↤ Esquina del conjunto habitacional Bebelhof, diseñado por K. Ehn. Steinbauergasse 36, Viena, 1925. Corner of the Bebelhof housing complex, designed by K. Ehn. Steinbauergasse 36, Vienna, 1925.
Desde el punto de vista de la habitabilidad, la vivienda social ofreció unidades mejor distribuidas, con agua potable, electricidad, gas y cocinas equipadas. Si bien los metrajes eran pequeños (alrededor de 38 metros cuadrados en promedio), la abundante provisión de balcones, logias y ventanas permitió crear interiores ventilados y soleados. Se alcanzaron, además, unos valores de arriendo inferiores al sector privado, permitiendo el gasto de parte del presu- puesto familiar en la adquisición de bienes no esenciales. El programa priorizó la adjudicación a las familias jóve- nes, con una oferta de instalaciones sociales que posibilito mejoras en la alimentación que redundó en incrementos en la altura y peso de los niños nacidos bajo los programas del Partido Socialdemócrata 10 . Una asignación que fue adminis- trada por la Oficina de Vivienda (Wohnungsamt) mediante un sistema de puntos, tal como ocurrió en Karl Marx-Hof, donde un 35 por ciento eran empleados administrativos y de servicios siendo, en su mayoría, trabajadores sindicalizados. A pesar de iniciativas introducidas en otras ciudades, como Triesterhof en Graz o Dametzhof en Linz, el programa no tuvo el poder de ser reproducido en municipios que no tenían los mismos recursos que Viena para la edificación a gran escala. Con el tiempo, las clases medias fuera de Viena miraron con antipatía el control de los arriendos, convirtién- dose en unos de los objetivos electorales fundamentales para la milicia antidemocrática del austrofascismo, la que, junto al ejército federal, derrocaron en 1934 a la primera República de Austria. No obstante, y a pesar de las críticas de los grupos de la reacción, el stock de viviendas sociales y las leyes de control sobre los arriendos fueron conservadas con algunas enmiendas en la década de 1930. En gran medida, porque el sector privado seguía siendo no rentable, además de ser evidente que no controlar los arriendo significaría una fuerza al alza sobre los salarios. Más allá de los intentos en defensa de la propiedad privada de los años de la ocupación británica y estadouni- dense, el proceso de desmercantilización de la vivienda se consolidó a través de un programa nacional de regulación sobre la construcción de nuevas viviendas por sobre el stock
the urban fabric and could occupy several blocks, building on their perimeter, leaving large landscaped courtyards in the middle 8 . This characteristic differed from pre-war urban models, where site occupancy reached 85 percent. With the new regulations, it was not possible to exceed 50 percent, even in emblematic cases such as Karl Marx-Hof, lower percentages were recorded, at only 18.4 percent. For Blau, this characteristic turned the traditional concept of the European city block on its head, opening it up to the street in a spatial sequence of public and private hybrid spaces. Building multifunctional structures also blurred the boundaries between the socialist and bourgeois city, show- ing its working-class tenants that "they were not strangers without property in a society that was not their own" 9 . From a habitability point of view, social housing offered better-distributed units, with drinking water, electricity, gas, and equipped kitchens. Although the spaces were small (around 38 square meters on average), the abundant supply of balconies, laundry rooms, and windows made it possible to create airy and sunny interiors. In addition, rental prices were lower than in the private sector, allowing the family budget to be spent on the purchase of non-essential goods. The program prioritized the allocation to young families, with an offer of social facilities that made improvements in nutrition possible and resulted in increases in the height and weight of children born under the Social Democratic Party programs 10 . An allocation was administered by the Housing Office (Wohnungsamt) through a point system, as was the Karl-Marx-Hof case, where 35 percent were administrative and service employees, most of whom were unionized workers. Despite initiatives introduced in other cities, such as Triesterhof in Graz or Dametzhof in Linz, the program did not have the potential to be replicated in municipalities that did not have the same resources as Vienna for large-scale buildings. Over time, the middle classes outside Vienna looked down on rent control, becoming one of the key electoral targets for the anti-democratic militia of Austro- fascism, which, together with the federal army, overthrew Austria's first Republic in 1934. Nevertheless, despite criticism from reactionary groups, the social housing stock and rent control laws were retained with some amendments in the 1930s. Largely because the private sector remained unprofitable, and it was evident that not controlling rents would mean upward pressure on wages. Beyond the attempts to defend private property during the British and U.S. occupation years, the process of housing decommodification was consolidated through a national program to regulate the construction of new housing above the existing stock. A construction and rental subsidy system was created through non-profit corporations. Rent control was also accompanied by protection against arbitrary rent increases, defining a standard lease contract, making it very difficult to expel tenants against their will. 8 It is precisely this apparent conventionality of the Viennese examples, in comparison with their Frankfurt and Berlin counterparts, that has been the source of Manfredo Tafuri's criticism. Tafuri, Manfredo. "Das Rote Wien: Politics and Forms of Residence in Socialist Vienna, 1919-1933," in: Tafuri, Manfredo. Red Vienna. Milan: Electa, 1980, pp. 94, 119-139. 9 Gulick, Charles A. Austria from Hapsburg to Hitler , 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1948. 1: 504. Citado por Blau, Eve. “Re-visiting Red Vienna: as an urban project”. 10 Ward, Peter W. “Birth Weight and Standards of Living in Vienna, 1865-1930”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XVIII (1988), 203-29.
popularmente como el “paraíso de los niños”. Como también el P ädogisches Insitut der Stadt Wien, mezcla de instituto de investigación y formación profesional, con un centro para la reforma escolar. La preocupación por los niños que tenía Tandler lo llevó a la creación de numerosos jardines infantiles, levantados bajo el lema de: “Quien construye palacios para niños, derriba los muros de las prisiones”. Tipológicamente hablando, los Gemeinbebauten se dis- tanciaban de los Siedlungen que se estaban construyendo a las afueras de Frankfurt y Berlín que seguían el esquema de bloques alineados en terrenos periféricos (Zeinlenbau- ten). Los edificios vieneses se insertaban dentro del tejido urbano, pudiendo ocupar varias manzanas, edificando en su perímetro dejando en su centro grandes patios ajardinados 8 . Característica que difirió respecto a los modelos urbanos previos a la guerra, donde la ocupación del sitio alcanzaba el 85 por ciento. Con las nuevas regulaciones no se podía superar el 50 por ciento, incluso en casos emblemáticos como Karl Marx-Hof se alcanzaron porcentajes inferiores, con apenas un 18,4 por ciento. Para Blau, esta característica dio vuelta el concepto tra- dicional de manzana europea, abriéndolas hacia la calle en una secuencia espacial de espacios híbridos entre públicos y privados. Construyendo estructuras multifuncionales que borró, además, los límites entre la ciudad socialista y la burguesa, mostrando a sus arrendatarios provenientes de la clase trabajadora que “no eran extraños sin propiedades en una sociedad que no era la suya” 9 . 8 Precisamente esta aparente convencionalidad de los ejemplos vie- neses, en comparación con sus homólogos de Frankfurt y Berlín, ha sido la fuente de las críticas de Manfredo Tafuri. Tafuri, Manfredo. “Das Rote Wien”: Politica e forma della residenza nella Vienna socia- lista, 1919-1933”, en: Tafuri, Manfredo. Vienna Rossa. Milán: Electa, 1980, pp. 94, 119-139. 9 Gulick, Charles A. Austria from Hapsburg to Hitler , 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1948. 1: 504. Citado por Blau, Eve. “Re-visiting Red Vienna: as an urban project”.
An example of this was the Karl Marx-Hof 7 residential building designed by Otto Wagner's student and Sessional member Karl Ehn . Located in Vienna's 19th district and built between 1927 and 1930, it included 1268 units, 50 commer- cial stores, a large public space decorated with works of art, a central laundromat, two kindergartens, a reception center for new mothers, youth facilities, a library, an infirmary and outpatient clinic, a pharmacy, a dental clinic, and a post office. This program, together with urban planning that defined a dispersed distribution of these buildings, allowed the construction of a whole network of care, favoring above all the middle and working classes of the city, avoiding the resurgence of class conflicts that had characterized the months immediately following the end of the war. The person responsible for the creation of these social services was Julius Tandler, who also led the construction of new hospitals, clinics for tuberculosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, the creation of children's homes, kindergartens, schools, dental clinics, prenatal and postnatal care centers, sports and leisure facilities, public swimming pools and holiday homes. A major highlight of these initiatives was the KÜST municipal orphanage, a true emblem of Red Vienna, popularly known as the "children's paradise". As was the Pädogisches Insitut der Stadt Wien, a mixture of research and vocational training institutes, with a center for school reform. Tandler's concern for children led to the creation of numerous kindergartens, built under the motto: "Whoever builds palaces for children, tears down prison walls". Typologically speaking, the Gemeinbebauten distanced themselves from the Siedlungen that were being built on the outskirts of Frankfurt and Berlin, which followed a pattern of blocks aligned on peripheral plots of land (Zein- lenbauten). The Viennese buildings were inserted within
DESDE EL PUNTO DE VISTA DE LA HABITABILIDAD, LA VIVIENDA SOCIAL OFRECIÓ UNIDADES MEJOR DISTRIBUIDAS, CON AGUA POTABLE, ELECTRICIDAD, GAS Y COCINAS EQUIPADAS. SI BIEN LOS METRAJES ERAN PEQUEÑOS (ALREDEDOR DE 38 METROS CUADRADOS EN PROMEDIO), LA ABUNDANTE PROVISIÓN DE BALCONES, LOGIAS Y VENTANAS PERMITIÓ CREAR INTERIORES VENTILADOS Y SOLEADOS. From a habitability point of view, social housing offered better-distributed units, with drinking water, electricity, gas, and equipped kitchens. Although the spaces were small (around 38 square meters on average), the abundant supply of balconies, laundry rooms, and windows made it possible to create airy and sunny interiors.
7 Many of the architects who worked on building the Gemeindebauten had been trained in the office of Otto Wagner (1841-1918), especially during the years when he was designing the Wiener Stadtbahn (1894- 1901) and the Unbegrenzte Grosstadt (1911) projects.
10 Ward, Peter W. “Birth Weight and Standards of Living in Vienna, 1865-1930”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XVIII (1988), 203-29.
80 ↤
↦ 81
AOA / n°47
Reportaje / Feature Article
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online