes, these could be real bridges that we use to connect these houses and to make a visit between these neighbors possible without using public space on the ground floor. And the group liked the idea. And this how it became real basically. There was a discussion, and there was an idea that was maybe not serious at first. And then it became something. And then everyone knew why that was there and for everyone had value. And even when we talked about economic issues, no one [unclear], because everyone knew how they became these bridges. In conventional projects, a typical developer would have erased bridges at the first moment because we don‘t need them.

Interviewer:

— What extent different personal wishes of the participants regarding their design of the apartment or their lifestyles? As I can imagine, it could be a very heterogeneous group of people. How was the process of incorporation of all these personal lifestyles into the design process?

Interviewee:

— It was not our idea - it was the clients idea that it was not allowed to discuss ideas or wishes about the private apartments. So there never was a point in this development when we discussed the private needs of these people for their apartments. The participation always happened only in the communal spaces, and apartments were set. We designed the apartments according to the standards of social housing in Munich. All the apartments are designed according to this standard. So we have a mix of subsidized housing and housing that is rented just on the free market. But all the apartments have the same standard and the same size. It was set by the client. They said - we have all the same standard and from the outside, you can not see if someone has money or not. So if someone wanted to participate in the design process, the only possibility to participate was to participate in the communal area, not in the private areas. It was a basic rule for the whole development.

144

APPENDIX 2 / INTERVIEW WITH JULIUS KLAFFKE

Interviewer:

— And what about the cluster apartments - do the people from the social subsidized program also live there, or is it only for cooperative members?

Interviewee:

— All the people that live there are part of the housing cooperative and subsidized housing in Munich. We have a set income - maximum income set, maybe to 18 thousand Euros per year per household with three people. And if you are below that - I do not know if the amount is right now; it is just an example - if you are below that, you can move into the subsidized apartment. You have to prove that, and you can move then into the subsidized housing. But still, you become a member of the cooperative. If you are above that, you cannot move into the subsidized housing - you need to pay more for the same apartment because you have more money. But still, if you want to move in, you have to become a member of the housing cooperative. And you have to buy a share of the cooperative, and once you moved into the apartment, you have to pay a certain amount of money for the square meters of an area of your apartment. For example, if your apartment has 75 square meters. And you have to pay 1000 Euro per square meter, and you have to pay 75 thousand euros to the housing cooperative. You can then move to the apartment, and, on top of that, you pay rent monthly. That is about the average rent for a newly built building in that area of Munich. So maybe if you are not moving to a subsidized apartment and you are two adults with one kid, you can move into the apartment with three rooms and 75 square meters. I do not know the exact amount, but maybe they pay 75 thousand Euros to the housing cooperative, move into the apartment, and pay rent of 12 Euros per month for a square meter. That how it works. And those who moved into the same sized apartment that is subsidized have to pay less per square meter. Maybe they have to pay not one thousand euros, but 500 euros per square meter and pay less expensive rent, and perhaps they only pay 9 euros per square meter. So this is about how it works in Munich. And for the Wagnis housing cooperative, it is an important rule that you cannot see if an apartment is subsidized or not. Maybe the apartment on the second floor is subsidized, and the same apartment or the identical apartment on the floor above is not subsidized. They are identical, but in one flat you pay less than for the other flat. And it works the same for these cluster units - within one cluster you have maybe six apartments and six people living there. And some of them rent-subsidized cluster apartments, and some rent the cluster apartments on the free market. But they are in the same unit. So you do not know if someone pays less. It is the idea of the social mix.

Interviewer:

— I wonder if everyone lives in the environment with these common qualities, so what were the criteria for selecting the specific materials used for the facades or balconies?

Interviewee:

— The client wanted to build a timber structure. But also they wanted to build this irregular geometry. And they had to build a basement with a parking garage. Because below the buildings, it is a basement with all the storage spaces that tenants need. And between buildings, below the courtyards, it is a parking garage. And we said that we, of course, have to build this basement in reinforced concrete. And also we have to build staircases in reinforced concrete for fire protection reasons. In a very early stage of the project, we realized that building the rest of the building in timber would be quite expensive. And the client had to decide whether it was more important to build this timber structure and a simple geometry basically or to build this complex geometry that had something to do with how the project evolved with these bridges and all that stuff. So they went for the geometry of these buildings, and we decided to build the reinforced concrete skeleton for economic reasons. So the floor slabs are in reinforced concrete and columns. We had to build a non-supporting or nonload-bearing exterior wall in the timber-frame structure. So there is a hybrid structure - all the exterior walls are in timber, and all the supporting structure is from reinforced concrete. It was something that happened in this design process by discussing the different goals that the client set for himself for this project. And the facade, the client wanted something else originally. They don‘t like plaster facades, and they would have like to do something else. But that was set by the urban design. So there is overall ‘Gesteiltungsleitfaden’, so overall design idea for the whole neighborhood with plaster facade and the certain color range, and we had to fit into that. So that was given basically by the city. So if you want to build there, you have to build a plaster facade in these light colors.

Interviewer:

— I wonder what you would change if you would have an opportunity to develop a project once again?

Interviewee:

— I would like to do it with a different facade basically [laugh]. Because it was not my favorite facade option, but there was no point they could be discussed. And the whole process was exhausting for us, but also for everyone. I would say, in the end, it was worth it, but at some points, at some stages in the project, it was exhausting to work on this project. But in the end, I would say you would do it again [laugh]. Yeah, I would like to do another project like that.

Interviewer:

— And I wonder why that was so exhausting for the planning team and in what moments especially?

Interviewee:

— The group of participants got bigger and bigger during the design process and the realization process. In the beginning, it was only 30 people approximately, and in the end, it was 138 households. And every household was two or three or four or five people. There were more and more people trying to take part in or wanting to take part in this design process. And that was the idea. But it got way more complex actually to do it.

145

APPENDICES

Interviewee:

At some point or stage in this process, people tend to get nervous because some things don‘t work as they were supposed to work. For example, the client realizes that maybe the money is not enough, for example, or we have a schedule that is in danger. Or people at some point have to decide which is the right apartment for them. And you need to organize who gets which apartment. And we have some goals to meet with building permission. So also at our side, there were points we had a lot of things to do. And so always at these points, it gets exhausting. And the more. The participation you need to fit in the normal process. Because participation always comes on top of what you have to do anyway.

Interviewer:

— (…) Thank you so much!

146

Appendix 3 Interview with Tommi Mäkynen and Mirjam Niemeyer Interviewed: June 25, 2020 Transcribed: June 27, 2020 (partial transcript) Interviewer:

— I know that Zurich has quite an active cooperative scene in the city. Could you tell me more about the situation with cooperatives in Munich?

Interviewee: (MN)

— My knowledge of that in Munich is not so good, but I know that there are more housing cooperatives established in the last years. (…) But there is not a long tradition in housing cooperatives in Munich. But I know that in the last 10 years, there is a rise in housing cooperatives in Munich. And with the new big developments, there are some very big development areas in Munich, ‘Entwicklungsgebiete’ in German. I think you will find them when you check. new housing cooperatives that were established are in that framework of these new developments.

Interviewer:

— And how do municipalities of Zurich and Munich support the development of cooperatives in cities?

Interviewee: (MN)

— In Munich, I don‘t know, to be honest. I know is that in Munich, they have very little support from the official side. Whereas now coming to Switzerland, the situation is very different. There is a possibility by the government, a sort of official support. It’s legal support. It’s about all issues with a law, I would say. There is a place where you could go, and you can get support when it’s about establishing a legal framework for the cooperative. (…) This tool is very important because it’s a very complex thing, and it helps to have this support. And then on the other hand, there are possibilities for housing cooperatives to get financial support. For instance, when the city says,“OK, we will do this project with a housing corporative on land owned by the city”. With that kind of commitment from the city, the housing cooperative has a much better standing to get credits, a mortgage from the bank.

Interviewer:

— (…) Can you tell more about what social benefits do cooperatives usually bring to the city?

Interviewee: (MN)

— Let’s say the role of housing cooperatives in both cities is a little bit different. In Germany and also, of course, in Munich, the tradition of housing cooperatives is not very long and not very strong. But the reason was for this, that and, indeed, looking back at, say, 50 years ago, the cities used to own a lot of lands and used to own also a lot of flats which rented out for people who needed cheaper flats. But then with the economic crisis around the 1990s and already earlier, they started to sell their real estate. And the same thing also happened in Munich. And now they are facing a situation with far less real estate offering cheap housing for the citizens. And within that situation, housing cooperatives became more important. Looking at Zurich, the amount of real estate owned by the city is very limited, was always pretty limited. On the other hand, the housing cooperatives already had a strong standing for a long time. As far as I remember from my research, housing cooperatives were already established at the beginning of the 19th century, with the oldest cooperatives in Zurich over 100 years ago. (…) They have a long, long tradition, and they developed from the bad conditions that workers in the cities, especially in Zurich, where industry and the center areas of Zurich had very poor housing conditions. (…) And that’s from that situation housing cooperatives like, for instance, FGZ [FamilienheimGenossenschaft in Zurich] was established back then to make living conditions better for the workers. Let’s say there is a different approach with the same aim in both cities and in Germany, and there has been a shift in the whole country. Social housing has been sold to private investors in the last 15 years. And now it’s a new topic. And that’s why housing cooperatives are gaining a more important role as a new way of establishing. And I also know that in these ‘Entwicklungsgebiete’ in Munich, you always have a certain percentage of subsidized housing. It is their tool to ensure cheap housing in a certain framework. But maybe to make it even more complex, there’s also a big movement in Zurich, for instance, and I also think in other German cities that people are more and more against the renovation of the old real estate for housing cooperatives because the rents are getting higher after renovation. And often there would live fewer people. So actually these areas are getting less population and are not as dense as before, and the rents are getting higher. And it’s not only a phenomenon in the free market, but it’s a phenomenon in the subsidized market as well.

Interviewer:

— What would be the fundamental difference in dwelling layout when you would design for cooperative housing project and for more conventional clients?

147

APPENDICES

Interviewee: (TM)

— There are, of course, a lot of different types of cooperatives. But in general, since they are into making a profit per se, they allow themselves to take more risks. They don‘t have to go to the average of the market, but they can be much more specific in what kind of endusers they are targeted and what kind of amenities they are offering. And these amenities that is a very difficult thing as different kinds of social spaces or spaces that are then not belonging to anybody, but are belonging to the cooperative and are very different things. Of course, in Kalkbreite, there are many these spaces and that it’s a very special, probably the most far going example with a lot of spaces that are collective spaces. But even, let’s say normal, more conventional older housing cooperatives usually offer some kind of collective spaces. This is something that is not something that you see in a list of the free market developers. They might offer a bit of something nowadays because it’s becoming a “hip thing” to offer more collective, neighborhood-oriented amenities. But basically, this is like one of the big differentiators. And the other one is not aiming that the average family, average couple, or just deciding these 3.5 rooms apartments for everybody, but actually having a broader range of typologies, ranging then from the normal family flats to very experimenting typologies like cluster apartments or different kinds of shared flats, and so on. So I think these two factors just show that they don‘t try to make the most profit. The project allows for more risk taking, which allows for more experimenting in the projects, and that is different.

Interviewer:

— How does this architectural assignment with the program and some other requirements is formed for the architectural teams that would do the project?

Interviewee: (TM)

— Well, I think that there is no single correct answer. It’s difficult to answer in one short way because there are very, very different kinds of housing cooperatives. And this becoming, at least in Zurich and the region of Zurich, the normal way of developing smaller and bigger projects according to the interests of the housing cooperatives. So they all have their specific background. So I think it’s difficult to say how that reflects, but, maybe just as a reference to the previous question and the answer, that is likely is that the housing cooperatives are just might have more exotic room programs, meaning that they already themselves foresee the need for special collective spaces or special types of apartments, but it is also so that they are more open for ideas usually. But this is dependent on a cooperative because not only cooperatives are traditionally very experimental. There are also cooperatives that people like you and us can establish just to build us a home. There is a house here nearby, which is for people who have high allergies. So they build them a very healthy house as a cooperative because nobody on the free market would be offering that. So that follows very, very particular interests of those people. And, of course, that’s something that is a difference to the market, because as a developer, you would probably not search for such a specific niche and target people, but this cooperative model allows very specific interests to come for and to be reflected in the assignment or their architects.

Interviewer:

— You told me once that there are certain regulations that everyone as cooperative members signs to move in. And I wonder what the social components of these regulations are?

Interviewee: (TM)

— Again, here the case is so that this very depends on the housing cooperative. But some, maybe you could say, the more progressive one on social aspects cooperatives [unclear] amount of square meters per head, meaning that if you live as a family with two children in a big flat and children move out, you will have a certain time that you can search for a new flat, but you eventually have to move out… So that’s one thing that is about, let’s say, solidarity, that you are not as an individual, you can‘t just take it for granted that since you have this nice big flat not with a market price, but a lower price for a while, that you can keep it. But there are other people on the line waiting, with similar needs, and they will have to be also satisfied. So you have to give your place. This is a quite typical regulation. Then, of course, there are cooperatives where you have to take part in certain activities. So you pay your rent partly in doing some tasks, for example. But this is, I think, not such a widespread thing. — (...) There are different ways of making those neighborhoods within the housing units, meaning that some newly built projects will have to somehow select people through different criteria. In the case of Kalkbreite, they actually wanted to get the demographic pallete of Zurich represented also within the house, meaning that you have a certain number of foreigners who have a certain amount of religious backgrounds, and you have all different kinds of income levels. But this is not something that is a standard way to do it. Every cooperative has different criteria for choosing people who actually are going to live in those houses. And very often, I guess, it is then reflected in what kind of flats and apartments they want to offer. Very often, they are family oriented; also, families are not very well subsidized in Switzerland. So that’s definitely a situation where many families appreciate it when they find a good flat with a lower rent. I mean, that’s kind of the reverse also, but even more so in Switzerland, where subsidies for families are not there. But there are many thigs every cooperative decides for themselves or do they want to regulate these things.

Interviewer:

— What do you think work well (or maybe not so well) in cooperative housing in regards to the supporting of face-to-face interactions between different people in terms of background, such as age or nationality.

Interviewee: (TM)

— For the Kalkbreite, one of the basics of all the things that they are aiming for the average mix of the population of Switzerland. So that’s already a clear position, but it is very seldom.

148

APPENDIX 3 / INTERVIEW WITH TOMMI MÄKYNEN AND MIRJAM NIEMEYER

Interviewer:

— Of course, one can say that this approach has been growing for more housing cooperatives now than it used to be. But there are also lots of housing cooperatives that have specific target groups. So it could be like the FHG, for instance, their target groups are families. But on the other hand, when we were working with them during the workshop in Zurich, they have already identified that this is not a very, let us say, contemporary approach to housing and the needs of the inhabitants because the tradition of the nuclear family is kind of an outdated concept. And they are now actually reworking their policies and thinking about how to become more modern, and with this cater, maybe, let’s say family in a different way. So that’s, for instance, a same-sex couple as a family, or a WG can maybe also be a family. So it’s not anymore this very traditional thinking. But this is kind of still in the process. And I don‘t know about how it’s in Germany, to be honest.

Interviewee:

— But to get back to how do they then make this mix - one base is, of course, how to get different kinds of people. But then there is, of course, the collective spaces which are very important to get people to meet. And we think about Kalkbreite; for example, they decided to offer a wide range of different kinds of collective spaces for people to use, but they cut out, for example, private balconies. So people are not able to sit on their own balcony, but if they want to be outside, they are, so to speak, forced to go into the courtyard or to use roof terraces. And these are, of course, places where people meet. This also reflects these social dynamics very much, then people who are interested in gardening will use this rooftop garden, and people who have kids they would meet in the courtyard. This kind of basic thing then how to relate these goals into architectural typology and architectural decisions. Of course, there are also are more or fewer events depending on the cooperative. In Kalkbreite, there are every week several events which are self-organized by the people. So it’s not organized in that sense from top-down, from the corporate, but it is that cooperative offers an open platform for people to become more socially engaged and active. And in collective spaces, you can organize different kinds of readings or political or cultural events, or whatever you wish to do. So it’s up to the people living in these places to activate themselves, but of course, architectural considerations help create these possibilities.

Interviewer:

— (…) Thank you so much!

149

Appendix 4 Interview guide for semi-structured in-depth interviews with residents

Topic

Examples of questions

Residency structure

— How much residents of [Zwicky-Sud/ WagnisArt] differ in regard to income level, age, ethnicity? — What does ‘socially mixed’ area mean to you?

Motivation

— Why you decided to choose [Zwicky-Sud/ WagnisArt] for a living?

Participation

— Were you involved in the planning process? — How much do you participate in community life?

Face-to-face interaction

— How much contact do you have with people of different ages/ incomes/ ethnicities in the area? — On what occasion do you talk or do something with other residents/ with people who are older or much younger from you?

Spatial configuration of the site

— Do you know people living in the surrounding neighborhood? Where did you meet?

Facilities and services

— What spaces you find crucial for community gatherings or activities? — What places are used most intensely by different groups? — Have you ever heard of the undesired use of common spaces?

Spaces of encounter

— —

What outdoor or in-between spaces do you find important for casual encounters? On what occasion you talk or do something together with your neighbors?

Dwelling diversity

—

Can you share your experience living in [cluster/ shared] apartment?

Design elements

— —

What design elements do you find important for the support of face-to-face interactions? How residents appropriate outside design elements?

151