Present and future outlook for large housing estates

Thomas Knorr-Siedow 

Large pre-fabricated housing estates built using industrial construction methods according to Henry Ford's principles of rationalization and mass production are to be found everywhere in the developed world and increasingly in the dynamically developing societies of what has been known as the 'Third World'. However, the meaning of such estates as 'habitat' varies considerably despite often strikingly similar external appearances. In many western countries they form a relatively small, but in some ways problematic sector of a differentiated housing scene which also includes renovated older neighborhoods and a sector of single family homes which has been expanded over the last decades. Since the large housing projects of the 1960s and 70s have been determined to be one of the weaker strategies for providing housing, in the West such projects ceased to be planned as part of urban development schemes as of the 1980s. 

On the other hand, the large housing estates which were developed during the era of 'State Socialism' in central and eastern Europe form the largest proportion of homogeneous 'modern' dwellings in these countries. These mass housing areas are only now beginning to emerge as problematic. In view of their sheer number, they will inevitably remain an extremely important part of the housing stock in these parts of Europe for decades to come. With the exception of a few countries of the former Soviet Union (now CIS), hardly any large housing estates are being built today. Still, maintaining and improving these huge stocks of dwellings represents an enormous task for central and eastern European countries. 

1. The western world

Although the concept of large housing estates was first developed in modernist planning offices as early as the 1930s, it was only from the 1950s until the end of the 1970s that they were actually constructed in large numbers, in North America and western Europe. In the face of war damage, rapidly growing population levels and increasing urbanization, mass production of standard units seemed indispensable in meeting housing needs. Large estates seemed to offer superior physical housing conditions for the first time to major sections of the population: adequate sanitary provision, central heating and suitably-sized flats which were light and airy with large green parkland areas between blocks. These new housing areas were often built outside the traditional urban areas of towns. They were intentionally isolated from other urban activities, promising to be socially integrated residential areas in which a newly emerging middle-class society would do away with old patterns of social segregation and conflict. 

The quantity of large housing estates in different regions of northern America and western Europe varies. Whereas only about 5 - 7% of national housing stocks are typically found in large housing estates of over 2,500 dwellings, in some densely populated areas, for example in old industrial areas now experiencing severe pressure to modernize as in the Ruhr in Germany or in northern France, over 20% of the population is dependent on this type of housing. Less than 10% of large housing estates comprise more than 10,000 dwellings. In western Europe today a total of around 6 million people live in approximately 1.8 million flats of this nature. 

These large estates thus represent a relatively small, but important segment of the housing supply in terms of regional development, especially for non-privileged sections of the population. It is nevertheless such a significant element that any problems arising in the areas (e.g. the 'Banlieus' of Paris or Lyon; the Large Estates in London, or 'Trabanten' (satellite) towns such as Chorweiler in Cologne), can easily affect the social situation of a whole region. 

After a short period of euphoria in the 1960s, some negative aspects of this form of housing became clear: 

• Physical and ecological problems: their monotonous appearance, the sacrifice of the variety of traditional urban activities, the incursion into green belt areas and high auto dependency, the use of polluting and non-durable building materials, problems with maintenance, premature decay of buildings after only a short period of time: all this lead to doubts arising as to the beneficial effects of this 'great leap forward'.
• Economic and housing finance problems: in spite of high levels of subsidies which were made available for this form of housing, high construction costs led to high rents compared with other sectors of the market. The design of the buildings lead to tenants incurring high maintenance costs. In a varied housing market this meant that by the end of the 1970s often only poor and/or ethnic minority tenants were willing to and/or had to live in such dwellings, while the middle classes left this type of accommodation. Insensitive allocation policies, adopted to prevent too many flats from remaining empty, made the segregation problems which had started to develop in these areas worse. As a result, the original social objective for these areas, i.e. that they would be home to a healthy social mix of tenants in both white and blue-collar occupations, was lost sight of or never attained.
• Social problems: partly as a result of these problems, but also due to transition problems, as inner city inhabitants moving out to the new estates lost old social networks, inhabitants and local authorities often found it hard to build up stable communities from scratch. This became a permanent problem for the estates which, contrary to the original social objective, have become shelter to an economically inactive sub-class. In addition, in areas where large numbers of ethnic minority households were concentrated, stability was hard to achieve due to a rapid turnover of tenants. Even when strong minority cultures developed, social problems have been aggravated by the residents' cultural and social segregation from the wider community.
• Image problems: concentration of social problems in these areas, particularly since the 1970s, often led to this type of housing acquiring a very negative image amongst the general population. This was compounded by the public ambivalence towards such forms of housing which began to gain ground from the early 1970s.

All these factors have led to a fast and in many cases lasting differentiation between housing areas, in a broad spectrum ranging from attractive newly built districts to socially disadvantaged large housing estates which impart a social stigma to residents. While many residential areas - especially in the inner city or those well integrated in the urban fabric - have made their mark and become attractive places to live, many other areas have for several decades been made the object of various publicly subsidized improvement schemes. Similar schemes are to be found currently or in the past in all western countries. 

Rehabilitation schemes are most likely to prove effective when they are begun at an early enough stage. Once problems have really taken root a great deal of effort is needed to combat the negative spiral of neglect, loss of confidence on the part of residents and further deterioration in the estate's bad image. Experience has shown that only integrated action, comprising modernization of buildings, taking account of the needs of residents and the social and economic conditions of the surrounding community, can restore a positive image, and support social and cultural integration as well as permanent and sustainable improvement in the housing provision situation. 

Improvement strategies in western Europe have changed accordingly. After a phase of technical renewal during the 1980s, now other goals and objectives are being valued: 

• Planning for the transformation of these housing projects into integral parts of the city or indeed into complete urban districts in their own right, where residents can become involved in the social, economic and cultural activities of the local community (e.g. the "Counsel Process" - a system of local mediation for the Märkisches Viertel in Berlin) GO BOX1)).
• Discussion-oriented planning,the involvement of citizens in the management of their neighborhoods, the development of local democracy, (e.g. Hellersdorf in Berlin, Gorbitz in Dresden); encouragement of self-help projects in construction, social and economic spheres (e.g. North Rhine- Westphalia: Forum for Urban Areas with Special Needs for Renewal); strengthened social control strategies (e.g. Bijlmermeer) GO BOX2) .
• Fundamental changes in neighborhood uses and activities, new life-styles reflecting varying and changing local cultures, new organization and development of identifiable neighborhoods, a service-oriented and innovative resource management (e.g. Castle Vale in Birmingham); integration of work places and breaking up of the monotony through more heterogenous forms of building, i.e. "Hetero-topy", (e.g. in Hellersdorf and Stockholm), also combined with demolition of especially problematic buildings (Castle Vale in Birmingham) GO BOX3); Amsterdam, Bijlmermeer). Last but not least, qualitative ecological improvements, all of which led to more sustainable residential uses and qualities (e.g. Hellersdorf, Gorbitz) GO BOX4)).
• Changes in ownership forms by encouraging owner-occupation and creation of new resident-oriented housing associations and cooperatives, (e.g. Berlin, Great Britain).
• Abandoning dependency on publicly-financed and administered piecemeal actions in favour of public/private partnerships, (e.g. the French programme for the "Grandes Ensembles" and "Quartiers en Crise") which bring together local government officials, residents, investors and representatives of local business, and which are able to give special consideration to needs for education and job training as well as measures to improve the situation of women and children in these areas.

Thus planning for large estates after the mid 1980s went beyond building and urban design and reached far into community development as well as into economic strategies to combat social exclusion. In a compensatory approach attention was given to topics which had been neglected in the original version of 'modern' community development: informal neighbourhood structures, work places within the local area including the informal sector, jobs, educational qualifications and training to take one's place in the modern world of work and/or society through citizens' social and political activity. As a result of remediation the situation in many problematic housing areas has already improved to an extent that no further public programs are needed. Day by day, praxis in the former West German states, in the Netherlands, Denmark or Great Britain shows that the situation in problematic housing estates can be improved given the following conditions. 

• they acquire a differentiated, user oriented role in the housing market and their existing advantages are built up and extended;
• they become flexible and attractive housing units as the positive aspects of the dwellings are targeted at the right group of prospective tenants
• they are seen as functioning social, economic, cultural and built environments and appropriately integrated with other forms of housing.

2. The quality and quantity of new large housing estates in central and eastern Europe

In central and eastern Europe today, large housing estates are the most important part of the housing stock, and by no means a peripheral phenomenon. Between the River Elbe and Vladivostock there were, as of 1990, in the region of 53 million new flats located on large housing estates of more than 2,500 dwellings, in which about 170 million people live. Excluding the countries of the former Soviet Union, of this number around 11 million dwellings were built in eastern and central Europe and are now home to approx. 34 million people. Housing literally for the 'masses' (as compared to publicly-subsidized or "social" housing in the western world) was developed in part due to the more extensive destruction caused by the Second World War as well as to cope with rapidly growing population levels, industrialization, dramatic regional restructuring projects, combined with the desire to do better than traditional housing - with the resulting neglect of old, historic inner-city areas which lost their attraction. The new dwellings were regarded as a sound, well-equipped "privilege for the man in the street". They were however, also areas where the educated or qualified senior personnel were happy to live. Thus, the level of social integration was, and still is, high. 

These housing estates are usually much bigger than in western Europe, often providing more than 30,000 dwellings for up to 500,000 inhabitants. While the flats themselves were often small (e.g. in Poland), the standard of social and cultural infrastructure (schools, programs for youth, cultural centers and clubs) was usually very good and most areas were built with good connections via public transport to workplaces and city centers. Despite some similarities found in all housing projects in the former state socialist countries between 1960 and 1990, the qualities of the buildings and construction standards vary greatly. In the 1960s and 1970s some large housing estates of 'world-class standard' were constructed, for instance in the Polish city of Lublin, and in Budapest. However, growing pressures of rationalization and economically forced cost-cutting from the 1980s onwards reduced the quality of construction and urban design and meant a neglect of building maintenance. 

Table 1: Estimated proportion of dwellings in central and eastern Europe located in large housing estates (in %; Source IRS studies)

This is therefore the current picture: decaying dwellings in neglected urban areas which includes much of the old centers as well as many of the new estates; problems caused by the use of polluting and dangerous building materials (e.g. asbestos), a complete absence of energy efficient technologies, and wasteful water management systems spring immediately to mind. Although, as in the west, many housing estates even today have a relatively high social status, mismanaged housing estates with millions of neglected, run-down flats is a clear, if unforeseen result of past planning policies and a burdening legacy passed on from this period. 

Only very recently have some of these mass housing projects become threatened with social stigmatization. With dramatic political and economic changes, a deindustrialization, rapidly increasing unemployment levels as well as a (re)discovery of the attractive quality of life in inner-city areas and the tendency of the better-off to move to the suburbs, the danger of social segregation and a poorer quality of life developing in these large housing estates is becoming ever more likely. These processes, which may lead to a devaluation of the housing projects, are taking shape only slowly, mainly because of the general slow pace of economic development. However, if these processes were to speed up, there is a great danger that many of these physically and socially-neglected areas will become potential areas of significant conflict with unimaginable consequences. Differently than in western Europe, about one third of the flats in eastern and central Europe are found in these large housing estates, and in some industrial centers this percentage rises to well above half of all apartments. Already, forewarnings of the negative tendencies of social, economic, and ethnic segregation are beginning to show. Many apartment buildings no longer have the connections to the former large industrial complexes which they were built for, and the situation of Gypsy and Roma groups, and of ethnic Russians in the countries of the former Soviet Union is troubling. 

There are also signs that there is a developing differentiation of housing values and prices which benefits certain housing projects at the expense of others. There is an increasing shifting of populations in some estates and many are complaining about the extreme social situations emerging. Strategies for the further development and renewal of these large housing estates are urgently needed! 

New objectives for housing policies were adopted from 1990 onwards in all former state socialist countries. The aims were diversification of the housing market in as short a period of time as possible, withdrawal by the state from ownership of housing and reduction of housing subsidies. While in the new Federal states (Länder) of Germany financial means were available both for new building alongside further improvement of existing dwellings, other countries of the former 'East' had to prioritize their actions: 

• support for private, newly-built small housing estates with individual family houses and other small developments for owner-occupiers;

• support for the recovery of valuable historic inner-city areas as an asset.

• rapid development of urban centers as economically viable service-oriented centers.

Large housing estates were able to survive for some time as (as yet) relatively unproblematic, easily-accessible, low-demand housing while a more liberal housing market was coming into being, because of the limited availability of public funding. But increasing community ownership (e.g. in the Czech Republic, or Poland) or rapid privatization of state-owned flats (e.g. Hungary, or Russia), often without stable, resident-oriented management policies, will lead to further acceleration of diversification. In Poland and Hungary for example, this process of market differentiation had already begun in the early 1980's through the introduction of local housing associations and it is now gaining pace everywhere. 

Up to now, urban planners have tended to pay little attention to large housing areas and regard them as an undesired legacy of the past. The few concepts and development plans that are known to exist as part of area-based strategies to transform the estates into urban districts (e.g. Budapest, and Prague) are now juxtaposed to currently developing situations such as: 

• the development of small infill sites for the creation of small-scale developments which incorporate family housing and make use of existing infrastructure;
• the setting-up of small scale commercial areas in under-used industrial or commercial centers and in private dwellings, through the development of the formal and informal local economy.
• the building of commercial centers in very large, densely-populated housing estates in co-operation with or in addition to, international investors.

But today's investments in these housing areas are mostly restricted to the most urgent problems. To keep the strangling operation costs bearable if not low, most central and eastern European countries and many local authorities have seen the investment in energy saving technologies as the one priority in housing development, which is targeted primarily toward the large estates. 

Strategies which are targeted at community organization, the easing of social conflict and the support for local economic development have hardly started and are usually a part of communal problem-solving strategies in social and community work which is not understood to be integral to urban development. They rather are meant to be solutions for phenomena of a period of transition than a part of the long process of local democratization and a response to the change of society away from state provision to a self regulating active society. Often social work in the estates is even despised as hindering the way towards a differentiated and individualized society. 

3. The 'new German states' and East Berlin as 'special areas': a potential 'vanguard' in the improvement and renewal of large housing estates

East German, central and eastern European large housing estates, despite all the differences of their development since 1990, still have many structural similarities, for example: 

• The construction methods of the buildings themselves and the layouts of the housing complexes
• The initial social contexts
• The degree and scope of change in the situations

There is a high probability that similar processes will be developing in the various countries in the east. Significant differences expected among those countries wishing to become EU members are in terms of the pace of change and the rate of new developments. 

With respect to the transferability of solutions, or in view of a possible cooperative effort in the development and realization of strategies, the following aspects are of significance: 

• The experiences of the new German states, which despite their stark differences in economic potential, are of special relevance to the development of the central and eastern European large housing estates. Of particular interest will be their use as a kind of "control mirror" with which various development strategies can be evaluated and uneconomical or badly planned and thought-out strategies can be avoided. Berlin, having experiences in the relatively comfortable situation of the western estates, is now confronted with the need for rapid integration of the eastern estates, housing almost half of the population. This could be taken as a model situation. Especially the technical solutions in preserving (and salvaging) the values of the built _funds" and the socially integrating methods of people's involvement could be of interest. But of course, as always in communication, Berlin could also learn from the cost effective piecemeal approaches of some of the eastern cities. Lublin in Poland could develop as such a learning ground.
• But in order to achieve safe and long-lasting improvement strategies, those EU states which for decades have had huge problematic housing estates (without the specific requirements imposed by the west German housing market) and which have tried varied strategies for improvement should be taken into account. Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark have all carried out far-reaching improvement projects which have also brought overall benefits to the surrounding communities.
• When seen in relation to the social and economic crises that are taking place in some regions of Germany, particularly - but by far not only - in the east of the country, a look at the informal strategies for improvements in living-standards and for social and economic development of the central and eastern European large housing estates can be of relevance to what is happening in the new German states.
• In any meaningful, mutual learning-process, Berlin, with its overall planning and social- scientific research expertise, as well as its experience as a trading partner in the former East, can be an important mediator in dealing (and trading) with Eastern Europe.

4. Technical environmental renewal

Technical environmental renewal of the large housing estates plays a key role as a part of an integrated planning approach. This serves to ensure that these housing areas are: 

• technologically fit for the future
• economically sustainable

This kind of environmental rehabilitation can also be a starting-point for a holistic view of the interdependence between the development of buildings and social forms, for example through the educational effects of user-oriented practices such as recycling and composting, individual regulation of heating systems, and the creation of new green and garden areas. 

In Germany, quite high basic standards for insulation, water management and the use of building materials exist, as the obvious results of various improvement schemes demonstrate. In central and eastern Europe the use of such basic minimum standards should also be encouraged, especially in times of financial hardship, because they will lead to: 

• Favorable long-term economic conditions, allowing further improvement schemes through cost reduction and the re-investment of tenants' and owner- occupiers' savings.

• The trust of the residents of the dwellings, leading to long-lasting improvement measures.

• The take-over of responsibility and administration for the dwellings by the residents living in them.

It has become clear that the discussion and a consistent practice of technical environmental renewal in the large social housing projects of eastern Europe is much more than just a question of technology. In addition to this it could be a significant first step in the working through of a challenging set of problems, which is of importance fo the residents of large housing estates as well as for the regions, the countries and for Europe itself. 

Some examles:

Märkisches Viertel, Berlin (West) (back)

The satellite city, built between 1963 and 74 for app. 38,000 has managed the shift from having a bad reputation to being an accepted housing area. To counter vacancies, technical problems with the concrete and urban deficiencies of the mainly high-rise buildings, a state supported revitalization program was introduced since the mid 1980s. The flats were refurbished, visual differentiation of the monotonous high- rise buildings was carried out, and individual land-marks in the urban environment were created. With tenant participation, a strict customer-orientation of the management, and a newly constructed urban center, the 'birthof a city district' was accomplished. After unification the Märkische Viertel has developed as a new northern center within Berlin's polycentral structure. 

Bijlmermeer, Amsterdam (back)

Bijlmermeer was built as a model new town in the 1960s using honeycomb shaped high rise buildings with strictly divided pedestrian and car traffic in a carefully landscaped green area. But the intended middle class population never developed. Instead, immigrants with a low status, a high unemployment rate and overall economic and social problems became the majority population while the more affluent moved to new small scale developments. Since the 1990s an integrated approach ('spatial, social and management renewal') has followed the costly attempts to change the area through physical rehabilitation. The destruction of almost 1/3 of the high-rise dwellings has been accompanied by the construction of small scale family housing and a qualitative improvement of the remaining stock. Social, economic and cultural programs, including a participatory approach towards self organization in running the community is a main factor of social integration which is needed to give the estate a future on the housing market. As the deficits are running up, a solution to the national problem zone of the Bijlmermeer will have to be found soon in order to avoid having to abandon yesterdays model on the whole. 

Castle Vale, Birmingham (back)

Castle Vale, situated at a distance of 9 km from the town center was erected on a former airfield using a layer of low rise family housing and 34 high- rise tower blocks. In the 1980s the estate developed into a social problem zone and a large proportion of vacancies negatively influenced the economic management of maintaining the dwellings. Especially the high- rise blocks were rejected when the area, housing app. 11,000 people in 5,000 dwellings became a target area for a Housing Action Trust. Parallel to the demolition of 50% of the high- rise buildings a socially targeted renewal of the remaining tower blocks and a socio- economic renewal was devised as a strategy by a participatory process during a phase of community planning. The area is to be economically revitalized in accordance with the population's capabilities, new family housing is to be constructed as well as a civic center for the neighborhood. 

Dresden Gorbitz (back)

The new housing area to the south-east of the city center, built between 1978 and ´89 for 40,000 inhabitants, covers a slope overlooking the Elbe valley. The estate was built using concrete panel blocks of six stories for the majority of the buildings, which are towered over by three very high tenement buildings. During the GDR period the central axis and much of the planned social infrastructure was never finished. The 'hardness' of the landscaping and the monotony of the urban layout made it difficult for the inhabitants to develop a feeling of identity towards the location. An integrated ecological approach was chosen within a government sponsored project of the experimental housing research program (ExWoSt) furthering the improvement of the large state-socialist estates in eastern Germany. Since 1993 an ecological program was designed which incorporates a) a slow process of building over and around the panel-structures with new types of dwellings, b) a sensitive use of building materials, c) renaturalization of the yards, open spaces and the water system, d) the utilization of the labor needed in developing the environment and the dwellings as a basis for employment and wealth creation, e) the democratization of planning and management. The overall aim is to find ways towards a sustainable future for a part of Dresden which otherwise seems doomed to become an excluded zone. 

Outlook for large housing estates
Sofia Declaration
New Publication on large housing estates
Contact the EA.UE
Back to the EA.UE homepage