ENHR 2002 Vienna

International Research Conference

Housing Cultures Convergence and Diversity

1 July 5 July 2002 University of Vienna, Austria

Documentation

Content

Content
1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 Conference Structure Documentation General theme Topic structure of submitted abstracts 3 3 4 5 6 9 9 11 13 15 16 19 22 22 23 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Summary of plenary sessions 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 First Plenary Session (July 1) Second Plenary Session (July 2) Third Plenary Session (July 3) Fourth Plenary Session (July 4) Fifth Plenary Session (July 5) Panel Discussion: An agenda for European housing research (July 5)

Workshop summaries 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 Workshop 01: History of Housing Workshop 02: Housing and Theory Workshop 03: Housing and Welfare Regimes Workshop 04: Feminist Critique and Utopias Workshop 05: Housing Economics Workshop 06: Housing Finance Workshop 07: Regulation and Information Workshop 08: Provision and Construction Workshop 09: Eastern European Housing

3.10 Workshop 10: Migration and Residential Mobility 3.11 Workshop 11: Minority Ethnic Groups 3.12 Workshop 12: cancelled 3.13 Workshop 13: Housing Sustainability 3.14 Workshop 14: Poverty neighbourhoods

Content

3.15 Workshop 15: Asset Management 3.16 Workshop 16: Large-Scale Housing Estates 3.17 Workshop 17: Social Landlords 3.18 Workshop 18: Housing and Health 3.19 Workshop 19: Housing Lifestyles 3.20 Workshop 20: Urban Renewal Documentation CD-Rom

39 40 41 42 44 45 47

Conference structure

Introduction
The 12 annual conference of the European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) was held in Vienna, Austria, from July 1 to July 5, 2002. It was organized by a group of local ENHR members and by Europaforum Wien counting with support by an advisory board. The City of Vienna, the Federal Ministry of Economy and Labour, the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture, the Austrian Federation of Limited-profit Housing Associations, the Vienna Convention Bureau, the Mischek Group, the Erste sterreichische Bank, and the Architekturzentrum Wien granted financial support for the event. With more than 400 participants and some 300 presented papers this was the second-largest annual conference in the history of the ENHR.
th

1.1

Conference structure The main body of papers was grouped into 19 different workshops each one of which was active during up to eight sessions. In addition, five plenary sessions provided an opportunity to attend keynote speeches by eight renowned international specialists in housing-related fields and a panel discussion on a renewed European housing research agenda. Furthermore, a large majority of participants signed up for one of six excursions to housing developments of particular interest in and around Vienna, both historic and contemporary. Finally, evening events at a typical Viennese Heurigen, at a reception offered by the Mayor of Vienna in the city hall courtyard, and at the Architekturzentrum Wien on the new Museumsquartier premises facilitated informal contacts among conference participants.

Documentation

1.2

Documentation This documentation is to be a source of information on the ENHR 2002 Vienna Conference both for researchers and practitioners who actually took part in it and who might have wanted to attend but were unable to come. It comprises the following parts: Introduction; summaries of the keynote speeches and related discussions; summary of the panel discussion on a European housing research agenda; summaries of the individual workshops.

Additional material is to be found on the CD-ROM enclosed in this book: abstracts and full texts of all papers actually presented (if available and authorized); abstracts and full texts of all available keynote speeches; PowerPoint presentations shown during plenary sessions; a database with short descriptions of every paper including a search function by workshop, author, title, country, and keyword.

The documentation was translated and edited by Christian Donner, member of the local organizing committee, with material provided by keynote speakers, paper authors, and workshop coordinators (except workshops 02 and 19). Translation: Graphic Design: Printed by: Christian Donner. neuwirth&steinborn, Vienna Brsedruck, Vienna

The material for the accompanying CD-ROM was obtained from the respective authors. The database was set up by Christian Donner.

General theme

1.3

General theme The general theme of the conference Housing Cultures Convergence and Diversity was based on the following considerations: Until recently, the definition of good housing standards was widely shared within European welfare states. There used to be a national consensus on dwelling size, layout, room functions, sanitary equipment, energy consumption, common facilities, and the like. Over the years, these housing norms have continuously improved, but they have nevertheless remained within a narrow range of the acceptable and the achievable. Housing policy was aimed at providing affordable standardized housing in standardized locations for a large section of the urban society. So far, housing cultures have been very similar within each European national state leaving the topic to more remote and exotic ways of living. Meanwhile, widespread retrenchment of the welfare state has led to a re-commodification of housing, giving rise to a greater diversity of housing on offer. Individualized lifestyles are pushing up demand for a variety of niche products, from inner-city lofts to gated communities in exurbia. Successful housing developments include a broad mix of different products and/or singular features regarding their location, architecture, or theme. Standardized housing is becoming increasingly difficult to rent or sell to middle- and higher-income strata, even if state subsidies are upheld. Concomitantly, low-income groups are facing the new housing problems that have opened up between more deregulated markets on the one hand and an increasingly stratified society on the other. As a result of these developments, many new forms of housing cultures can be observed in the cities and regions of Europe. Housing markets and housing policies will have to cope with a greater variety of supply and demand in the years ahead.

Topic structure of submitted abstracts

1.4

Topic structure of submitted abstracts Christian DONNER (AT) Institute of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, Vienna University of Technology The ENHR 2002 Vienna Conference: A Survey of Current International Housing Research The annual ENHR conferences provide an excellent opportunity to survey the thematic scope of current research. In 2002, participants were confronted with a body of 312 papers assembled in the Book of Abstracts. A first approximation regarding the current emphasis of housing research might be obtained by identifying thematic sectors to which the individual papers can be attributed. The three basic sectors would be population, state, and market, complemented by three areas of interchange between the three sectors, namely rights and duties, regulation and subsidies, and goods and services, while habitat would constitute a core field where all three basic sectors overlap. After assigning each paper to one of these sectors or areas, a fairly clear picture emerges: primary sectors (population, state, market) attract little housing research while state regulation and supply subsidies and the exchange of goods and services seem to be currently more popular with scholars. A full one-third of all papers would correspond to the habitat core, as the studies involve crucial aspects of all three basic sectors. However, this approach seems too rough-and-ready, and a more detailed evaluation might provide a more precise picture and also some geographical differentiation. Therefore, some 40 prominent keywords were identified and allotted to the seven sectors/areas of research while the 60 countries being dealt with were distributed to ten groups of vaguely similar characteristics (as cross-national papers refer to several countries, the overall results are somewhat biased towards them). When thus comparing the curve of topic distribution for all countries with data for a particular geographical group, certain deviations emerge: In Northern Europe (DK, FI, IS, NO, SE), concepts such as mobility, housing policy, market, lifestyle, and sustainability appear more frequently than on average. Research in Northwestern Europe (IE, UK) currently focuses on social housing and frequently explores topics such as exposed groups, community, homelessness, and neighbourhood.

Topic structure of submitted abstracts

In Western Europe (BE, FR, NL), topics like social housing, management, mobility, renewal, neighbourhoods, and segregation score above average. In the Germanic countries of Central Europe (AT, CH, DE), topics such as health, participation, renewal, cohesion, and sustainability are relatively prominent. The few papers from Southern Europe (ES, IT, PT) concentrate on finance, housing provision, and segregation. Research in numerous countries of former communist Eastern Europe (AL, BA, BL, CZ, EE, GE, HR, HU, LA, LT, PL, RO, RU, SI, SK, YU) focuses on housing policy in the wake of political transformation and frequently deals with questions of renewal/regeneration of the existing housing stock. Papers on Middle East countries (EG, IL, IR, LB, KW, TR) stress aspects of housing cultures, lifestyle, housing provision, and poverty. South and East Asian (CN, HK, ID, IN, JP, KR, MY, NP, SG, TH, TW, VN) research concentrates on policy and markets issues. In North America and Australasia (AU, CA, NZ, US) ethnic topics and tenant subsidies currently play an important role in housing research. The few papers on African and Latin American countries (BR, CU, NG, ZA) concentrate on questions of finance and others.

On the other hand, papers not linked to a particular country, i.e. of a more theoretical character, quite well correspond to the overall structure of topics with additional emphasis given to poverty and sustainability. The resulting aggregate structure without regard to geography now offers a more balanced picture: except for the infrequently treated rights and duties area, all sectors appear with a 10 to 20 percent share. This goes well with the complex character of housing research and the varied professional backgrounds of housing researchers. In addition, comparing the shift of workshop structures over time and the number of papers presented in each one during the latest four major ENHR conferences (i.e. Helsingr, DK, 1996; Cardiff, UK, 1998; Gvle, SE, 2000; Vienna, AT, 2002), one can distinguish some characteristic trends in housing research: The history of housing policy is a recent topic within ENHR research. Housing and housing policy theory remain a well-established research area. Housing (and real estate) economics and housing finance have both been prominent research areas and together represented almost one-third of all papers in Gvle. East European housing has appeared as an independent workshop at ENHR conferences since Gvle (sparked by the intermediary ENHR conference in Balatonfred, HU, 1999).

Topic structure of submitted abstracts

Migration/mobility and minority ethnic groups have maintained a steady pace throughout this period. The same is valid for housing and urban sustainability. Aspects of social exclusion, homelessness, and poverty neighbourhoods were dealt with extensively during all four conferences. Lifestyle in housing has become an important research topic since Gvle. Urban renewal and renovation/rehabilitation of the older housing stock have declined in importance in housing research, at least according to the number of papers submitted.

Finally, on the basis of the above findings, a personal suggestion may be permitted. In spite of its continuing resistance against any official inclusion of housing matters in its agenda, the European Commission should recognize the inextricable linkage between adequate housing consumption and social cohesion and hence assume a clearing-house role in this policy area by providing financial support for cross-national housing research; periodically monitoring national/regional housing conditions based on comparable national data; making important best-practice housing information accessible internationally; periodically publishing an evaluation of housing policy, housing market and housing consumption developments in individual EU countries.

On the other hand, the ENHR should work towards recognition by the European Commission as a true network of excellence in housing matters. (See also PowerPoint presentation.)

First Plenary Session

Summary of plenary sessions

2.1 2.1.1

First Plenary Session (July 1) Peter MARCUSE (US) Professor of Urban Planning, School of Architecture and Planning, Columbia University, New York Neo-liberal Globalization and National Housing Policy In theory, housing policy would follow an obvious path of determining housing needs, of choosing appropriate policy instruments, and of allocating the required funds for implementation. In practice, housing research is thriving but the problem of ill-housed people subsists in many countries. Apparently, the effectiveness of housing policy is closely linked to the national political framework of power structures. On the other hand, national policies have become increasingly dependent on the present form of neo-liberal globalization, which could be characterized as technological advance, concentration of power, cross-border mobility, and cultural homogenization among others. During the most recent decades (i.e. roughly since the first Thatcher government in the UK), there has been a steady rollback of social welfare-oriented housing policies, generally along lines of substituting market mechanisms and demand-side programs for direct governmental action and supply-side programs. Globalization has accentuated this trend, in small part directly, through cross-border investment, in larger part because of ideological pressures in the direction of free trade and competitive goals. In the former state socialist countries, the pressures of globalization on housing policy have been great and most visible in the handling of issues of legal tenure and property rights, which have undermined existing housing arrangements without substituting anything better and which rest on fundamental misconceptions of what property rights mean. But there are countervailing pressures to the neo-Iiberal form of globalization. The adoption of a social cohesion policy by the European Union is one, Habitats Security of Tenure and Good Governance programs, now slowly coming together, are another, even though Habitat II has been singularly ineffective, largely because of United States pressures. The Habitat international coalition is still pushing, however, and growing in effectiveness, at least on the international agency level.

First Plenary Session

Finally, the grass-root groups who came together at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre are another hopeful sign. An economic recession may sharpen the conflict between these approaches and their supporters. Against this background, housing researchers should continue to point out unmet housing needs with the hope of eventually seeing their well-grounded housing policy proposals adopted nationally and integrated into those wider policy areas via supra-national institutions. 2.1.2 Daniel MILLER (UK) Professor of Material Culture, Department of Anthropology, University College, London Ethnographic Approaches to the Home Students in housing studies tend to demonstrate their sense that the relationship between people and the built environment is a profound one by quoting philosophers such as Heidegger. But philosophy has a tendency towards universal statements and derives from intellectual argument. Some problems are noted in the consequential impact of philosophy upon the history of architecture both in the development of modernism and of postmodernism. By contrast, anthropology also strives to express the profundity of peoples relationship to place but it does so through ethnographic research exploring the diversity of housing cultures and through trying to share the experience and perspectives of the consumers of architecture and housing policy. This paper makes an argument for citing downwards to ethnographic engagement with actual populations rather than upwards to philosophical claims about the human condition. While architects and planners create housing, it is the occupants that turn a house into a home, and in order to understand this process anthropologists in the field of material culture studies employ ethnography that is spend a year with particular communities and struggle to empathize with their experiences and perspectives. Often this provides a quite different conclusion from the assumptions that prevail about particular populations. For example, a study called The Untidy House in Japan shows how the use of the home in Japan may be quite unlike that which is usually portrayed for that country. A further example is taken from a study of government housing in London. Since all tenants received the same basic apartment, by exploring the different ways these were transformed over the years we are able to see how attitudes not only to housing but also to housing policy change. In this case, the governments stigmatization of public housing influenced the ability of tenants to transform their homes.

10

Second Plenary Session

Three further examples (taken from the book Home Possessions) are then considered in order to demonstrate the benefits of ethnographic approaches by focusing upon one dimension of this relationship the study of change. These studies examine first minor changes in the home interior in Norway, then the refurbishment of homes in London, and finally the act of moving house in Montreal. Between them, they suggest that the wider contextual information provided by ethnography can transform our understanding of such processes. Although ethnographic studies contrast with philosophy by being both very grounded and specific, the talk ends by suggesting that such studies can contribute to the same general levels of understanding as that traditionally espoused by philosophy. An example is given in terms of the way we theorize persons and houses as possessing agency.

2.2 2.2.1

Second Plenary Session (July 2) John MUELLBAUER (UK) Official Fellow in Economics, Nuffield College, and Professor of Economics, University of Oxford Credit Market Conditions, Housing Markets, and the Economy In a 1998 paper prepared with Duncan Maclennan and Mark Stephens, the argument was that differences in credit market and housing institutions across the EU would be likely to create tensions for the common interest rate and the exchange rate fix implied by EMU. There are signs that these differences have indeed contributed to the divergence in economic conditions between, for example, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Spain on the one hand and Germany and Italy on the other. Moreover, changes in credit market conditions and housing market institutions over time can have important macroeconomic implications. Recent research with Emilio Fernandez-Corugedo builds on earlier attempts at developing a credit conditions index for UK households. This index tracks the cumulative effects of the various institutional changes, which, since 1979, have radically eased access to credit. The CCI attempts to measure ease of credit, using macrodata on loan to income ratios, and micro-data on loan conditions in the mortgage market. Using econometric models, we remove the effects of income, interest rates, unemployment, consumer confidence, asset prices, and other economic factors, so that the CCI captures, as far as possible, the supply side evolution of credit availability.

11

Second Plenary Session

These evolutionary changes in the UK have influenced consumer spending, house prices, housing turnover and mortgage default rates, which, rose to alarming levels in the early 1990s. The consumption and house price boom of the late 1980s and the more recent strength of these markets have been influenced by the supply side of the credit market. There are essential lessons from the UK experience for the rest of Europe. It is important not to compromise the many benefits of easing credit conditions by inappropriate fiscal, monetary and housing policies. It is important to improve the quality of the European information base on housing and credit market data and for monitoring default rates. For the parts of the Euro zone currently stuck in a low-growth trap, easing non-price credit conditions could be an important escape route. In the case of Italy, the extreme case in core-Europe of a nonfunctioning mortgage market, appropriate reforms are likely to generate deep and beneficial societal changes taking several generations to evolve. (See also PowerPoint presentation.) 2.2.2 Peter ENGLUND (SE) Professor of Banking and Insurance, Stockholm School of Economics Director of Stockholm Institute for Financial Research Property Taxation Efficiency and Equity Issues The tax treatment of housing differs widely from country to country. These differences will impact on housing costs, on the overall allocation of resources to the housing sector, and on how these resources are distributed across different forms of housing. Starting from basic principles, factors that should govern the tax treatment of housing are discussed. This involves a number of different taxes like consumption taxes, corporate taxes, capital income taxes, and the deductibility of interest payments. On this occasion, the focus is on the role of the property tax. The integration of owner-occupied housing into a system of capital-income taxation poses a special problem, since the returns are not directly observable. A common way to overcome this difficulty is to relate the tax to an estimate of the market value of the home, e.g. through a property tax. The questions is then how property taxes should be calibrated to fit into a neutral system of capital taxation. In addition, there are also various problems associated with the practical implementation of property taxation, e.g. the difficulty of making correct value assessments, the liquidity problem that taxpayers may face, and the treatment of capital gains. (See also PowerPoint presentation.)

12

Third Plenary Session

The first discussant (Mark Stephens, UK) considered that a more liberalized finance system including valuation and foreclosure rules would offer better access to mortgage markets in some Southern European countries. Similarly, a well-defined finance system would be required to sustain privatization-based homeownership in former socialist countries. Better access to finance without adequate supply would only lead to higher prices. Also, EMU countries can no longer combat house price inflation with an independent interest policy. The second discussant (Margarete Czerny, AT) presented some characteristics of the Austrian housing (policy) system referring specifically to the structure of the housing finance market and of the still important supply-oriented federal housing subsidies. On the other hand, taxation on real estate and tax subsidies for housing play a minor role.(See also PowerPoint presentation.)

2.3 2.3.1

Third Plenary Session (July 3) Sharon ZUKIN (US) Broeklundian Professor of Sociology, Brooklyn College and City University Graduate Center, New York Whose Housing? Whose City? Notes on the Rebuilding of Lower Manhattan after September 11, 2001 In the first discussions of rebuilding Lower Manhattan that followed the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, many people referred to the area as vibrant. They did not mean the commercial functions of the financial district around Wall Street, which had gradually dispersed to office districts in midtown Manhattan and surrounding counties and states notably near the Hudson River waterfront in suburban New Jersey. Rather, they meant the liveliness of the areas street life, the well-kept green of the new Hudson River Park, and the museums that had recently enhanced the areas reputation as a tourist destination all of which are quite different from, and in some ways antithetical to, the old mono-industrial districts financial concentration. Much of this vibrancy, moreover, reflects the startling increase, since the 1980s, in Lower Manhattans residential population. From 7,000 residents in 1970, the population doubled by 1980, rose to 25,000 in 1990, and reached 34,000 by the year 2000 (US census data, Community Board 1, from Battery Park north to Canal Street, www.ci.nyc.ny.us). As the chairwoman of the local community board has not ceased to emphasize since September 11, Lower Manhattan has become a residential area.

13

Third Plenary Session

Yet in terms of land use and the number of employees who commute to work in Lower Manhattan each day even after the destruction of the WTC the area remains a business zone: it is the third-largest central business district in the US The financial organizations in the area around Wall Street are also an influential business lobby in New York City. The commodities and stock exchanges, as well as individual financial firms, have negotiated substantial subsidies from the city government to remain in place, that is not to move their headquarters out of the city. The downtown financial industry is still part of an economic powerhouse. A decent share of city employment 5 percent is in financial services, and these employees earn 20 percent of the total wages in the region (Downtown New York, 2001, p. 13). Though the decentralization of the financial industry that began in the 1950s was hastened by the telecommunications revolution of personal computers and the fax machine in the 1980s and was undoubtedly accelerated still further by the collapse of the Twin Towers, the downtown financial district is symbolically important even strategically significant for the people that run the city and probably for most others who live in the city as well. When the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the state agency that oversees the current redevelopment plans, stated that Lower Manhattan must retain its position as the financial capital of the world (LMDC, Principles and Preliminary Blueprint, April 9, 2002, p. 11), few New Yorkers and few Americans would have disagreed. Nevertheless, the rising value of Lower Manhattan for housing and its declining value for financial firms suggest that the area has entered a new kind of liminality. The demands that people reasonably place on a place where they want to live and spend their free time contradict the way Lower Manhattan has historically developed as a business centre. Theres a contradiction between rebuilding Lower Manhattan for its commercial tenants and their employees and following through on its re-imagining as a residential zone (Wolf-Peters in gothamgazette). Yet if Lower Manhattan is a residential community, for whom is it built? Can this residential community serve an ethnically and socially diverse population with different incomes and languages, or will it be converted, at best, to an enclave for the creative class? The discussant (Eva Bauer, AT) considered that the transformation of Lower Manhattan from a predominant finance centre into a business/residential area would be welcome but that particular emphasis should be given to an adequate social mix of residents. Even if the longterm residential attractiveness of this area should not suffer from the September 11 attack, the image of an enclave for the creative few does not seem convincing.

14

Fourth Plenary Session

2.4

Fourth Plenary Session (July 4)

2.4.1 Walter SIEBEL (DE) Professor of Sociology, leader of the Urban Studies working group Carl von Ossietzky University, Oldenburg A Story of Difference Housing, Planning, and the Inhabitants Nothing seems more self-evident than the demand to adjust housing as precisely as possible to the needs of man. But such an adjustment is neither possible nor desirable. In the former state socialist countries, as well as in regulated capitalistic welfare states, the notion of modern housing was based on three elements: the two-generation family, privacy, and the separation of work and residence. This ideal type of modern housing is a historically young and yet antiquated phenomenon. In the 1970s, people began to dissociate themselves from this ideal type. This change concerned each of the three elements: new types of households besides the traditional family, the dissolution of the separation of privacy and the public, and the dissolution of the separation of work and leisure. Historic change, differentiation, and the ambivalence of housing needs put a limit to the possibility of adjusting the built environment to social behaviour. There is a necessary distance between social life and the built environment in which it takes place, not the least because buildings usually outlive their (initial) inhabitants. Contemporary housing needs are influenced by the return of professional and nonprofessional work into the home. Also, the traditional concept of privacy has often given way to various forms of co-housing where certain areas are used intermittently but within a context of social homogeneity. This trend is reinforced by a continuing increase of the share of single-person households. The first discussant (Rdiger Lainer, AT) suggested that dwellings for the future should provide a maximum of flexibility of utilization while offering specific context-related qualities.

15

Fifth Plenary Session

In addition, local planning should leave urban functions partly undetermined allowing for unforeseen future developments and hence assuring future flexibility. The other discussant (Natasha Pichler-Milanovich, SI) pointed out that an increasingly footloose generation will have to show flexibility in its housing demands in order to compensate for insufficient adaptability of the housing stock to rapidly changing patterns of utilization. Additionally, housing policy and planning systems will have to become more flexible.

2.5

Fifth Plenary Session (July 5)

2.5.1 Anne-Marie FRIBOURG (FR) Directorate General for Urbanism, Habitat and Construction (DGUHC) Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Housing (MELT) Social Housing in France: Present Situation and Future Perspectives The French social rental housing stock currently comprises over 4.0 million dwellings representing 17 percent of all primary residences and 41 percent of the entire rental sector. The major part of this stock is the property of HLM companies, which traditionally enjoyed a quasi-monopoly on state construction subsidies. Originally, HLM housing was to accommodate workers with modest but regular incomes. However, in view of the profound changes of society, the social role of these organizations and their asset management is being questioned. Rising unemployment and more precarious labour relations cause financial and social problems inducing some HLM companies to restrict access for the households most in need of affordable housing. However, in order to assure an acceptable social mix, subsidized state financing for new HLM dwellings is currently conditioned on certain shares of different income strata. On the other hand, the social rental stock is unequally distributed over the French territory which larger shares in Northern and Northeastern regions and in the le de France and a higher concentration in cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. The 1991 City Development Act (Loi dOrientation pour la Ville/LOV) introduced incentives for local authorities in agglomerations of more than 200,000 inhabitants to provide more social rental dwellings.

16

Fifth Plenary Session

In 2000, after unsatisfactory initial results of the LOV, the government approved the Solidarity and Urban Renewal Act (Loi Solidarit et Renouvellement Urbains/SRU), which contains more stringent regulation in support of providing social housing. This Act is applicable in agglomerations of more than 50,000 inhabitants if the local social housing supply does not reach 20 percent of the total stock. Through this Act, the concept of rental social housing was extended to include most regulated rental housing provided by any landlord in addition to HLM dwellings. The SRU tries to secure a balanced social mix and includes sanctions if the respective authorities have not fulfilled their obligations without justification within three years. In this case, the departmental state representative can have social housing made available even against the will of the local authority. Other increasingly important and interrelated social, urban and housing problems are concentrated in degraded large-scale housing estates built in the 1960s and 1970s. In spite of an ambitious urban renewal policy during the last few decades, numerous HLM buildings will have to be demolished because of technical obsolescence, lack of acceptance by households, or in order to reduce the local concentration of problematic households. Independent of this complex problem, the question of a true decentralized housing policy is unsolved, as the provision of funds for housing policy so far remains in the hands of the central state. The power of both local communities and the new inter-communal structures communauts urbaines and communauts dagglomration will have to be increased. In this sense closer ties between local authorities and HLM bodies will also have to be created or strengthened. (See also PowerPoint presentation.) Answering various questions by the discussant (Christian Donner, AT), Fribourg pointed out that HLMSAs adhere to a different logic of operation than OPHLMs, with the latter maintaining closer links with their local authorities. However, as they both belong to the same general structure, no substantial changes are to be expected in the near future. On the other hand, the decentralization process will gain momentum, and the number of HLM dwellings to be demolished will probably increase. Problems of social segregation will have to be attended by local/regional authorities. In addition, the recent change of the central government might lead to substantial changes in the future French housing policy.

17

Fifth Plenary Session

2.5.2 Christian KESTELOOT (BE) Professor of Urban Geography, Institute for Social and Economic Geography Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Housing Policies between Social Justice and Efficiency Three Modes of Economic Integration In order to understand the distribution of resources in society or, from a household point of view, the access to means of existence, the modes of economic integration (Polanyi, 1944) provide an interesting analytical framework. Polanyi distinguishes three modes of integration: reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange. Since the end of World War II, European social democracies were characterized by the dominance of market exchange corrected by important welfare-state-led redistribution processes. Within this context, Post-Fordism can be interpreted as a retraction of the redistribution sphere and an expansion of the market sphere. Concomitantly, reciprocity gained in importance, especially for people unsuccessful in the market sphere and abandoned by the redistribution sphere. The present-day shifts in housing policies correspond to these changes. Nevertheless, market mechanisms are unable to secure good quality and affordable housing for all households for a number of reasons related to the peculiar features of housing as a necessary consumption good. Therefore, redistribution remains essential to solve the housing problem from the point of view of consumers, be it a qualitative or a quantitative problem. Thus redistribution, which is a politically led process of resource distribution, could be the way to achieve social justice in the housing sector. Such a strategy is of course a territorial strategy. The fact that people can move and that the built environment does not is essential in this perspective: whenever improvement in housing is achieved, effects on the local housing and retail market should be controlled through transfer in the redistribution sphere. For improving the access to resources of deprived households, all other spatial strategies are poor alternatives compared to nonterritorial strategies. As housing policies are necessarily territorial, they also involve politics of scale. On the one hand, politically weak social groups reach a stronger position in defending their interests when they can act on a higher political/spatial scale than the local scale. On the other hand, local authorities are increasingly competing each other for attracting better-off inhabitants and investments as a result of the expansion of market processes in the policy sphere. Putting social justice in housing provision higher on the political agenda entails both the creation of institutions empowering bottom-up movements at higher scales and controlling the negative effects of

18

Panel Discussion

competition at the local scale through political regulation at the national or international levels. (See also PowerPoint presentation.) Comments by the discussant (Barbara Reed, UK) pointed to the relation between governance and culture and to their change over time, as well as to the need to redefine property rights in the context of power relations which affect interaction among people and peoples dealing with physical things. Answering several questions, Christian Kesteloot maintained that redistribution is the only form of economic integration that can be steered and democratically controlled in spite of inherent drawbacks of discreet implementation. Regarding property rights, the question of land rights needs special attention. Furthermore, the problem of social forces power relations is currently worked on at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Finally, an informal housing sector might provide more freedom for certain groups but also lead to precarious housing conditions if left unchecked.

2.6

Panel Discussion: An agenda for European housing research (July 5) (contributors in order of participation)

2.6.1

Michael BALL (UK) South Bank University, London The housing sector is always influenced by both market and state with the latter usually dominating the picture. Even the behaviour of basically market-oriented housing suppliers is strongly influenced by state activities. Housing research should apply theory to state-market relations and compare different (national) systems. Housing research is greatly hampered by the lack of adequate, comparable data. The reasons for this deficiency should be investigated and required essential housing data should be defined. Large European urban regions often apply similar housing policies with poor results. Housing research should evaluate the effectiveness of housing policies and publish a critical appraisal. The definition of any housing policy is the outcome of prevalent power relations. Most housing policies benefit middle classes as coveted voters. Therefore, national governments impede inclusion of housing policy on the European Commission agenda. Housing researchers should contribute to reorienting housing policies towards the interests of low-income strata.

19

Panel Discussion

2.6.2 Matth van OOSTROM (NL) Ministry of Housing, Environment and Spatial Planning, Delft Housing research should focus on the following issues: poverty neighbourhoods (management, social and physical redevelopment); power structures in decision making (inertia, politics, money); social housing stock vs. homeownership (financial problems in social housing management); sustainability in housing and neighbourhoods (deviant inhabitant behaviour).

In addition, ways to modify the decision-making process in the European Commission should be looked for. 2.6.3 Michael WAGNER-PINTER (AT) Synthesis Research, Vienna A comprehensive housing research programme over several years should be focused on social housing landlords and social housing management. Even in relatively wealthy European states, around one in five households does not enjoy the amenities of a decent home according to contemporary standards. Inadequate housing consumption impedes full social integration. Housing researchers should work for the acceptance of housing matters by the European Commission. 2.6.4 W. Jan BRZESKI (PL) Jagiellonian Business School, Krakow, CREI Foundation Social problems are perceived differently in Western and Eastern Europe. Western criticism of market failures is absent in transformation countries because of the earlier inexistence of proper markets. Therefore, extensive misallocation of urban capital is manifest in Eastern cities (problems of redevelopment). In transformation countries, the first step is to make markets possible, the second to provide market guidance. Consumption preferences by Eastern households often assign low priority to housing.

20

Panel Discussion

Under the above circumstances, research in these countries should concentrate on the following fields: energy efficiency in the housing stock; utilization of non-subsidy housing policy tools; methods for developing an adequate housing strategy; utilization of industrial fallows for housing; cost effectiveness; economic and social sustainability; a definition of the housing problem; comparable housing indicators.

Housing research is limited by political expediency, often dependent on sectoralized perception of housing matters. Also, the lack of research institutions and of formation structures hinders effective housing policy assessment. 2.6.5 Thomas KNORR-SIEDOW (chair, DE) Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning, Erkner/Berlin Unmet housing demand can be registered in both Eastern and Western Europe, albeit of different characteristics. Cities often suffer from public poverty. Extensive neglected housing stock in Southern Europe may lead to social conflicts. All these phenomena require highquality housing market and housing policy research. While some housing topics were included in the Fifth Research Framework of the European Commission, hardly any housing-related topics can be found in the Sixth Framework. This is due the attitude of national (housing) politicians who do not accept any EU interference. Taking up suggestions from panelists and the floor, a proposal for an ENHR Agenda will be formulated and made public after consultation by the ENHR. With the help of political contacts of ENHR groups and members, one of the main points will be to strive for recognition of the ENHR as an EU network of excellence in housing matters. This network would facilitate the exchange of best-practice experiences and the evaluation of the applicability of effective national housing policy instruments in other countries.

21

Workshop 01 History of Housing

Workshop summaries
The following sections describe the essential characteristics of individual workshop activities especially regarding topics treated and conclusions reached. They are based on papers actually presented and discussed.

3.1

Workshop 01 History of Housing Workshop co-ordinators: Claire Levy-Vroelant, Peter Malpass The newly established working group on History of Housing and Housing Policy met six times during the conference and discussed 14 papers related to eleven countries (Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Norway, Taiwan, Turkey, Scotland, Sweden, USA). An average of 12 to 15 people attended the sessions, and a maximum of four papers was presented at each session. Though papers covered a wide variety of issues and topics (some more deeply historical than others), a degree of coherence emerged from the discussion. There was general agreement about the fertility of the historical approach and its capacity to illuminate contemporary events and to distinguish between structural and conjectural factors. The group decided that its historical frame of reference should embrace the period ? from the early part of the nineteenth century. The following issues emerged from the discussions and merit further debate at subsequent meetings: tenure status (the beginnings of home ownership and various forms of transitory housing); the construction and reconstruction of housing policies; ideologies about housing (design, standards); long-term convergence/divergence in Europe and the notion of housing culture (on a national and sub-national scale; agency/structure; individual/collective; differential rates of change in different places and times).

A final evaluation/feedback discussion confirmed that members of the workshop thought that the sessions as a whole had been successful.

22

Workshop 02 Housing and Theory

3.2

Workshop 02 Housing and Theory Workshop co-ordinators: Craig Gurney, Chris Allen A total of 18 papers was presented during the workshop. One group dealt with new and traditional housing forms:

Contemporary gated communities may be seen as a modified concept of property where ownership rights are restricted by covenants as the price for a haven, separated from the threatening outside world (Blandy, Lister). The concept of an urban village has been implemented in a number of UK planning projects. Some case studies show the extent of materialization of this concept in the light of structuration theory (Franklin, Tait, Rowlands). Traditional three-generation co-housing in Taiwan not only provides the base for asset buildup by the younger generation and hence the means to enter the dominating owner-occupied sector but also acts as an instrument of intergenerational control (Hsu). A second group of papers focused on aspects of tenure:

On a general level, homeownership discourse is multi-faceted. Both pride and prejudice are attached to this tenure as cultures of housing consumption vary (Gurney). Sweden has been the forerunner in officially striving for tenure neutrality in housing policy. While the term is widely employed in literature, possible application in the Netherlands is discussed (Haffner). Past country-specific development may create path-dependent behaviour regarding preferred tenure by the state and by consumers (Lawson). Homeownership is not only the de-facto preferred tenure but also strongly related to social structure and ideology. Cultural singularities of Japanese homeownership are a case in point (Ronald). A third group centred around meaning and governance of and social processes and conflictive behaviour in housing estates:

Public housing may acquire specific meaning as a national asset when borderline dwellings are converted into fortresses in the context of the Israel/Palestine armed dispute (Kallus).

23

Workshop 02 Housing and Theory

Theoretical studies of social housing governance require understanding of the concepts of social capital, habitus, and governmentality (Flint, Rowlands). Space, residents, organizations, and politicians contribute to specific social processes characteristic for each housing estate (Bonetti). While the concept of anti-social behaviour itself is somewhat vague, measures against this behaviour are based on treatment and punitive models. Both may be inadequate/insufficient (Nixon). Two thematically related papers focused on housing poverty and access to housing rights:

If the traditional concept of housing poverty were replaced by the wider and more intractable one of capability poverty, housing policy instruments would require reassessment (Flood). Implementation of statutory housing rights is often difficult to achieve by tenants and homeless persons. Dispute resolution mechanisms outside the courts may prove insufficient (Hunter). Two other papers were related to general housing policy:

Social and economic trends have created ever-changing post-modern societies. Housing policy will have to adjust re-defining its aims and instruments (Clapham). While most European countries have developed comprehensive housing policies, learning from others is not very common. Cross-national policy learning seems dependent on often informal personal contact (Taylor). Finally, some papers dealt with more specific issues:

As an expression of globalization, international competition among cities has intensified. Economic activity not being place-dependent, deliberate place making is required in urban planning (Sluis). In spite of similar levels of affluence in Finland and the Netherlands, measurement of housing preferences in part follows different approaches. Both seem to be valid (Kersloot). Young elderly in Norway generally enjoy health and wealth. Residential mobility decisions are currently taken individually and independently from traditional customs (Ytrehus).

24

Workshop 03 Housing and Welfare Regimes

3.3

Workshop 03 Housing and Welfare Regimes Workshop co-ordinators: Robina Goodlad, Walter Matznetter The workshop focused on a group of 13 studies that dealt with various aspects of the relationship between housing and the welfare state. The four sessions dealt with the following issues: theories of the welfare state and housing; social cohesion and housing; the state, housing, and theories of change; the role of the state.

Two papers used Esping-Andersens typology of welfare regimes. While the first discussed housing allowances and renting in liberal welfare regimes such as Australia and the US (Kath Hulse), the second adapted this typology for the housing system in the Netherlands (Joris Hoekstra), concluding it is a mix of labour-led and modern corporatism. Mark Stephens considered the social rented sector in a number of European countries focusing on comparison between command and social market systems and wider welfare state provision of income support. Reforms of housing that do not take account of wider welfare provision risk failure. Mary Ann Stams examined the reluctant introduction of new public management reforms in Norway and their impact on housing subsidy. As with several other papers, the case of housing stood out from wider welfare state change. Karl Czasny introduced a European Union Fifth Framework project on housing and social cohesion. This involves researchers in Austria, Sweden, France, Spain, and the UK in exploring three issues: To what extent do housing systems alleviate or exacerbate poverty? To what extent do they provide for transformed family and demographic structures? To what extent does housing policy support social cohesion?

He outlined the research agenda and tests to be carried out and discussed the complex, multidimensional nature of the concept of social cohesion. Cecilia Enstrm and Lena Magnusson introduced the Swedish research agenda and provided early results showing income inequality and poverty growing. Discussion raised the issue of

25

Workshop 03 Housing and Welfare Regimes

whether social cohesion was a useful focus for research on housing and whether the source of funding obscured important issues and constrained the language, methods, and results. In a contrasting presentation, Dianne Sodhi showed how surveys into tenants attitudes in social rented housing failed to reflect the priority issues articulated by elderly tenants of sheltered housing in England. This raised wider issues about the value of qualitative research methods to complement the use of quantitative data in comparative research programmes such as the one on social cohesion. The third session was opened by Johannes Jger with a critical view on the cultural turn in housing research, implicit in the conference subject, pleading for a regulationist approach instead. Using the examples of Vienna and Santiago, changes in housing cultures are traced back to incremental changes from a Fordist to a Post-Fordist regime of accumulation, both in Austria and in Chile, though at a different pace. Robina Goodlad and Rowland Atkinson continued with a review of 20 years of Right to Buy in the UK and its current reforms in Northern Ireland and Scotland in particular. Amendments are due to conflicts with other goals of welfare state restructuring apart from privatization, i.e. fragmentation, decentralization, and individual rights. These contradictions materialize in the debate about whether and how RTB legislation should include the housing association sector. Bo Bengtssons paper brought the workshop back to institutionalist waters. In contrast to other forms of welfare provision, there is no single Nordic model, but five different housing regimes. He explained this divergence with the peculiarities of housing provision, its longevity, and the sacrosanct nature of property rights, making it particularly path-dependent. A comparative research project will shed new light on the historical development of national housing regimes, focusing on formative moments and critical junctures of housing policy. In the final workshop meeting, Harry van der Heijden and Gerard Heins discussed national and local developments in Dutch housing policy. The first presentation traced the development of social rented housing through stages of state withdrawal from ownership, funding, and regulation using Harloe and Kemenys theories to frame questions about the character of the social rented housing stock. There remains an unanswered question about whether it is being transformed into a residual safety net from its earlier role as a mass decommodified tenure. Gerard Heins showed how there was also uncertainty and contradiction in the role of the state at municipal level, demonstrated in the content of a set of local housing plans prepared by poorly resourced municipalities. Discussion raised the issue of the adequacy of the levers available to the state to influence housing conditions once it withdraws from direct provision or substantial subsidy for provision. This theme continued into the final presentation by

26

Workshop 04 Feminist Critique and Utopias

Richard Sendi who talked of the transition to enabling as the role of the state in Slovenia. Housing production processes were discussed using Ambroses model. Slovenias enabling housing system was shown to be failing to deliver housing, and the discussion focused on the absence of adequacy of institutional, legal, and other instruments of policy.

3.4

Workshop 04 Feminist Critique and Utopias Workshop co-ordinators: Elisabeth Aufhauser For the first time in ENHR history, one of the workshops centred on feminist interpretations of gender relations in housing. This focus proofed extremely useful to stimulate debates on topics traditionally excluded from mainstream housing discourse: the manifestation of the patriarchal system in housing; the encroachment of females housing careers by domestic violence; the relation of housing and sexuality; the importance of the gender division of labour in housing; feminist standards and claims to housing. Nearly 30 participants listened to eight stimulating papers leading to sometimes rather hot discussions on the following issues: In what sense does womens hidden and manifest homelessness in different countries reflect variations in the institutional characteristics of the social and housing system? Domestic violence is one of the main causes for female homelessness. What does the development of womens refugee homes from autonomous feminist institutions to a public provision imply? Legal and institutional constructions in housing are typically based on assumptions of heterosexuality. The construction of homelessness, for example, excludes Lesbians from the inclusion agenda of social housing policy. What does it mean if Lesbians, having to leave home due to prejudice and homophobia, are granted the right to normal public accommodation? Do they need specialized public accommodation? With the dissolution of traditional family ties, housing with elective affiliates is an attractive alternative. However, the realization of alternative/feminist housing projects is a rather time-consuming process. What about the exclusion of women with lower incomes and single parents from the projects? Do feminist Utopian perspectives generally concentrate too much on middle class women? How can we raise participation of migrant and/or working class women in urban quarter renewal processes, for example? How can we consider womens manifold everyday requirements in these renewal processes?

27

Workshop 05 Housing Economics

Female networking is extremely important for the empowerment of migrant women. How can we strengthen the networks of migrant women with, for example, a greater sensibility to cultural requirements in neighbourhood planning? In what sense and to what extent is the city a male concept, and how can we plan for more adequate spaces for women in the city? What are the options to realize multifunctionality in architecture? Should we focus on more flexibility for rooms or on more flexibility in property rights? Gender equality needs the breaking open of gender-specific partitions of space. How can architecture develop structures which allow for functional complexity and can produce (gender) heterogeneity? Gender divisions in care labour have not really changed within the last century. Does it really make sense to develop feminist plans for gender-integrative egalitarian housing? Or should we base our Utopian efforts on women support structures and concentrate on the development of separatist women spaces?

The participants agreed that the discussions started in Vienna should be continued. As a first step for future networking activities, a list with e-mail addresses was created. Contact: elisabeth.aufhauser@univie.ac.at

3.5

Workshop 05 Housing Economics Workshop co-ordinator: Edwin Deutsch This workshop was grouped around classic issues like market structures, house price formation, index measurement, and econometric analysis of price determination and policy impacts. The idea was also aimed at bringing together econometric methodology with papers that covered country studies in international comparison. The challenge was to see whether housing markets and stabilization policies in advanced economies may contrast with rising markets and promoting policies in emerging and transitional economies in order to possibly find some parallels in the assessment of factors and impacts where existent. From the point of view of methodology, it appeared highly interesting to follow the papers that shed light on some basic problems the economist has to tackle from the outset. What are prices, what are expenditures, what are costs? Statistical institutes around the globe collect numerous data where the very origin is sometimes hidden in complex collection procedures. The same or similar economic terms often refer to different concepts of measurement.

28

Workshop 05 Housing Economics

Fostering a shared understanding of what the notions really mean was one objective of the economics workshop. A considerable part of the workshop was therefore devoted to model building with subsequent econometric estimation. Several of the classic approaches of house price modelling have to be adapted to the specific environment from which the data are drawn. One line of modelling is the neoclassical approach which in spite of extensions like adjustment costs, adjustment speeds, and testing of restrictions and market failures implicitly assumes rational choice with suitable factor and residential mobility. Another line of thinking is a more evolutionary approach where the development of markets over time is considered as a stochastic process controlled by similarities or correspondences between the characteristics of agents and dwellings. The exciting and still open question is whether competing approaches may explain the same market phenomena from different angles, or if some approach is superior as the competing one cannot arrive at equivalent conclusions. On this route, several promising approaches including integrated stochastic processes over time, multidimensional choice over alternatives, and a variety of hedonic price models were presented. The model specification issue became evident with regard to the economic environment the papers pertained to describe. In most papers certain stylized facts and impacts known from the housing literature reappeared, but there were also several instances where predicted relations did not show up as expected. What are the reasons for unexpected results or for different outcomes of similar models? If we do not want to interpret it as a random outcome from data deficiencies or some undefined preferences there must be systematic reasons such as inertia in decision making, observable market failures, limited signal perception, or habitual behaviour in environments that restrict decisions of tenure, location, and move. In general, housing is more than shelter and location in the work neighbourhood. Among others, it includes the choice of a certain life style and a wealth formation plan. Tenure and mobility decisions are geared by a variety of factors that depend on the social and economic background. Seen from this angle, most papers appeared as case studies, regardless of advanced vs. developing countries. The challenge of the housing economics workshop was indeed to see different methods being applied to different environments and to stimulate discussion about proper data collection processes and modelling of housing market phenomena.

29

Workshop 06 Housing Finance

3.6

Workshop 06 Housing Finance Workshop co-ordinator: Judy Yates substituting for Christine Whitehead The papers presented were largely based on case studies from a range of countries (Australia, Denmark, England, Japan, Montenegro, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden). Few attempted to relate their experiences to other countries. Only two employed a comparative approach (between East and West and within Nordic countries), but these were too limited to a generally descriptive overview of instruments employed. One group of papers focused on issues within the finance sector such as the role and development of mortgage markets, factors affecting the regulation and provision of housing finance, and factors affecting access to finance. A second group dealt with fiscal and other instruments related to housing, as well as with direct (such as housing allowances) and indirect instruments (such as tax expenditures, planning obligations, and guarantees). Papers with a policy focus tended to be empirically based, relying on both primary and secondary data and on descriptions or econometric analyses of these data. A third group, employing formal theoretical approaches (usually relying on mathematical models) tended to focus more on explaining stylized facts. Because of the wide variety of issues explored, the range of approaches employed, and the number of different countries covered, there was little sense of common issues arising either from presentations or workshop discussion. Some attempt needs to be made to provide a more coherent focus for the workshop and to encourage greater interaction between the papers at future conferences. One suggestion was to work towards repeating the decade-old Diamond and Lea study examining the effectiveness of various housing finance and subsidy systems. A second was to identify common criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of policies to provide a focus for both empirical and theoretical papers. Two suggested possibilities are the role of finance and subsidy systems in affecting affordability for different age and income groups in different regions and tenures and the differences in these outcomes.

30

Workshop 07 Regulation and Information

3.7

Workshop 07 Regulation and Information Workshop co-ordinator: Xing Quan Zhang This workshop was grouped around some key themes such as government intervention, market efficiency and regulation, informational constraints, country case studies, and transitional economies. It was organized into five sessions to explore new concepts, strategies, and implications of government intervention; rent determination and control; housing affordability; relationship between housing market and other economic sectors; the role and use of information; the transitional features of housing markets in emerging and transitional economies.

Discussions on affordability and rent control concentrated on the need to redefine concepts, distinction of housing costs and expenditure, exploration of the relationship between household characteristics, and the patterns of over-consumption and under-consumption behaviour. Another interesting suggestion was to look at the implications of alternative choices (between new building or renovation) on rent simulation, as well as on developers behaviours. Presentations showed an over-promotion of public housing; particularly homeownership has a substitution effect on performance of private housing markets. The discussion on the restructuring of housing revealed that increasing ageing and decline of the overall population demand a provision of flexible housing types. However, housing diversity is more than just providing more types. It means making housing more adaptable to the changes of future needs. Presentations on transitional housing markets showed the irregularity and irrationality of housing practice. The existence of massive illegal construction and legalization of illegal actions reveal the inability of regulation and moral hazards in human behaviour, as well as an incredible tolerance as regards external bad housing conditions. This phenomenon well reflects the behavioural hypothesis that if the public owns nobody owns and if nobody owns nobody cares. Therefore, participants believe that an effective approach to housing solutions should include more private involvement, community involvement, as well as partnerships in provision and management. Participants also noted that government intervention often tackles one issue at a time and forgets another. It should take a more interrelational approach such as looking at the labour

31

Workshop 08 Provision and Construction

market and housing market together, for example. Information constraints affect the quality of intervention. How the government utilizes information also makes a great difference. In short, the variety of problems requires a variety of solutions. Flexibility and adaptability correspond better to ever-changing conditions

3.8

Workshop 08 Provision and Construction Workshop co-ordinator: Bengt Turner (sessions 1, 2, 3, 5), Ali Trel (sessions 4, 6) In Session 1, three papers were presented. The first paper discussed an Austrian housing project in the Gaza Strip and projects realized by the Johannesburg Housing Company. The second paper dealt with the massive housing provision and unauthorized construction in Istanbul leading to an excess of about one million dwelling units. The third paper summarized the results of a research project on economies of scale and economies of scope in diversified house building firms in Korea. In Session 2, the first paper dealt with the effects of government intervention in housing provision in Malaysia. The second paper explained the results of an econometric study focused on new building and refurbishment activities in Austria and focused on modelling the economic, financial and demographic factors influencing investor decisions and on estimating time spans between decisions and actual investments. In Session 3, the first paper concentrated on spatial variations in housing production in England by analyzing social sector completions as a proportion of total completions. The second paper dealt with demand and supply relationships in the owner-occupied sector in the Netherlands from 1965 to 2001. The third paper explored the factors that affect housing culture, using examples from Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. In Session 4, expectations from and reactions to the housing reform in China were discussed in the first paper. The second paper outlined how social housing provision is moving towards commodification in Taiwan with the withdrawal of the state. The third paper explained the results of a research project on home-based enterprises in India and Indonesia by showing their contribution to the eradication of poverty.

In Session 5, the first paper commented on the results of a research project aimed at testing new financial models through which resistance to pre-fabrication and standardization in

32

Workshop 09 Eastern European Housing

housing could be eased. The second paper summarized an evaluation study of the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit Programs that have been in place in the USA in the last 15 years.
In Session 6, two papers were presented. Both of these papers dealt with private rental housing, the first one in Australia, the other in Northern Ireland. It has been shown that the private rental housing sector operates under highly different conditions and regulatory systems in each country, which leads to different market outcomes. 3.9 Workshop 09 Eastern European Housing Workshop co-ordinator: Ivn Tosics The presentations and workshop discussions proved the earlier raised hypothesis: twelve years after the transition, huge differences have emerged among post-socialist countries, both regarding housing policies and urban development tendencies. This implies a strong diversification after the dissolution of the common East European model and very different patterns (housing systems with still significant vs. disappearing rental sector, urban development with moderate vs. substantial segregation and suburbanization, etc). Contrary to the final pattern, most changes in the institutional sphere and in the populations behaviour show some similarities: in most countries, the central government is reducing or even giving up its control over market processes (state-owned housing decreases everywhere, planning control is becoming looser); the population wants to adapt to the new situation as quickly and as easily as possible (most people would like to become owners, without, however, seriously assuming the cooperative behaviour necessary for multi-family buildings).

In the absence of a central government framework for housing and for urban development from above and in the absence of residential control from below, it is a common feature in East Central European countries that the chances of local governments are increasing to get into a key position, both regarding the housing sector and urban development. These chances, however, are very differently used in the individual countries (differences are large even among local governments of the same country), and there is still no stable division of tasks and responsibilities between the central and local governments achieved in most of these countries. It may be worth mentioning how different advices are given by different international donors, which leads to diverging patterns as regards the definition of the role of the public sector, for example.

33

Workshop 10 Migration and Residential Mobility

The tasks local governments should find solutions for taking into account the withdrawal of the central state are enormous, ranging from the problems of over-privatized multi-family housing stock (deteriorating multi-family housing stock owned by low-income families) to the increasing problems of deteriorating large housing estates. The task of local governments is further made difficult by the prevailing one-sided approach: problems are still confronted mostly from a technical and not from an economic or social point of view (lack of multidisciplinarity). Local governments tend to choose simple, one-dimensional solutions while the more complex models, e.g. the establishment of non-profit institutions, the inclusion of society, and partnerships with financing institutions and other private actors are usually missing. Twelve years after the transition, there is a clear and growing need for a re-definition and clarification of the role of the public sector in post-socialist societies. A new philosophy of the public sector should be established and implemented, which is not in contradiction to the dominance of private, market-oriented processes but provides the necessary guidance for these processes in order to ensure the indispensable dominance of the public interest against individual interests. To build up such a new role of the public sector cannot be the task of local governments alone: the central authorities must again assume more responsibilities, developing new national strategies and framework models, within which local governments can become more successful in their efforts to improve local conditions in partnership with the other actors and stakeholders.

3.10 Workshop 10 Migration and Residential Mobility Workshop co-ordinators: Lars-Erik Borgegaard, Sako Musterd Four sessions saw the presentation of twelve papers. In a longer time perspective, the issue of migration and residential mobility has gradually changed: A couple of years ago, the actual migration and residential mobility characteristics were more in focus. The emphasis has shifted to different aspects of social mobility and its consequences for different actors. There seems to be an increasing interest in normative/planning issues. Another change in interest is the variety of methods and different approaches. Today, both qualitative and quantitative approaches are accepted as equally valid, and multi-level analysis since long used by some disciplines has become more pronounced.

34

Workshop 11 Minority Ethnic Groups

A third point to be stressed is the format of the papers: an increasing part is almost ready for international journals.

The discussion in the workshop was lively. Most of the time was spent on methodological questions. The debate also focused on more international collaborative work since the trends in society and research agendas seem to be very similar. The suggestions raised and conclusions drawn from the session comprised the following issues: It would be of interest to set aside some time for discussion on research frontiers what is new in the field of migration, residential mobility, and housing? What will come up in the future? This approach might be pursued to allocate an introductory remark for a key note speaker in future workshops. When looking at the headlines and abstracts of the papers, there can be no doubt that old topics dressed in new buzz words gather a lot of attention. Therefore, it would be a good idea if the workshop organizers were able to have some influence on the allocation of papers in workshops. In some cases, the titles indicate allocations to other workshops than those the authors asked for.

3.11

Workshop 11 Minority Ethnic Groups Workshop co-ordinators: Ronald van Kempen, Sule zekren 14 high-quality papers were presented in this workshop by an interesting mixture of people: by well-established full professors and by young researchers, by men and by women, by people who had already presented papers in the workshop at other conferences and by newcomers. The papers also concerned a wide range of different countries such as Austria, Belgium, Canada, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America which indicates that the topic still attracts many researchers in many different settings. The papers presented dealt with the dynamics of spatial concentration and the housing careers of specific groups, interethnic relations, social cohesion, the role of public housing for ethnic minorities, the possible positive aspects of segregation, and new urbanism. They suggested a number of clear conclusions:

35

Workshop 11 Minority Ethnic Groups

A focus on dynamics. It seems that research into spatial distribution patterns of minority ethnic groups has passed the stage of only calculating indices of dissimilarity. Research concentrates more and more on processes behind changing spatial patterns. Investigations of housing conditions apparently make place for a more dynamic perspective: the emphasis is on housing careers. Minority ethnic groups still have problems to find suitable homes. A focus on discrimination. One of the principal driving forces in the field of housing and spatial segregation of minority ethnic groups is discrimination. Although it is sometimes very difficult to find out if discrimination plays a role, new methodologies (e.g. action research) seem to be able to explain daily practices. The relation with policy. More and more authors try to link their scientific work with policy and politics. On the one hand, this means that the effects of policies are analyzed, on the other, it means that clear advice for policy is given. Life in the neighbourhoods. This topic has been less well covered. But it is clear that a disproportionately large number of ethnic minorities still lives in deprived areas. The possible effects of this should be high on the research agenda. Ethnic voice. Attention is and should be given to the opinion of ethnic minorities and their own possibilities of changing their circumstances. Specific groups. It becomes increasingly clear that ethnic minorities are a very differentiated group. Although many researchers still talk about the Moroccans, the blacks, etc., the differentiation within these groups with respect to housing conditions, spatial segregation, and housing preferences is enormous. Research into these differentiations is sometimes difficult because of the lack of data. But it should be clear that research in this field is necessary, because only then too general conclusions and policy recommendations can be avoided.

The conclusion is simple: a lot of work still has to be done in regard to ethnic minorities on the one hand and their housing conditions and spatial patterns on the other.

3.12 Workshop 12 cancelled

36

Workshop 13 Housing Sustainability

3.13

Workshop 13 Housing Sustainability Workshop co-ordinator: Montserrat Pareja Eastaway This workshop dealt with 18 papers related to housing and urban sustainability. Research came from different disciplines such as architecture, building technology, urban planning, geography, economy, anthropology, sociology, and from different geographical contexts. This went to prove that sustainability is a broad topic, which allows different approaches and perspectives. Presentations ranged from a general and theoretical perspective to more specific aspects such as the question how sustainability can be measured or evaluated. Governance as a fourth pillar enhanced the well-known triangular approach economic, social/cultural, environmental to sustainability. Governance is important for cooperation, partnerships, and participation of different actors in the process of sustainable housing and urban development and for the process of formulation, implementation, and evaluation of housing and urban policies, instruments, programmes, and individual projects. Some other contexts explored included the following issues: Sustainability as a temporal feature: Usually, the concept of sustainability is associated to the future and worry about next generations. However, past (and present) actions determine what can be expected in the future. Todays acts influence tomorrows situation. Different perceptions of time may have various implications for sustainability as a policy discourse and raise the question of how much the sustainability discourse in itself may be seen as a by-product of relative affluence in post-industrial economies. Housing sustainability can better be understood as a process rather than as a static product. Sustainability as an example of cultural diversity: Inheritance, habits, and tradition, jointly with different ways of living, provide a social framework in regard to which sustainability should be analyzed. ENHR serves as a forum where universal and common standards proposed for improving sustainability can find grounding in the necessary cultural perspectives that will ensure a holistic approach. Sustainability as a research perspective in itself: Several traditional topics of housing research were analyzed under the sustainable approach, from indoor/outdoor behaviour to renewal of residential areas. When it comes to practice, sustainability becomes a research perspective or a normatively chosen background for research. Sustainability as a goal in public bodies action: Different agendas of several levels of government include sustainability as an instrument for achieving a better quality of life. Indicators for evaluation support greater sustainable knowledge from a global to a local scale

37

Workshop 14 Poverty neighbourhoods

and may also be used as tools in urban and housing development processes. In the discussion, some critical attitudes towards the discourse of sustainability were detected asking for a deeper compromise from policy-makers covering all areas including economy, which will ensure a sustainable path of growth. Sustainability as an empirical confluence of areas, processes, and actions: Nowadays, research on sustainability shifts from general considerations to particular processes defined by those three items.

The success of the discussions was primarily based in the recognition of other contributions complementary added value to ones own research perspectives and methods.

3.14

Workshop 14 Poverty neighbourhoods Workshop co-ordinator: Jrgen Friedrichs This workshop comprised seven sessions with a total of 25 papers. Attendance to the sessions varied between 30 and 40 participants (except for the two sessions on Homelessness which had 10 to 12). These figures indicate a strong and growing interest in the topic. A first set of papers pertained to living conditions in poverty and distressed neighbourhoods. They documented the internal heterogeneity of such areas, different mobility patterns, and coping strategies. The discussion focused on the differences in areas and the policy implications of the stated heterogeneity. A second set of papers addressed the question of poverty neighbourhoods context effect upon its residents. Although the evidence on such effects is mixed, most of the papers presented indicated such effects on deviant behaviour, e.g. by the share of residents receiving public assistance, by network size, and, to some extent, by time spent in the area. Effects seem to be non-linear and should be modelled by threshold models. Here, the discussion addressed measurement problems and differences in the findings. A third set of papers reported planning responses and programs for distressed areas from different countries. These papers raised a variety of comments with respect to positive effects of urban restructuring, as well as the share and relation of physical vs. social measures in such programs.

38

Workshop 15 Asset Management

A final set of papers concentrated upon the problems of homelessness. They documented a broad range of definitions of homelessness among highly and less developed countries, and, consequently, different policy approaches. Comments pertained to these definitions, a very successful program in Malaysia, and details of the transfer potential of programs from one country to another. Finally, participants agreed to cooperate more closely by an e-mail information network and to hold an intermediate conference on poverty areas in autumn 2003 in Cologne.

3.15

Workshop 15 Asset Management Workshop co-ordinators: Vincent Gruis, Nico Nieboer, Tim Brown Asset management is a relatively new topic in the social rented sector. In the past, social housing was mainly concerned with the development of new dwellings. Management of the existing stock consisted first of all in day-to-day maintenance and administration. Strategic decisions about investments in the housing stock were made mostly by governments, rather than by individual landlords. Now, as a result of changes in housing policies and markets, landlords throughout Europe and Australia are faced with the challenge to develop their own strategies. This well-structured workshop was attended by over 40 people participating in at least one session. The presented 18 papers concerned a variety of topics related to asset management, focusing for example on the consequences of housing policy for asset management, evaluation of practice, pricing of assets, and decision-support models. However, one handicap for the discussions to lead to more fundamental conclusions was the diversity of the papers. Although this partly reflects the variety of practice between and within countries, it also mirrors the broad interpretation of asset management in social housing. This has also been the case with housing management in the past (being at many times difficult to distinguish from housing policy). Therefore, one of the most important conclusions of the workshop was that a better-targeted research group that focuses on the way landlords make decisions about housing stock management and investments should be set up. This would contribute to filling the gap in international literature and also help to set off the working group more clearly against others. The co-ordinators will soon come up with a research proposal for this, and it is intended that the workshop will have a follow-up in Albania in 2003.

39

Workshop 16 Large Scale Housing Estates

3.16 Workshop 16 Large-Scale Housing Estates Workshop co-ordinator: Frank Wassenberg Unlike most others, this workshop started from an area point of view, not from a dimension like management, mixed communities, lifestyles, finance, or participation. Nevertheless, all these themes were part of the discussion that focused on the situation of large housing estates. Concentrating on the same geographical topic, this broad set of dimensions created a lively workshop with many stimulating discussions. In all countries, mass housing estates were built during the post-war decades and are not as popular any more as they once used to be. However, problems and images differ between countries like Norway and Japan on the one hand, and France, England, and the Netherlands on the other. We have to accept that those estates exist, that they are a major part of the present housing market, and that they will require major attention in the near future. Positions on local housing markets differ. In Belgium and Australia, for example, social housing, concentrated in large housing estates, forms a small part of the market. High demand makes people happy having a home in those countries, regardless of its type, location, and situation. In the Netherlands, Northern England, France, and Germany, people can be more critical, and some of the mass housing estates end up at the bottom, causing vacancies, high turnover rates, dissatisfaction, and a concentration of people without many chances in society. The workshop explored several policies of improvement. Measures can be oriented towards the dwellings (e.g. physical improvements, refurbishment, new construction). The discussion also touched the pros, cons, and conditions for the demolition of problem estates. Strategies can also be aimed at improving the surroundings, at tackling problems like safety, pollution, vandalism, and at amenities and accessibility. Another policy, pursued in Sweden and Britain, for example, is to strengthen the local community and to activate participation. How to involve people who spend their lives there? How to reach indifferent inhabitants? Is more engagement a means to prevent middle class leakage? Are there other, non-formal ways to enlarge civic engagement? And: to what extent can you expect inhabitants to spend so much time (and energy) to improve their living situation? Another approach is not to emphasize the poor area but the poor people inside. One of the lessons from the urban renewal policy of the 1970s and 1980s is that giving poor and

40

Workshop 17 Social Landlords

unemployed people a decent new or renovated home resulted in a new roof for the same people people still poor and unemployed. Some people suggest to just provide these people with (more) money. Social renewal programs focusing on education and job programs improve individual lives. As a consequence, the new middle class may still leave the area, making room for new poor people which does not improve the quality of the area in the end. Deprived areas and poverty concentrations often go together, one increasing the effects of the other. Focusing on physical improvements may result in a nice neighbourhood with still poor people, while focusing on poverty reduction may end up with individual improvements, but with the same deprived area, often a large scale housing area. No single solution can be the right policy. But how can an integrative approach be developed and implemented? The key question is to find the right balance between physical, social, cultural, and economical strategies a balance that certainly depends on the local situation.

3.17

Workshop 17 Social Landlords Workshop co-ordinators: David Mullins, Barbara Reid, Richard Walker In this workshop, 13 papers from 10 institutions covering 6 European countries and Australia were presented. There is substantial interest in the topic and in particular in developing a comparative basis for country studies on institutional and organizational change. The common issues that emerged from the presented papers included the continued growth of non-profit/non-state social landlord sectors; the diversification of social landlord roles; conflicts between central and local priorities and questions of agency, independence, and autonomy; some common regime drivers (management reforms) but variable institutional arrangements reflecting history, regulation, and culture; different approaches to regulation; the importance of values and potential conflicts with institutional structures (are emergency shelters, for example, an outcome of some grass roots solidarity movement or a product?).

During a final round table discussion, the following topics (excluding methodological issues) were dealt with:

41

Workshop 18 Housing and Health

the significance of historical developments and contexts for understanding country housing systems; the role of legal systems for understanding the definitions and functions of institutions (e.g. the distinction between public and private law); scope, nature, and approach to regulation as another key source of variation (permissive regulation as an alternative to high/low coercive regulation for encouraging innovation); the necessity of probing the question of non-profit/limited-profit definitions and evaluating their impact on rent levels and tenant interests; financial regimes and the role of private lenders and professions; the fact that institutional roles and expectations relate to power and that key power influences/change drivers often/usually exercise their impact outside the social housing field; the necessity of focusing on the drivers of institutional change and testing the frameworks in different regime contexts (e.g. Eastern European transition processes); the concern with organizational performance and the question whether management reforms deliver in practice; the interest in organizational restructuring, mergers, growth, shifting tenure roles, and the social landlords range of offers; the fact that a focus on managerial reform does not imply normative support for managerial vs. rights-based approaches; the significance of the influence of EU-level institutions such as CECODHAS in supporting common approaches.

3.18 Workshop 18 Housing and Health Workshop co-ordinators: Terry Hartig, Roderick Lawrence The Housing and Health Workshop included 10 papers. Each paper was briefly presented by its author. Then a discussant led the period assigned for questions and the discussion of each paper. The first paper, by James Dunn (Canada), titled Housing as a socio-economic determinant of health: towards a conceptual framework, provided a broad overview of the non-biological determinants of health. The author stressed that although the socio-economic gradient and health status have been studied for over 100 years in several countries, there is still too little information on how this gradient is related to housing conditions. The paper presented a rationale and framework that encompassed other contributions to the workshop.

42

Workshop 18 Housing and Health

The second paper, by Matthias Braubach (Germany), presented the rationale, methodology, and some results of a recently completed housing and health survey of residents living in slab buildings in three Eastern European cities Bratislava (Slovakia), Schwedt/Oder (Germany), and Vilnius (Lithuania). This research is part of an ongoing WHO project on housing and health in the European region. The third paper, by Roderick Lawrence (Switzerland), titled Do health and well-being play a role in residential mobility? included a review of studies of why households move. In general, health has not been explicitly considered as an important reason for residential mobility. In contrast, an empirical study with 200 households in a municipality in Geneva found that health was a much stronger motive than financial or functional reasons, such as local taxation, or travel to work. Emphasizing the importance of health and well-being in relation to the characteristics of residential environments, the discussion left no doubt about the need to reconsider studies of why households move. In his paper about Health and leisure activities in old age on the relation of health and indoor/outdoor leisure activities in old age in urban and rural areas, Frank Oswald (Germany) considered the impacts of contextual factors including mobility, leisure time activities, and independent household life on the health and well-being of the elderly. The paper identified key issues to an ageing population in the European region and implications on policy definition concerning social care and housing. Four of the five papers discussed on the second day of this workshop considered the impact of housing design on whether disabled people may live independently in their homes. These papers were presented by Robert Imrie (England), Frances Heywood (England), Jae-Soon Choi (Korea), and Guy Dewsbury (England). Initial layout and design features of housing units were considered, as were adaptations that residents make to better accommodate user requirements, such as ramps for wheelchair access, and uses of bathroom and kitchen equipment. Available and potential applications of information and communication technologies were discussed, and the adequacy of policy directives regarding construction regulations to improve physical access by the disabled to new housing evoked a lively exchange. The wide range of research methods represented in this set of papers included surveys of house builders, in-depth interviews with residents, and observations of changes to the fabric of rooms. The final paper on the second day of the workshop, by Lawrence Teeland (Sweden), considered the effects of medical and health care staff on the privacy of their patients who are treated using domiciliary care. This paper addressed issues concerning the trend in many countries to de-institutionalize treatment from medical institutions into homes instead of moving patients from their homes to institutions.

43

Workshop 19 Housing Lifestyles

The one paper on the last day of the workshop, The window view as a health resource in housing by Terry Hartig (Sweden), presented ongoing research about the capacity of residents to use views for restorative psychological processes that reduce stress and promote well-being. The final session of the workshop closed with a discussion about contents, structure, and scope of the papers, as well as future prospects for workshops sponsored by the Working Group on Housing and Health. There was strong agreement on retaining the structure of the workshop, with less time allocated for presentation by the authors of the respective papers (which had after all been distributed beforehand) and the main emphasis placed on discussion of the papers. Some participants emphasized the need for better links between this workshop and others held during the ENHR Conference. It was agreed that another workshop would be organized during the ENHR Conference to be held in July 2004.

3.19

Workshop 19 Housing Lifestyles Workshop co-ordinator: Jens S. Dangschat The 20 papers presented in this workshop centred on widely shared traditional housing cultures and more individualistic housing lifestyles. The largest group of papers dealt with the interdependency of culture and housing:

Culturally defined design of architecture and/or furniture was described for a number of countries: the use of space and furniture in Anatolia (Asatekin), aesthetics of Austrian residential furniture (Russo), mantelpiece displays in and front regions of British homes (Didau, Ozaki), self-help housing initiatives based on the micro brigade experience in Cuba (Anderson, Escobar), three-generation housing in Korea (Choi), and the selection of building materials and housing designs in Nigeria (Asenime). An approach towards adequate cultural housing indicators was shown for Iran (Azizi). Variations in urban patterns in European settlements according to religion (collectivity and density vs. individualism and autonomy) were described by Fiedler. The second group of papers referred to lifestyles as the basis for housing-related decisions:

Individually chosen lifestyles (as opposed to a society-defined general culture) are clearly reflected in residential preferences (r). Particular age groups, like young adolescents in

44

Workshop 20 Urban Renewal

Vienna (Mayer) or young adults in the Netherlands (Mulder), often manifest specific preferences. Lifestyle-related housing choice, of course, also refers to tenure, in particular to owner-occupied homes (Gram-Hanssen, Beck-Danielsen). How housing preferences expressed by different social groups (long-time low-income residents, immigrants) affect the restructuring of urban centres in the face of potential gentrification was shown for Barcelona (Pareja, Tapada). A third group of papers described some problematic aspects in different housing sectors:

Examples of informal community network control of relations between and access to neighbourhoods of contrasting social levels in Scotland were presented by Atkinson. Conditions of squalor and self-neglect are perceived differently by occupants and by social agencies (Barclay, Anderson, Lauder). In spite of enjoying certain housing rights, elderly tenants in the English private rental sector are often exposed to harassment (Carlton). In Britain, young homeless persons (because of domestic violence, etc.) are confronted with particular difficulties when they look for a rental apartment (Smith). Finally, two papers described market-related facets of housing cultures:

Strategic marketing of housing comprises symbolic representation of architecture, environment, and amenities aimed at a specific target population (Malcata). Television publicity particularly relies on conveying images of value and lifestyle (Tekkaya).

3.20

Workshop 20 Urban Renewal Workshop co-ordinator: Andr Thomsen The nine papers submitted to this workshop were dedicated to roughly two sub-themes: policy and programs on the one hand and evaluation and comparative studies on the other. Two papers of the first sub-theme related to transitional housing systems and markets (Albania, Eastern Germany), both offering fruitful starting points for cautious interventions instead of rude replacement, whereas two others discussed urban renewal strategies in developed Scandinavian settings.

45

Workshop 20 Urban Renewal

Linking policy and effect evaluation, one of the papers of the second sub-theme discussed the appalling outcome of a review of the 1990s Beijing Housing Redevelopment Program, whereas two others provided practical and methodical insight in different renovation projects. Two related papers about the need for, and best practice evaluation of, renovation-based approaches linked the paper discussions to a more general discourse regarding the main results of the workshop and joint working group plans. Some main results to be mentioned include the following issues: Gentrification should not always be considered to be an unwanted negative effect but also a welcomed and sometimes necessary strategy to reverse a declining market position and to provide a social economic re-differentiation on the demand side and of investment recourses for improvement of the neighbourhood, provided that the existing residents still have a choice. The latter condition is essential though most difficult in transitional markets. Offering better and more sustainable opportunities for neighbourhood renewal, cautious interventions are to be preferred to rude replacement. This implicates the need for renovation-based approaches using resident involvement and self-support. Policy-effect survey and best-practice evaluation are essential, not only for knowledge achievement, exchange, and dissemination, but first of all for democratic control, even or especially in case of intended neglect of residents interests. What is best can be questionable. Bad or worse practice sometimes also provides an opportunity to better understand effects and underlying processes. There is a broad need for more practice and practitioner-directed knowledge exchange on urban and neighbourhood renewal. Both the participants of the workshop and of the parallel workshop Innovative Area Renewal in Europe on July 2 2002 (City of Vienna and SRZ) expressed the intention to cooperate on joint comparative best-practice research and to use the working group as a hub for exchange.

46