The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest Petra Horogh BME Budapest, Faculty of Architecture, 1111, Budapest, Hungary email: phorogh@gmail.com
Bence Komlósi MOME Budapest, Faculty of Architecture, 1121, Budapest, Hungary email: komlosi.bence@gmail.com Community Living - Közösségben Élni, Budapest, Hungary email: kozossegben.elni@gmail.com
Abstract In a healthy housing system the State, the market (for-profit developers) and the communities (not-for-profit residents) are the three stakeholders. In Hungary, housing developments are implemented by the State and forprofit developers. Involving bottom-up and non-profit initiatives would be essential for a democratic and affordable housing system. The lack of bottom-up, affordable and non-profit housing developments, the high ratio of home ownership and the low ratio of rental stock are the main causes of housing problems in many European countries. Hungary, with its young democratic society, does not have bottom-up housing initiatives yet which could influence the housing system. Bottom-up initiated collaborative shared-flat networks could be the third party in the housing system to create more affordable homes. These non-profit communities with self-management and a shared ownership structure could react to the current housing crisis and could develop a more sustainable and resilient housing future in Hungary. Keywords: bottom-up housing, network, non-profit, shared-flat, solidarity
Figure 1 - The most potential area for the collaborative shared-flat network within the housing sector of the research - the figure is based on a research by Urbani and van Bortel (2009)
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
Introduction - why collaborative shared-flat network? This research project is based on a continuously running research and development process which deals with the introduction of the co-housing phenomenon in Hungary. This co-housing knowledge transfer started three years ago within a Master of Advanced Studies in Housing research project at the ETH Zürich. The MAS research focused on bottom-up housing, democracy, participatory architecture design and sustainability. Thanks to the complexity of co-housing developments, they can deal with all the above mentioned topics. They are bottom-up initiated, self-managed, non-profit, they have a horizontal and democratic organisational structure, they are socially-, ecologically-, economically- and culturally sustainable. After the MAS research, the Community Living - “Közösségben Élni” initiative started to introduce and promote co-housing developments in Hungary. The founders and members hold lectures, write articles, participate in interdisciplinary housing research projects and continuously develop new ideas to realise the first co-housing project in Hungary. One of the currently running research projects is the collaborative shared-flat network project called Grand Home Budapest which is also part of a Doctor of Liberal Arts research dealing with the topic run by Bence Komlósi. The aim of Petra Horogh and Bence Komlósi - the two initiators - is to introduce and promote shared-flats in Hungary to realise a collaborative shared-flat network for a more sustainable and resilient housing future in the country. Even though the DLA research tries to stay independent from the Grand Home Budapest, it still has a big influence on it. The DLA is a 3 year-long research program with an individual time schedule. The development of the Grand Home Budapest runs parallel with the DLA research but follows its structure along the six-semesterstimetable: 1st semester: the proper definition of the research topic and its most important keywords. The very first steps of the Grand Home Budapest - Facebook page and a “Shared-flats” blog. 2nd semester: data collection on local and global scale - cases, literature, interdisciplinary knowledge and communities. First workshops on local scale, one for professionals and one for potential residents. The first publications and lectures on the topic in Hungary. This is the current state of the research. 3rd semester: the first conclusions and the definition of the analysis grid. Further studies on the cases and the development of the Hungarian model. 4th semester: the analysis of the cases and the description of a potential collaborative shared-flat network model in Hungary with all the most important characteristics. 5th semester: the cooperation with the first potential residents. Co-design and realisation of the first shared-flat. 6th semester: the conclusions of the first community and potential further communities. The realisation of the collaborative shared-flat network. After and/or parallel with the collaborative shared-flat network other co-housing developments could be developed by similar stakeholders but with different needs. In the collaborative shared-flat network the private zone is only the rooms of the residents and in other co-housing developments it could be a whole flat or even a house.
Keywords - the definition of the most important terms, phenomena in this research Bottom-up housing projects are initiated by citizens who would like to increase the quality of their own lives. The individual members of bottom-up initiatives start collaborating to have a stronger influence on their environment. “Self-Organization goes beyond ideas of ‘participation’, emphasizing bottom-up, locally-initiated processes through which express themselves directly and develop community, gaining power for local structures such as housing projects.” (LaFond, 2012, p. 21.) Shared-flats are flats or houses shared by two or more individual households. They are also called cooperative- or collective households, shared housing and cooperative housekeeping. Shared-flats are potential housing forms for young people who want to move out from their parents house, for young professionals who would like to share housekeeping duties and costs with others, for divorced or
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
single people, for single parents, for elderly people and for elderly single people. Sharing has many advantages. Housing costs and household duties can be decreased, affordability can be rethought. “The social benefits of shared housing include the increased security and support provided by the simple presence of others; possibilities for social interactions, companionship, and friendship between residents; and organized group activities.” (Franck and Ahrentzen, 1989, p. 5.) Shared-ownership plays a key role in this research and in the financial and legal form of Grand Home Budapest. The purpose is to offer a cooperative ownership structure which is based on solidarity and offers affordable housing for the members. Solidarity in terms of financial and social support where the individual members and the separate shared-flats can help each other. “Splitting the cost can make homeownership a real possibility for people who couldn’t otherwise afford a large down payment.” (Orsi and Doskow, 2009, p. 137.) Collaborative shared-flat network refers to a group of shared-flats which join their forces to support each other to realise a sustainable and resilient alternative housing model. There are shared-flats which are for-profit and owned by a profit-oriented landlords. There are shared-flats owned by one of the residents who live in the flat and there are shared-flat cooperatives. In Hungary and in many Eastern European countries you can find the first and second type but there are no non-profit, selfmanaged and bottom-up initiated shared-flat cooperatives. The goal of this research is to deal with this typology. The Grand Home Budapest project and research would like to realise the first Hungarian bottom-up initiated, non-profit and self-managed shared-flat cooperative. The aim is to offer new housing form which is affordable and democratic in terms of organisational structure and management. Solidarity means social, cultural and economic support in this research. With solidarity one can bridge economic and social scarcity. The research looks for financial forms where stakeholders, residents and members with different incomes and savings can cooperate and support each other.
Research questions How can a collaborative shared-flat network be realised in Hungary for a more sustainable and resilient housing future? Are there any similar phenomena in Hungary which can be used as case study? Are there any existing shared-flat characteristics which can be used for the new development? What advantages and disadvantages do the existing phenomena have? What are the similarities and differences between the existing and the new housing forms? What are the main social-, economic-, ecological- and cultural characteristics of the WesternEuropean and global shared-flat movement? What are their advantages and disadvantages? Which are the most relevant target groups and what are their characteristics? What does affordability mean for these groups?
Objective of the paper, purpose and goals The goal of the research is to make the first steps for a collaborative shared-flat network in Hungary which could offer an alternative housing form for a more sustainable and resilient housing future. This paper summarizes the results of the first year of the research and starts an international conversation with other stakeholders, researchers and activists. This international discussion is very important to learn from existing cases and to share the experiences.
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
Hypothesis A collaborative shared-flat network can realise a more sustainable and resilient housing future in Hungary.
Research method The research uses a combined research method. The first part of the research uses theoretical findings which are literature based. In the middle part, case studies and real-life settings are used. In the final part, the research will focus on the real-life, experimental project where the participants will already be the first residents of the first shared-flat network.
Data collection - the current Hungarian housing situation Housing stock The historical background of the housing stock has to be studied first to clearly see the current situation and ownership structure. In the time of socialism in Hungary and the other countries in transition, the ownership structure was based on the same ideology. Most of the properties were owned by the State and only a low percentage of the housing stock was owned and used by private owners. It is called the East-European Housing Model. Since the 1990s, the central economy has moved towards market economy and the ownership structure has also made a radical change. (Hegedüs, Kovács and Tosics, 1994) In 1990, the privatization began and the ratio of private- and public ownership reversed. The proportion of the residential ownership structure shifted towards to private ownership, which has a big influence on the current housing sector and on the current housing policies too. Comparing the Eastern and Western European countries this ratio is much higher in the eastern block. The countries with higher ratio of rental stock have better economic indicators and well-established social housing allowances. (Posen, 2013) The higher number of privately owned residential units make the housing market rigid which can influence the economy in terms of rigid job market. The socialist era had its “shared-flat” system in Hungary called co-tenancy where unknown tenants shared flats organised by the State. Elderly people still have very bad memories about this top-down housing “shared-flat” system. The current housing situation is different. There are many empty flats around the country. The “Hungarian Contemporary Architecture Centre” announced a programme called “Lakatlan” which collects and maps abandoned and unused buildings and flats in Budapest and tries to propose several new ways of temporary usage. The “Habitat for Humanity Hungary” published a study about the empty flats and the number of households which would need social housing. There are 383.000 empty flats and 300.000 households in need. It means that there are more unused flats, then households with housing problems. (Habitat for Humanity, 2013) This fact has been one of the main initial points of the research. With this collaborative sharedhousing network, the needs of sustainable way of living and the possibilities of nonutilized spaces can be connected in an interdisciplinary way. The State In the past two and a half decades there was no comprehensive strategy in the housing system in Hungary. After 1990, the State sold most of its properties which made any controlled or centralized plan hard to be realised and to make changes in the housing market. Parallel with the changes in the ownership structure and economy, social changes are also appeared. Three periods can be defined in the in the housing policy of the State. Between 1990 and 1994 in the first privatisation period the State established a new system to eliminate the distribution channels of the socialist housing system. (Hegedüs, 2006) In the second period, between 1995 and 2000 the
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
market based institutions of housing system were established. New phenomena appeared in the financial sector such as the home savings funds, loans and the mortgage banks. The privatization of building materials and constructions were completed and real estate market institutions were developed. The third period is from 2000 till nowadays. The government tries to solve the most current housing problems but they do not have any comprehensive and sustainable strategy. The key action in term of ownership structure in the last 25 years is the privatization. The State sold a high percent of its residential properties and now this is causing problems, because the local municipalities do not have a proper housing stock to influence the sector. With the crises in 2008 the monthly part payments of the loans started to get higher but the salaries did not follow this trend. It meant that housing started to become unaffordable. People lost their homes and the State could not help because it did not have money and property for it. There are some experimental programs such as the “asset manager” of the NET Zrt. or the SZOL program but they are only in their pilot period yet. The market The market is an important stakeholder in the housing sector. The investors develop for profit and try to sell as much as possible. Since 1990, the market got stronger and stronger but in 2008 the crisis profoundly changed the situation for them too. In the last 5-6 years the housing market went through a hard time, almost every housing development project stopped. In the last few months some developments have started which immediately made the prices go up. As it was mentioned above, the rates of homeownership is very high in Hungary, which moves developers to sell properties. There is no rental housing stock which could create a more flexible system. Another blocking factor is the legal system where the law protects mostly the tenants and it poses further difficulties on the landlords. (Dr. Bék, 2014) Civil sector To create a healthy housing system the involvement of the civil sector is needed besides the State and the market. This bottom-up housing is a non-existing phenomenon in Hungary. There are civil organisations, not for profit initiatives and religious organizations who help people to have more affordable housing but they focus only on the lowest part of the society. The people with moderate problems have no support from these NGOs or from the State and they have no strategies to help themselves. There are a few community-based eco-villages in the country-side but in urban areas there are no examples. A bottom-up initiated, community-oriented civil sector is needed. Grand Home Budapest tries to initiate this bottom-up sector with a collaborative shared-flat network to realise alternative housing forms.
Data collection - the history of the shared-flat movement and current communities from all around the world The history of cooperative living and the shared-flat phenomena have more than a hundred-year-old tradition. Cooperative housekeeping and associated homes were already mentioned in the middle of the 19th century in Britain. There were discussions on sharing spaces and responsibilities and the sharing of housekeeping tasks. The cooperative housekeeping was more about having your private flat or house and sharing some community spaces such as laundry, library and dining area. The idea of associated homes was already brought up by Harriet Martineau in the 1850s. “... where around 20 ladies would club together to provide each with a room in a large household, and a shared sitting room and library, with communal meals. Her main point was the benefit to be gained from the company of others. Martineau may have been prompted to write this article by a pamphlet was to raise support for a ‘club mansion’ for ladies over the age of 30, the daughters or widows of gentlemen, with small incomes. The mansion was to be a large house with a garden; each lady would have her own room, but meals were to be taken communally. The idea had come to the
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
author after seeing a model lodgings house for the poor. Again, there is the unfortunate connection in the public mind between associated housing and charity or the poor.” (Pearson, 1988, p. 16-17.) Whether it was a shared-house with separated and private flats or a shared-flat only with separated rooms, the goal was always the same; to increase the quality of life by sharing the tasks and costs of housekeeping. Almost parallel with these spatial-, social- and economic sharing developments in Britain, there were similar ideas and projects in the United States and all around Europe - mostly in the Scandinavian and German-speaking countries. In their book New Households New Housing, Karen A. Franck and Sherry Ahrentzen collected all these new household and new housing forms. Some of them such as the cohousing developments in Denmark or the communal housing in Sweden were dealing with separate and private housing units but many projects and ideas from the United States and from Western Europe were talking about shared-houses and shared-flats. (Franck and Ahrentzen, 1989) “Mingle units” or also called “tandem living system” are special apartments since the 1980s, where two people mostly for financial reasons and less for social or cultural reasons share one housing unit. In these housing forms independency and privacy are crucial. “Quads” from the 1970s are rental housing units with private ownership and for profit, mostly for students, single working people or elderly people. These tenants share kitchen and shower and they have their private bedroom, toilet and sink. “Gohomes”, invented by Ted Smith, are units where working and living spaces are mixed. The individual small households have their private bathrooms, entrances and they share the kitchen. They are meant to offer affordable housing for special target groups. If we mention American “Gohomes” we can talk about two contemporary Japanese cases. In the “Yokohama apartment” in Yokohama, four artists share community spaces such as the outdoor exhibition space, kitchen and dining area. In Tokio the “Share Yaraicho” community with seven members share the workshop space and a roof terrace besides their private rooms. Sponsored group residences “are houses purchased (or leased) and managed by nonprofit organisations for occupancy by unrelated individuals or small households such as couples or singleparent families.” This new form was born in the 1970s and 1980s to form groups with a strong sense of community-orientation. In these cases, the social- and cultural aspects were more in the focus than the economic advantages even though a “new” non-profit organisational- and ownership structure has just been introduced. Community activities with social goals also appeared and had a strong influence on the success of these cases. The definition of “cluster of houses” was also mentioned which can bring some current Swiss cases. Co-housing and shared-flat developments have a more than hundred years of tradition in Zürich. Newer forms always learn from the existing examples and add only some small changes. Around 2010, the “Clusterwohnung” phenomena appeared in this process; it was developed and designed by several residents and architects. Vera Gloor architect used this phrase for her design on the “Langstrasse”, the Kraftwerk1 - Heizenholz project defined its shared-flat as cluster and one of the latest projects, the “Mehr als Wohnen” called the competition winning flat as “Clusterwohnung”. They all share the main characteristics. They have private rooms with bathrooms and they share community spaces such as kitchen, dining room, living- and spaces of community activities. Collective housing can and should be mentioned if we analyse the shared-flat movement even though they have only very few common characteristics. The American examples of collective housing from the 1970s have separated, private flats within a housing unit with extra shared community spaces. The private units are one- and two-bedroom flats. The shared spaces are the community living room with a kitchen and a dining room, a laundry, a study and a guest room with bath. (Franck and Ahrentzen, 1989; Hildner, 2014; Hosp, 2011; Kraftwerk1, 2015; Hofer, 2011) The data collection of the historical and current cases helps to get an overview on the shared-flat movement and to define the main characteristics such as the target groups of the movement, main goals and purpose, economic-, social-, ecological- and cultural advantages and disadvantages. At this stage of the research there are no selection criteria. Every single case can be interesting whether they are for-profit or non-profit, bottom-up or top-down initiated. The one and only important feature is the shared spaces within a flat or a house. The collection is based on books, articles, research papers,
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
videos, lectures and visitable cases. They can be found anywhere around the world. The more information we have the better it is. Sharing economy and collaborative housing is very popular again and is getting more and more mainstream. There are several books, researches, articles, workshops and lectures in Europe and all around the world which deal with the current collaborative / co-housing situation and possibilities. In Europe, the German-speaking and the Scandinavian countries are the leaders in the co-housing movement. Co-housing and non-co-housing countries can be defined. Austria, Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have the most developed co-housing system. The Southern and Eastern European countries have different historical-, social-, cultural- and economic background but in common, they have only a few or zero co-housing communities and projects. In the co-housing countries the goal is to upscale the number of co-housing developments and make them mainstream while in the non-co-housing countries the aim is to introduce and promote this housing solution. The Non-European cases have quite different background but they can be also helpful to widen the perspective of cases which can help to realise more and more co-housing and shared-flat developments.
Data collection - interdisciplinary thinking - sustainability (economic, social, ecological and cultural aspects) This paragraph shows the most important disciplines which have to be mentioned if someone talks about shared-flats. The goal of the research is to connect and bring these disciplines together to start a multidisciplinary discussion, brainstorming and design in Hungary. Here as well as in other parts of the research, all the three main parts of sustainability are discussed. In this phase of the research a few more characteristics (living together, common goals, trust, environment psychology) are added.
Economic sustainability Within the topic “economic sustainability” housing cooperatives, sharing economy, crowdfunding, shared ownership structure, solidarity, non-profit and affordability have to be mentioned. Housing cooperative as a potential ownership structure has to be analysed and characterised. In Hungary, “housing cooperative” is a well known legal form but it has a negative connotation. In the socialist era housing cooperatives were top-down initiated and maintained which generated this negative feeling about them within the society. Despite of all the above mentioned negative aspects, the legal form “housing cooperative has potential in Hungary” as indicated by Farkas (2013). Non-profit housing as a goal to realise more affordable housing is also a very important issue. Projects such as the “Am Bahnhof - Living Spaces” in Meckenbeuren or the “Seniorenresidenz Konradhof” in Winterthur are based on non-profit foundations. (Huber, 2008) Solidarity can be a social issue as well as a financial question. In case of the German “Miethäuser Syndikat” solidarity solves social and financial problems too. This housing network joins 51 multifamily houses in Germany and offers affordable housing for around 1200 residents. In Switzerland, solidarity means social help, financial support for housing and also cultural diversification. A Hungarian shared-flat community, the “SzemerEstek” can prove that solidarity in Hungary is not a totally impossible phenomenon. The members of this community share the housing costs depending on their incomes. (Hummel, 2011; Papazoglou, 2014; Dudás, 2015) One of the most interesting developments in affordable housing is the “Students for Cooperation” in the United Kingdom. Their goal is to realise more affordable housing units for students who cannot afford to live in rents with unlimited rental costs. (Students for Cooperation, 2015) And finally the big question is how to finance the collaborative shared-flat network? László Oláh, the co-founder of the CoWo co-working office said in an interview that he can imagine a crowdfunding system based on solidarity. Kukorelly Endre and his initiative “Nyugodt Szív. Béreljünk lakásokat rászorulóknak” confirms this potential way. This initiative fundraises money to support households with temporary financial problems. (Oláh, 2015; Nyugodt Szív, 2015)
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
Socio-cultural sustainability Social and cultural sustainability in this research refer to social and cultural diversity, common wealth, participation, the relationship of individual and community, democracy, decision making and solidarity. Diversity plays a key role in sustainable housing developments where the different stakeholders can support and help each other. On the shared-flat scale it is hard to realise and speak about diversity. It is hard because the flats are not big enough to serve the needs of different stakeholders in the same time. The international case-studies show that shared-flats are good housing forms for special socio-cultural groups such as students, young professionals, elderly people or singleparents but they rarely involve more than one group. The collaboration of the specific shared-flats could realise a diverse network where people with different socio-cultural background could be connected. A network where singles could help single-parents, where students could help elderly people, … etc. Community events, parties and dinners organised by the members of the network could involve residents to participate in a socially and culturally diverse community. This collaborative network could function as a social-bank where time, knowledge and help are extra values. The community of the “Szalon” shared-flat in Budapest can be a very good example for this socio-cultural diversity. A shared-flat where cultural events were held, where people from different countries lived together and where daily socio-cultural knowledge transfer was obvious. (Bush, Machinist and McQuillin, 2013; Large, 2010) Living in a shared-flat develops the participatory-, decision making- and teamwork skills which are all very important for a well functioning democracy. Organisational- and ownership structures of the shared-flat network can teach individuals how to act in community and they can learn about rights and responsibilities which are all needed in a young democratic country. Living together is another important issue. It is not always easy but it has many advantages such as “the company, the conversation, the sharing, the communication, the knowledge that someone is there. It must be psychological, because life seems easier if you have someone going through it with you.” (Bush, Machinist and McQuillin, 2013. p. 5) The common goal is a key issue in the communities’ long-term life. It helps in many problematic situations, it helps to choose new members, it helps to have fun. Goals vary from economic to cultural ideas but their presence is unquestionable. If a shared-flat community has a good common goal it can survive changes in the membership and even serious problems within the community can be solved if the goals are defined in the beginning. The “SzemerEstek” is an existing shared-flat community in Budapest with a traditional ownership structure but with special goals. They are joined by a common goal to educate themselves together. Communication, community cooking and community activities such as singing are key issues in their community life. (SzemerEstek, 2015) Solidarity has already been mentioned in the section about economy but its socio-cultural aspects are also important. So how can shared-flats rise solidarity? “Group activities make solidarity stronger” writes Liza Papazoglou in her article. (Papazoglou, 2014. p. 6.)
Ecological sustainability Sharing, needed minimum, energy consumption, resources, materials, space, emission, waste but even non-profit orientedness can be mentioned when ecological sustainability is the topic. Sharing and cooperation can decrease the costs and social tasks and can decrease our material and resource needs too. In shared-flats neighbors share many things, they share spaces such as the kitchen, the living- and dining room, sometimes even the bathroom, they share tools and materials which all help them to lower their ecological footprint for a more sustainable lifestyle. Environment psychology is an interesting and important interdisciplinary field which can also be mentioned. In the case of communities the size is a very important issue. Andrea Dúll, a Hungarian environment psychologist mentions this topic in every discussion and lecture of hers. She says that a group of about ten or maximum twelve people would form an ideal community. West also writes almost the same numbers in his research in 1981. “Significantly those residents in West’s research
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
who were most satisfied with group living were living in groups of 6 to 10 members; those least satisfied were in groups of 16 to 20.” (Dúll, 2015; Franck and Ahrentzen, 1989, p. 6.)
Data collection - Grand Home Budapest workshops - empirical data Books and articles are not enough to analyse the Hungarian situation. There have been two Grand Home Budapest workshops held to involve other professionals in the project. The first one was a professional brainstorming with architects, an environmental psychologist, economists, an investor, an urbanist, a property estimator, and an experienced shared-flat user. It was incredibly interesting and useful. The research got a closer view on the target group and location topics. Even if Grand Home Budapest would like to be a non-profit network, it has to place the properties of the network on the real estate market. During the workshop interdisciplinary keywords and keyword groups were defined. The main groups are: community, formal-informal, individual, real estate market, society and the State. The professionals agreed that for a successful realization formal and informal rules have to be defined, a good legal form has to be found and that promotion and valuable marketing are key elements. The next step is to make a feasibility study. In the next few months more workshops can help the further development. After the professional workshop another “Grand Home Budapest FORUM” was held for potential residents. People were invited via Facebook to think together and to talk about preferences and needs. People with different backgrounds have different needs. Based on the findings, three groups were created: “panel programme”, “housing complex” and “downtown youngsters”.
Results Findings The very first findings after the first year of research can be sorted into two topics. The first is “historical findings” and the second is “existing case studies”. They show the potential of the sharedflat movement and its current importance in countries with housing crisis. The second is the current Hungarian situation. The empirical data and the pieces of information collected during the workshops, lectures, meetings and online platforms show that this phenomena has already some historical background in Hungary but the spreading of the movement has many blocking factors. These factors have to be defined and by-passed. The international cases show that the cooperation of housing units is more focused on multifamilyhouses and less on individual flats in multifamily-houses. This new idea has to be developed and introduced in Hungary. The development has to focus on legal and economic questions whereas the social and cultural - living together - questions are more developed in the country. The questions about the initiators is not defined yet. The different stakeholders (politicians, developers and communities) all see the potential in the research and they can imagine initiating the first pilot project. Since it is a brand new housing form all of them has fears so the most potential group of initiators is the already existing communities. The young generation is open to the shared economy, less stuck in the private ownership system and is more cooperative. They are not only looking for affordable housing possibilities but would also like to live in communities, cooperate and learn more about democracy and decision making. This extra value is needed in the first steps of the process. This addition power can allow people to create something new. The cooperation of the three groups - state, market and communities - is possible, but very risky. In the next steps the research would focus mostly on the communities but it would not block a potential cooperation. The three groups have different goals and responsibilities which can lead to misunderstandings and conflict. The realisation of a healthy relationship needs lot of experience. The lack of experience and knowledge can cause the failure of the idea and initiative. The first aim is to realise the first real-life “pilot project” and learn from it. After the first successful project further developments can and should be made. By taking small steps we can avoid big failures and can realise sustainable shared-flat network.
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest
If there are immediately too many stakeholders and elements in the beginning the results will be difficult to evaluate.
Discussion Hypothesis - yes or no In this stage of the research it seems that the hypothesis can be right but the research still has many questions waiting for an answer to achieve a positive result. The potential residents and professionals involved, all agreed that the idea and the hypothesis are good but all the stakeholders had several further questions.
Conclusion The first findings and results show that more data and promotion are needed. All the stakeholders have to be involved and more potential residents should be found. Without engaged activists and residents the movement has no chance and future. The next step in the development process is to do a feasibility study. This study has to contain all the above mentioned socio-cultural, economic and ecological aspects.
Further questions How can the above described collaborative shared-flat network involve and accommodate people with different income and socio-cultural background? Is it possible that these different groups support each other on a financial and social way? What kind of ownership- and financial structures could the network have? References Árkovics, L. and Horogh, P. (2013). Lakható, de lakatlan - Használaton kívüli épületek újrahasznosítása kooperatív lakóközösségek beköltözésevel. RESearch - Tanszéki Kutatások. 2013/2014. p. 6-9. Blanchflower, D. and Oswald, A. (2013). Does high home-ownership impair the labor market? NBER Working Paper No. 19079. doi: 10.3386/w19079. Bodnár, J. (1996). He That Hath to Him Shall be Given: Housing Privatization in Budapest after State Socialism. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research. 20. p. 616-636. Bush, K. M., Machinist, L. S. and McQuillin, J. (2013). My House Our House - Living Far Better for Far Less in a Cooperative Household. Pittsburgh: St. Lynn’s Press. Dr. Bék, Á. (2015). Lakásépítés, bérlés, lehetőségek, javaslatok 2014-2020. Lakásjogi kerekasztal Fórum. [Conference notes] BKIK, Budapest. 25th September. Dudás, Á. (2015). Grand Home Budapest Workshop. [Workshop notes] Grand Home Budapest. FUGA Budapest Center of Architecture. 18th May. Dúll, A. (2015). Grand Home Budapest Workshop. [Workshop notes] Grand Home Budapest. FUGA Budapest Center of Architecture. 18th May. Farkas, T. (2013). A lakásszövetkezetek és társasházak mai magyarországi helyzetéről. [Interview] 14th May 2013. Franck, K. A. and Ahrentzen, S. (ed.), (1989). New Households New Housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Glatz, Zs. and Komlósi, B. (2014). Housing Norms vs. Real Needs. Bottom-Up Cohousing. Trans. 24. p. 74-79. Hegedüs, J. (2013). Hungary: Social housing in the context of the rental sector. Emerging Private Rental Sector in Accession and Transition Countries: is there an Option for Social Rental Agencies’ p. 30. Hegedüs, J. (2006). Lakáspolitika és a lakáspiac - a közpolitika korlátai. Esély. 5. p. 65-100. Hegedüs, J., Kovács, R. and Tosics, I. (1994). Lakáshelyzet az 1990-es években. Társadalmi riport 1994. p. 137-164. [Online] 2006 Budapest: TÁRKI Available from: http://www.tarki.hu/adatbank-h/ kutjel/pdf/a906.pdf [Accessed: 6th June 2015]. Hildner, C. (2014). Living Future - Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen in Japan. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. Hofer, A. (2011). Von der Familienwohnung zum Cluster-Grundriss. TEC21. 7. p. 23-31.
NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and Social Approaches to Housing Public Policy The Introduction, Promotion and Realisation of a Bottom-Up Collaborative Shared-Flat Network in Budapest Hosp, J. (2011). Ein Zimmer bezahlen, eine ganze Wohnung nutzen. [Online] Available from: http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zuerich/stadt/Ein-Zimmer-bezahlen-eine-ganze-Wohnung-nutzen/story/11073549 [Accessed: 02 June 2015]. Huber, A. (ed.) (2008). New Approaches to Housing for the Second Half of Life. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. Hummel, B. (2011). Das Miethäuser Syndikat: Eine Alternative zum Eigentumsprinzip. Arch+. 201/202. p. 124. Koltai, L. (ed.): Éves jelentés a lakhatási szegénységről - 2013. [Online] Available from: http://www.habitat.hu/files/Lakhatasi_Jelentes_2013_hosszu.pdf [Accessed: 12 June 2015]. Komlósi, B. and K. Theisler, K. (2014). “Kooperatív lakozás”, avagy egy közösségi lakásmodell. Építész Közlöny Műhely. 232. p. 22-27. Közösségben Élni (2015). Közösségben Élni - Community Living. [Online] Available from: http://kozossegbenelni.blogspot.hu [Accessed: 07 May 2015]. Kraftwerk1 (2015). Kraftwerk1 Heizenholz. [Online] Available from: http://www.kraftwerk1.ch/ heizenholz/siedlung.html [Accessed: 02 June 2015]. LaFond, M. et al. (ed.) (2012). CoHousing Cultures. Handbook for self-organized, community-oriented and sustainable housing. Berlin: id22: Institut für kreative Nachhaltigkeit. Large, M. (2010). Common Wealth - for a Free, Equal, Mutual and Sustainable Society. Stroud: Hawthorn Press. Nyugodt Szív (2015). Nyugodt Szív. Béreljünk lakásokat rászorulóknak [Online] Available from: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nyugodt-Sz%C3%ADv-Béreljünk-lakásokatrászorulóknak/1048933848466565?fref=nf [Accessed: 04 June 2015]. Orsi, J. and Doskow, E. (2009). The Sharing Solution - How to Save Money, Simplify Your Life & Build Community. Berkeley: NOLO. Papazoglou, L. (2014). Miteinander, füreinander - Solidarität, ein genossenschaftlicher Grundpfeiler. Wohnen Extra. Dezember. p. 4-7. Pearson, L. F. (1988). The Architectural and Social History of Cooperative Living. London: The Macmillan Press. Posen, A. (2013). The cult of home ownership is dangerous and damaging. Financial Times. [Online] 26th July. Available from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/00bf5968-f518-11e2-b4f800144feabdc0.html#axzz3JcUFEJ1s [Accessed: 11th November 2014]. Students for Cooperation (2015). Students for Cooperation. [Online] Available from: http://www.students.coop [Accessed: 04 June 2015]. SzemerEstek (2015). SzemerEstek - ha egy estére más választanál. [Online] Available from: https://www.facebook.com/szemereste?fref=ts [Accessed: 11 June 2015]. Urbani, S. and van Bortel, G. (2009). Social housing provision in the Italian region of Lombardy: Between market, state and community. In ENHR Conference. Prague. [Online] Available from: https://www.academia.edu/4288792/Social_housing_provision_in_the_Italian_region_of_Lombardy_Between_ market_state_and_community [Accessed: 09 June 2015]. Vestbro, D. U. (ed.) (2010). Living together - co-housing ideas and realities around the world. International collaborative housing conference. Royal Institute of Technology division of urban studies in collaboration with Kollektivhus NU. Stockholm, 5-9 May 2010. Stockholm: Universitetsservice US AB.