In the 80s, the previously dynamic pace of mass housing development drastically fell. In more developed countries, signs of overdevelopment occurred. Housing in the 50s and 60s suffered from social problems (often immigrant populations), especially amongst poorer citizens. Some of these estates were subsequently demolished. Extensive development of estates for thousands of residents virtually ceased to exist, while newer developments occurred on a smaller scale on previously freed-up locations within the city’s existing urban fabric.
From the late 70s, "postmodern" movements succeeded modernism, often employing traditional architectural themes. Traditional urban elements (streetscape), according to Aldo Rossi’s "The Architecture of the City" and Rob Krier's study "Urban Space", had a great impact. Postmodernism embraced classicism with a preference for traditional architectural forms as part of a rejection of modern theories. (fig. 5.14) The architecture of this era was once again demonstrated in Berlin, in 1987, where dominant architects of the time (Hans Hollein, Rob Krier, Aldo Rossi, James Stirling, Charles Moore, Robert Stern and others) each designed different buildings. These newer quality developments occupied vacant urban sites in the form of "urban villas" such as those found on Rauchstrasse in place of the now forgotten boxes. (fig. 5.12)
Figure 5.13. Multi-unit villa (Stadtvilla).Berlin, Rauchstrasse. Rob Krier 1987
Meanwhile, major architectural personalities found their own paths. The notable French architect Jean Nouvel declared that buildings do not follow any one style, as demonstrated with his social housing project in Nimes, in 1987. (fig. 5.16) He denied that economic restrictions called for a reduction in home sizes and proposed that savings could be made by reducing the cost of individual building elements ands structures. This was proven with the use of structures previously only used in industrial buildings – e.g., large expanses of windows and open spaces within the home that could be adapted to serve as required. Despite the fact that individual apartments had standard interior furnishings, the building as a whole set a milestone for 20th century residential building design.
Figure 5.14. Social housing rental apartments. Nimes, France. Jean Nouvel, Jean-Marc Ibos 1987
More recent residential developments show a proper respect for the individual architect’s freedom. The widely accepted "postmodern" movement has faded, to be replaced by "neo-modernism" which adapts stylistic features of modernism without the need to adhere to ideological content. Nearly every decade of the 20th century saw a new architectural trend that later paled in significance to make way for newer ideas. Still, the innovations have become part of the paraphernalia of contemporary architecture.
5.2.1. Hungarian situation since the 1950s
In the first half of the 1950s, an aggressive demand for multi-level, multi-unit homes arose to fulfill the needs of new "Socialist" heavy industry-orientated cities (Dunaújváros, Kazincbarcika, Tatbánya, etc.). Traditional construction technology was used to build small, modest state-owned rental homes that expressed "Socialist Realism" via richly decorative exteriors in contradiction with poor interior content. These developments can be seen and recognized even now for their town-planning fabric, streets and grandiose alleyways – the latter, in fact, being the most valuable asset.
These developments of multi-storey, multi-unit homes could only have come into existence with government approval. (Little opportunity was given to small construction companies and local town councils.) Development of mass housing was an integral part of the central governing mechanism.
In the 60s, an ambitious government program to build one million homes over 15 years was initiated.
As the labor requirement to achieve this could not be met, it was decided to build prefabricated system housing. Over the next twenty years, development of large "blocks" dominated Hungarian building technology. Originally, the French (Camus) prefabricated system was adopted by the Soviet Union for local use. Later factories were established in Budapest and other large cities, resulting in some 40,000 housing units being built with industrial technology.
Since a market economy did not exist, normal financial resources had to be regulated. This meant that a normal, publicly-funded home was restricted to 48 m², later increased to 53 m² (fig. 5.17) This is why most homes, even now, are in the majority of cases 53 m², two-bedroom apartments found in blocks of
flats. Implementation of this development program was institutionalized and did not take into account anything asked for by potential residents. To achieve manufacturing efficiency, a smaller amount of variation in home types was adopted for construction on concentrated regional developments. This led to the monstrous development of ten-story-high linear housing blocks.
Figure 5.15. Multi-unit housing. Oslo. Norway. Per Kr. Monsen Arkitektkontoret GASA AS
Housing estate homes were originally state-owned for rental purposes. Later on, residents gained sufficient financial strength to buy homes under cooperative ownership schemes. Still later, OTP bank developed housing schemes as a form of investment. In the 80s, more homes were built by private investors. Previously. most homes were based upon a structural span of 3.60 m. This was increased to a more generous 5.40 m span, while the number of stories was reduced. Homes built under this later system (which can be found in the Kaszásdűlő development, on Pók Street and in Római-fürdő) are still desirable homes on the housing market. Then, the political situation changed, which caused a crisis, the failure of state-owned housing enterprises and a decline in their respective technological backgrounds.
During the same period, many smaller multi-story, multi-unit buildings were developed. These are mostly found on well-situated urban sites, such as the Buda Hills, and usually spontaneously developed as smaller condominiums. At this time, developers of questionable legality built these homes to almost "do it yourself" standards, and the entrepreneurial aspect often formed part of the "black" or untraceable illegal economy. From the 60s onwards, as investors had more income, homes became more comfortable, demonstrating higher quality design and architectural standards. These homes even followed Western European ideals, mostly terraced on the hillsides in the 70s and usually built as co-ownership schemes on individual sites. Developments had to be built by groups of individuals wishing to build new homes without applying for housing initiative funding. Private development firms could not build at all, since they were prohibited by the state.
The urban fabric of most cities was not suited to the development of prefabricated housing schemes;
therefore, large areas of existing cities were demolished (e.g., Budapest's Józsefváros and parts of Székesfehérvár and Debrecen). In some more fortunate cases, vacant sites were developed, usually by OTP Bank, as part of condominium schemes (in Zalaegerszeg, Szeged and Budapest's Viziváros). The latter were usually designed by prominent architects working for state-owned, council design studios.
Towards the end of the 80s, rehabilitation of older neighborhoods started to gain investment support.
(fig. 5.18) The rental housing process halted, and housing was privatized under co-ownership schemes.
The following rehabilitation did not cover whole districts, but occurred in smaller steps, often on single sites, thus forestalling any chance for a unified upgrade of the residential environment. Instead, individual opportunities arose – for example, more buildings could have larger green areas, more homes could be developed on each site, and large underground parking garages could be provided.
Figure 5.16. Typical housing units (furnishing arrangements) from the sixties by BHK I system house factory
In the 90s, the pace of construction in terms of multi-story, multi-unit housing fell drastically.
Apartment buildings become subject to free-market economic activity. Two areas of potential interest remain for those wishing to invest in multi-story, multi-unit housing developments: first, the urban infill of vacant sites; and second, "green field, gated community" developments. Sites in the city center are best suited to single-room or one-bedroom apartments (market demand being limiting those who
can afford more). The more affluent prefer newer housing estates. From the millennium onwards, trends indicate that more and more families would prefer to live in multi-storey, multi-unit housing on account of financial standing.