Housing in the red city: an analysis of social housing in Vienna
Named for the communist philosopher, the Karl-Marx-Hof is a 1.2-kilometre-long social housing complex situated in the north end of Vienna. Designed by Karl Ehn and finished in 1930, the Karl-Marx-Hof has 1 382 apartments, two kindergartens, a dental clinic, a post office, a health clinic, and a variety of worker-owned cooperatives for residents to shop from. Much like Vienna itself, the Karl-Marx-Hof has had a long and storied history. Constructed during a period known as ‘Red Vienna,’ bombed by fascists in the thirties, and eventually reconstructed after the Second World War, the Karl-Marx-Hof stands as a legacy to the innovative and expansive social housing program Vienna undertook in the early twentieth century and continues to this day. Despite difficulties and setbacks faced throughout Vienna’s history, the tradition of social housing in Vienna continues to succeed and provide immense benefits to its citizens.
During the First World War, Vienna’s housing market was destroyed. Following the war, a surge of young families entered the already hot housing market. People lived in privately owned, tightly packed, expensive, decrepit tenements known colloquially as ‘rental barracks’. Tensions among the working class — most commonly aligned with the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Austria (SDPAO) — and the wealthy — mostly supporting the Christian Social Party — were growing. In Vienna, a city with a large working-class population and a hub for intellectuals, the SDPAO quickly rose to power after the First World War and secured a majority on the city council. The SDPAO was motivated to fix the growing inequality within the city and the low standard of living.
Among the SPDAO’s intelligentsia, debate raged over what form new housing should take: settlements or superblocks? The settlement faction argued for low-density, self-sufficient, often self-built housing on the outskirts of Vienna. Proponents argued that this would allow citizens to grow their food (a concern after the food shortages of WWI), to have control over the design of their homes, and to get away from the density of the city. On the other side of the debate were architects like Karl Ehn and students of the Otto Wagner school of thought who were in favour of superblocks. Superblocks were proposed to be massive high-density housing complexes designed to keep people in the city and close to services while also creating communal green areas within the city itself. The superblock faction eventually won and in 1922 Vienna began construction on a much larger scale than ever seen before in the city.
In 1922 Vienna became a federal state allowing it a range of new powers, including the right to impose taxes. The following year, the city of Vienna imposed the Wohnbausteuer tax. Apartments were taxed based on their layout and size; the smaller the apartment the smaller the tax, in some cases paying almost no tax. Larger apartments, such as an eight-room apartment, would generate extraordinarily high taxes. Breitner tax had a series of taxes on luxury goods such as cars, horses, and domestic staff. These controversial taxes were put directly towards the construction of the housing superblocks. As construction began critics from the wealthy and more conservative elements of the city began to see these taxes and the superblocks as an active show of force by the SPDAO. The superblocks in many ways resembled fortresses with their large size and often imposing shape, and many were near strategic locations close to railways and near the downtown area. Soon rumours began to spread that they were hives of socialism (partially true) and had secret stockpiles of weapons (completely untrue). To remind the newly housed people where their homes had come from, the entrance of every superblock had a plaque stating that this superblock was ‘Built from the proceeds of the housing construction tax’. From 1919 to 1924 the city constructed 7 529 apartments, by 1927 32 000 apartments had been constructed.
An increasingly hostile bourgeois class and the federal government began to notice Vienna and the growing socialist influence and with the help of the League of Nations, the federal government curtailed Vienna’s tax sovereignty in an attempt to slow construction by forcing the city to raise revenues. On March 4th, 1933, the Christian Social Party, the ruling party at the time, suspended the Austrian parliament. The parliament was declared as non-functioning, and under emergency laws put in place in 1917, the Christian Social Party ruled without checks on their power.
On February 12 a unit of the Heimwehr, a right-wing paramilitary force aligned with the Social Party, forced its way into an SPDAO owned property in Vienna and attempted to conduct a search. A member of the SPDAO paramilitary force the Republikanischer Schutzbund resisted. Soon after gunshots were heard and armed conflict spread throughout the city, and on a smaller scale throughout the country. Paramilitary forces from the left took up positions in the social housing units, with a large number in the Karl-Marx-Hof. Right-wing forces fortified outside the complex. After an exchange of gunfire, the Austrian army entered the city and was ordered to shell the Karl-Marx-Hof. The shelling forced the socialists to surrender, and on the 13th of February, the fighting ended with mass arrests of socialists and the outlawing of the socialist party and its union wing. The Karl-Marx-Hof had sustained damage, but it still stood.
Vienna is a city of social housing. One in four residents of Vienna live in city-owned social housing, another twenty percent live in low-profit housing associations. Seventeen percent of the city lives in subsidized housing reserved for low-income or disadvantaged persons within commercial housing complexes. Rental units that do not fall into these two categories have strict regulations, controlling how often rent can be raised and by how much. Housing in Vienna started as a way to house the poor and working-class, but it has evolved into a comprehensive housing strategy that encompasses everyone. The quality of housing in Vienna is also very high, and the city itself is considered one of the most livable according to numerous surveys. From the very start, the socialist policies of the SDPAO in Red Vienna worked to quickly ameliorate the living conditions of Vienna.
When the Red Vienna period began living conditions were poor. As stated earlier many lived in cramped, dark, and poor-quality rental barracks. The SPDAO worked quickly to fix this by building thousands of high quality housing units in a short period of time competing with the existing rental barracks. The units were small in size, but this was offset by the communal spaces accessible to the residents of the superblocks. Nurseries and kindergartens were set up so parents could leave their children in care while at work, and as a way to improve the quality of education. Communal gardens and kitchens provided food and modern amenities many were not accustomed to. Laundry rooms were electric and well equipped. Some of the superblocks had cinemas, libraries, or playgrounds for the children. Light and fresh air were also of importance to the architects with ample windows and ventilation built to allow light and fresh air. The rate of homelessness went down, the quality of life went up, and the overall prices of rent went down in a spillover effect.
Despite the struggles of the Austrofascist and Nazi regime, after WWII the SPDAO once again took Austria democratically and continued their policies of social housing into the 21st century. Vienna is one of the last unitary housing markets and is unique in Europe with the most social housing of any city, and per capita is second only to the country of the Netherlands. The social housing program has been an overwhelming success. Working in tandem with the private sector since 2012, Vienna has begun a new strategy of subsidizing the construction of private apartment complexes as long as the developers follow a variety of social criteria. These include limited profit margins, or ensuring that one-third of the apartments built are SMART housing, smaller in size and means-tested for low-income persons.
Housing in Vienna is relatively inexpensive when compared to most European and North American cities, the average Viennese person pays twenty-one to twenty-three percent of their income on rent. The buildings are also environmentally designed, each superblock is centred around a green area or park, the homes are energy-efficient, and they are located near public transit routes.
To this day, the Karl-Marx-Hof is still inhabited, it serves as the home for over a thousand people and has been refurbished multiple times throughout the past forty years. It serves as a prime example of the philosophy of social housing in Vienna and of the SPDAO, and its achievements throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. From the very beginning, Red Vienna was a socialist city, and its housing program would be too. The Karl-Marx-Hof is, of course, named for the father of Marxism, Karl Marx. This name is not unique in Vienna though. In another part of the city stands the Freidrich-Engles-Hof, the Victor-Adler-Hof named after an Austrian social democrat politician, anti-fascist and Catholic saint Sister Maria Restituta has a housing complex named after her. The names of the housing units reflect a distinct aspect of the Viennese housing program, its distinctly socialist background. But the socialist philosophy goes beyond names, it is fundamental to the very architecture of the city. Debate raged among architects and Austro-Marxist theorists on how these new housing units should be built, questions were raised such as what exactly does proletarian architecture look like. To some, it was a rejection of the bourgeois decadence of architecture past and a return to utility, to others though a proletariat architecture was an acceptance of both form and utility- buildings that were both useful and beautiful. Beautiful buildings, green areas, pools, but able to house thousands. That was the philosophy that the SPDAO eventually adopted. This philosophy continues.
The SPDAO federally has slowly become more and more centrist in its ideology, though remaining a social democratic party with a strong left-wing faction it has become increasingly more moderate. The Viennese SPDAO on the other hand is one of the most radical branches of the SPDAO in Austria. This radical nature has drawn the ire of the Austrian government led by the OVP (Austrian People’s Party) a liberal-conservative Christian Party. The OVP has worked to repeal some tenant protections and in 2001 was able to do so, hurting Vienna’s housing program and creating a system where some apartments in the same building were subject to different rent laws. Despite the difficulties faced and the hostility from the Federal Government in some cases, Vienna has continued to build upon and rely on its history of socialism and its tradition of social housing.
The SPDAO has built a unique city, unlike anything that currently exists elsewhere. Over 500 000 Viennese people live in public housing and enjoy the amenities that come with it. Housing in Vienna is not a commodity, in many ways, it is a right that the municipal government strives to ensure for all of its people. It has not been a project without its hardships and violence. But much like the Karl-Marx-Hof, it recovered and has gone on to continue to serve thousands. By relying on their history and traditions the modern SPDAO is able to continue to build upon and innovate while keeping true to the core of their ideals, a city with housing for all. In many ways, the Karl-Marx-Hof is a symbol of this, built during the Red Vienna period, the site of a battle between fascists and socialists, and later restored. Red Vienna may no longer be quite as red as before, the federal government and international economic order have reigned it in somewhat, but it is a shining example of what cities can be. Places designed for people, with green spaces, ample housing, social services, and public transport. Despite the difficulties, the violence, and the hardships, the tradition of social housing in Vienna continues to this day as a highly successful program.
