part iii urban sprawl and gentrification in the city centres

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 187

PART III

URBAN SPRAWL AND GENTRIFICATION IN THE CITY CENTRES

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 188

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 189

7 Gentrification Trends in Vienna Yvonne Franz

INTRODUCTION Cities are embedded in ongoing transformation processes that are triggered and influenced by a mixture of political, economic, demographic or social changes. Cities constantly have to reinvent themselves while at the same time preserving their cultural and urban heritage. If they do not, they remain stuck in a status quo and are at risk of facing severe challenges like shrinkage or artificial conservation; they lose their attractiveness and are finally unable to compete with other cities in global competition. Urban renewal plays a crucial role in attracting future and existing residents, especially in times of urban renaissance. Nevertheless, the dynamics of modern transformation processes are on the increase and demand comprehensive concepts and solution strategies. Urban renewal is strongly linked to gentrification. It is obvious, on the one hand, that cities have to attract affluent residents. On the other hand, they also have the responsibility to offer the lower strata a proper place within the city. But it is not always easy to prevent negative outcomes of gentrification, mainly because it is still not well known how to stimulate or regulate gentrification in a specific urban setting. Furthermore, gentrification is not always a popular theme of local politicians as the debate on ‘gentrification’ easily runs off an objective topic. Public and political discourse on gentrification in Vienna has for decades claimed that this process of physically upgrading and changing social structure in a specific neighbourhood does not occur in Vienna because of the high proportion of social housing, strong tenancy laws and specific urban renewal programmes that serve to protect the local residents in renewed neighbourhoods. Compared to other cities like Berlin or Hamburg, the public participation in debates 7 Gentrification Trends is Vienna

189

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 190

on rising rents and large-scale investments is rather low to the extent or not even existing in Vienna. Nevertheless, recent scientific literature shows that simply denying the existence of gentrification in Vienna is no longer a sustainable argument since at least several forms of exclusion can be noticed and have to be analysed in future research. This article identifies gentrifying and gentrified neighbourhoods in Vienna by summarizing current scientific literature and by illustrating evidence found in the urban fabric. Additionally, it analyses a not yet well-observed neighbourhood in Vienna – Gumpendorf in Mariahilf, District 6 – with regard to physical improvements and commercial changes. Finally, it concentrates on reconsidering the gentrification discourse in Vienna, seeing as it is time to admit that even the Austrian welfare state system has changed over the last years, and that much more market-driven tendencies are now being observed – in Vienna as elsewhere.

GENTRIFICATION AND THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE From an everyday perspective, gentrification is a process of urban change in which middle-income residents at least partly supplant low-income residents, thereby changing the social structure of the specific neighbourhood. In 1964, Ruth Glass coined the term ‘gentrification’ to describe the revitalization processes taking place in Islington Borough, London: “One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle classes – upper and lower. […] Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working class occupiers are displaced and the social character of the district is changed. […]” (Glass, 2010, p.7) The term and the related discourse about spatial patterns of social development are relatively new. Yet gentrification has proved to be a continually evolving process, proceeding from a once-marginalized phenomenon to a growing and well-distributed global urban strategy, no longer limited to global cities. The neighbourhood-level processes of gentrification must be understood within the larger contexts of globalisation, neoliberalism, and the changing role of government. No longer can gentrifica190

Part III Urban Sprawl and Genrtification in the City Centres

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 191

tion be explained exclusively by supply-side theory (see value and rent gap theory by Neil Smith, 1979 and 2002) or demand-side theory (e.g. lifestyle changes) (Bernt and Holm, 2005). Gentrification rather has become very complex on several levels, including mechanisms, social differentiation and perception of affected citizens. It is also no longer sufficient to describe the relevant actors in terms of pioneers, gentrifiers, and other actors. Gentrification now takes place in new modalities, particularly through new construction that in fact may not cause displacement, but still excludes lower income populations – by purpose or not. Displacement by gentrification can also occur socially or culturally, as will be shown in the chapter on gentrified neighbourhoods in Vienna. Even politically initiated “soft” urban renewal processes can be triggers for slightly occurring gentrification. Besides the long-term discussions of classes and actors (including the recent concept of creative classes and their relationship to gentrification) and how to measure displacement, current research has focused increasingly on the impact of globalisation. Neil Smith (2002) emphasizes the relationship between globalisation and gentrification. From his perspective, gentrification is now a global urban strategy of cities which can occur geographically in any location. The modern neoliberal state is more an agent than a regulator of the market, and public discourse now sees gentrification as a positive and tenable outcome of a healthy real estate market: It sees the market as a solution, not as a problem. Cities have to be well-performing entrepreneurs in order to prevail in the light of global competition and to face urban renaissance successfully.

THE CASE OF VIENNA The capital city of Austria today counts more than 1.7 million inhabitants within the city area proper. Additional 2.4 million persons live in the metropolitan area1. Vienna has been an important centre since medieval times (see Hatz, 2008). Its geographic position, the trade routes and the proximity to the river Danube were the basis for Vienna’s position as an early and important metropolitan centre (for a comprehensive city profile, see Hatz, 2008). Further economic development occurred in waves, based

7 Gentrification Trends is Vienna

191

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 192

on an extensive growth as capital of an extensive European empire in the second half of the nineteenth century followed by a severe crisis during World War I (1914–1918), the interwar period and position of isolation on the Eastern edge of the Western world due to the Iron Curtain after World War II (1939–1945). This situation changed after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989–1990: “The city ‘moved’ closer to the centre of the European urban nexus. The factors which had led to difficulties for economic development such as location on a ‘dead’ border and the lack of large market for products now became positives providing chances and possibilities where none had existed before.” (Hatz, 2008, p. 312) Becoming a member in the European Union in 1995 was an additional factor that pushed Vienna forward to becoming an important economic centre in Europe. Vienna now serves as an access to Eastern European countries and profits from numerous headquarters of international companies who choose Vienna as a central and German-speaking location in order to manage their Central Eastern Europe (CEE) businesses.

The housing market in Vienna Vienna’s economic boom is strongly linked to labour migration, which also shaped the city´s housing market. In general, the Viennese housing market is well known for its long tradition of social housing. Starting at the end of World War I, a system of security of tenure was established that still exists (at least partially) today. A special housing tax system promoted the construction of more than 60,000 community-owned apartments during the ‘First Republic’ (1919–1938) (Kohlbacher–Reeger, 2010). The Viennese housing market is also characterized by its segmentation into the following submarkets: private rental housing, protected rental housing, council housing, cooperative housing and owner-occupied housing, whereas council and cooperative housing have the biggest share. Vienna is a city with a long tradition of rental dwellings. Compared to Austria as a whole, where more than 50% of the population lives in owner-occupied housing, in Vienna only 17% of the population lives in owner-occupied housing. Nevertheless, this segment is constantly growing (Fassmann et al., 2002, and Kohlbacher–Reeger, 2010). 192


Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 193

Soft urban renewal In the early 1970s, the Viennese building stock experienced a severe phase of decay as a result of a lack of reinvestments. Especially buildings built before 1918 were characterized by insufficient living quality, and around 300,000 substandard apartments were present in the mid-1970s. Some of these apartments did not even have a private bathroom or toilet, and most of the rooms were dark, moist and unhealthy (MA 25, 2009). The City Council’s first approach to meeting the challenge of urban decay was to demolish these neighbourhoods. With the passage of the Urban Renewal Act (Stadterneuerungsgesetz – StEG) in 1974, a ‘hard’ instrument became available for large-scale refurbishment of specified ‘renewal areas’ (Förster, 2004, p. 14). Even the predominately baroque and picturesque building stock at Spittelberg in District 7 was set to be demolished in the early 1970s. Local activists, however, successfully prevented these plans (as it will be explained in the chapter on Spittelberg), and a more gentle approach was worked out: the concept of ‘soft urban renewal.’ The basis for this housing rehabilitation programme was created in 1984 with the passing of the Residential Building Rehabilitation Act (Wohnhaussanierungsgesetz – WSG) and the founding of the Vienna Land Procurement and Urban Renewal Fund (Wiener Bodenbereitstellungs- und Stadterneuerungsfonds – WBSF)” (Förster, 2004, p. 15). Since then, the location of a residential building is no longer crucial to receiving public subsidies; eligibility is achieved exclusively by the age of the building and the predominant category of quality of the apartments located in the building. Soft urban renewal aims to prevent gentrification and to provide affordable housing – even in renovated buildings (Hatz, 2008, p. 317). The main focus lies on occupied buildings in which the tenants either remain living during renovation or at least collaborate within the renovation process. Therefore, the displacement of residents can be mitigated and the social mix within a neighbourhood can be retained (Förster, 2004, p. 15). “ ‘Soft urban renewal’ is the most important instrument for renovating such old building stock and improving the housing situation of thousands of households – and it is highly anti-segregative by nature.” (Kohlbacher–Reeger, 2010, p. 72)


193

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 194

Soft urban renewal was finally institutionalized in 1985 when it became a principle within the urban development plan 1985. Since 1989, not only are renovations of single buildings (‘Sockelsanierung’) funded by public funds, the city also motivated housing developers to invest in block renewal projects (‘Blocksanierung’), which does not aim only at physical renovation, but also at improving private and semi-public areas, public spaces, as well as the technical and social infrastructure. Up to the year 2004 more than 201,000 dwellings had been renovated within one of the largest urban renewal programmes in the world (Förster, 2004, p. 17). The coordination of the renovation fund and indeed all urban renewal and urban development activities nowadays is headed by wohnfonds_wien (MA 25, 2009). Following the idea of welfare policies, these funds are available only if the owner agrees to continuing the existing rent contracts for further ten years, thereby, theoretically, avoiding rent increases and displacement of local residents. Nevertheless, there are disadvantages to this mechanism: After the 10-year rent freeze, rents can be increased in accordance with legal regulations. Furthermore, rent protection is not applicable for new tenants whose rent contracts can be based on market prices alone. Additionally, the practice appears to be different in many cases as not all developers and private investors opt for city funding but rather turn down subsidies in order to retain their flexibility in rent adjustments on their investments. This privately led method of urban renewal is strong evidence for ongoing gentrification in Vienna – a fact that cannot be found very often in the political discourse. As in many European cities, since the 1970s Vienna has experienced a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ that aims at establishing flexibility in the institutional organisation of the public sector (Kohlbacher–Reeger, 2010). Consequently, more open planning procedures and participation processes were established. Public-private partnerships and private agencies assumed more and more competences from the local government (Kohlbacher–Reeger, 2010). This shift to governance and to public-private partnership is further evidence for more market-driven policies in Vienna, especially within the housing market.

194


Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 195

Identifying gentrification in Vienna As mentioned, the scientific discourse on gentrification in Vienna has been quite limited to date. The reason may be found in the dominant public and political opinion that gentrification in Vienna can in effect not occur because of the large amount of social housing and the strong rent regulation system. In this context, gentrification is clearly perceived as displacement. Considering this perception, the argument of rent protection is only partly true, because there is evidence that the Viennese housing market has become more and more tight, as recently published real estate studies show. Especially inner-city districts are reporting a strong increase of rent costs and real estate prices. Combined with the evidence of more market-driven policies in Vienna, it has become necessary to rethink the negation of gentrification in Vienna. Map 31 shows a first attempt at identifying gentrification in Vienna. Based on the scientific literature and research, all neighbourhoods are highlighted where evidence of gentrification can be argued. Stuwerviertel in District 2 is a neighbourhood where initial gentrification can be identified: The neighbourhood is experiencing increasing investments and attractiveness due to the extension of subway line U2, the expansion of the Viennese fairgrounds (Reed Exhibitions), the construction of the business center “Viertel Zwei” and the expected campus of the Vienna University of Economics and Business. Gumpendorf, a neighbourhood now considered to be gentrifying, will be treated in more detail in the following chapter. Already quite a number of neighbourhoods in Vienna can be identified as having been gentrified: Karmelitermarkt in District 2, Freihausviertel in District 4, Spittelberg in District 7 district and Ottakring in District 16. These neighbourhoods are highlighted in this map, because to some extent the research has already been conducted and discourse is ongoing. There are obviously many more neighbourhoods or quarters where traces of gentrification can be identified, e.g. the fashion design quarter around Lindengasse in District 7 or the area around Ankerbrotfabrik in District 10. No claim to completeness is claimed as this illustration is only a first attempt to map the most well-known Viennese neighbourhoods facing processes of gentrification.


195

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 196

Map 31: Gentrification in Vienna, 2011

Source: IfGR, Layout: Philip Glasner, 2011.

The following three examples of gentrified areas represent the current scientific discourse on gentrification in Vienna. Every neighbourhood shows its specific characteristics in urban renewal processes: from public activism to cultural activities and transformation in retail supply. Evidence of gentrification can be found as long as an objective analysis is ensured.

Spittelberg in Neubau, District 7 The first evidence of gentrification can be found in Vienna in the early 1970s. As previously mentioned, the Viennese quarter “Spittelberg” in District 7 was one of the ‘birthplaces’ for public rejection of plans for hard urban renewal. After years of disinvestment, in the 1960s the neighborhood was characterized by cheap apartments for migrants; vacant shops and run-down buildings defined the appearance. In the early 1970s the City of Vienna faced this downward spiral by cornering the dwelling stock on a large scale in order to demolish the area afterwards and to build a mod196


Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 197

ern city quarter (Baldauf–Weingartner, 2008, p. 80). Plans for the new construction projected social housing and even a high-rise development. A motivated group of activists, however, consisting of architects, urban planners and many other mobilized against these plans, occupied the oldest building in Spittelberg and claimed it for preservation. After an intensive negotiation process the City of Vienna agreed in 1973 on a new strategy: soft urban renewal. Spittelberg was declared a protected zone, and 80 buildings were expansively renovated with public funds. Spittelberg evolved from a stigmatized neighborhood to an urban village with colourful baroque and Biedermeier veneers, restaurants, galleries and shops for art handicraft or organic food. Not only a commercial gentrification was observed, but also displacement cannot be denied: “While the Spittelberg turned quaint, the previous residents, unskilled workers and guest workers, were pushed across the Gürtel and into the debilitated housing structure of District 16.” (Baldauf–Weingartner, 2008, p. 81) Despite the above-mentioned public and political opinion that gentrification in fact does not occur in Vienna, Baldauf and Weingartner (2008, p. 81) claim a different reality. In their opinion ‘soft gentrification’ occurs in Vienna because of the creation of many middle-class living spaces financed by public funds.

Brunnenviertel in Ottakring, District 16 District 16 long served as an enclave for the working class looking for cheap housing. Even today, the physical appearance of the residential buildings clearly shows who the primary residential target group was: poor workers and day labourers who had no alternatives and were forced to live in precarious living conditions. “After WWII, in the building up of an industrialized mass production the outer districts west of the Gürtel offered valuable resource pools of working and buying forces. An effective rent law regulated living in the Brunnenviertel; the Gründerzeit buildings were generally dilapidated; most landlords avoided renovations due to the absence of possible profits.” (Baldauf/Weingartner, 2008, p. 74) The situation became even worse, once the City of Vienna started to implement the concept of soft urban renewal, which reduced the number of lowest-standard apartments without an alternative housing supply for migrant residents. Additionally, in 7 Gentrification Trends is Vienna

197

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 198

1981 the possibility of half-year contracts was introduced. These rent contracts were excluded from rent price regulations leading to exorbitant rents, social tension and a highly dynamic urban decay (Baldauf–Weingartner, 2008, p. 74). A reversal of this situation can be observed since 1995. The EUfinanced project “URBAN Wien – Gürtel Plus” aimed to attract a creative, entrepreneurial art scene in order to revitalize the vacant space under the elevated city train tracks. This project did not affect the Brunnenviertel, but was the start of an urban renewal process in the adjacent area. In 1997, the citizen participation process for the redevelopment of Yppenplatz was initiated and successfully finished in 2000, with 15 publicly subsidized residential renovations being completed by 2007 (Baldauf–Weingartner, 2008, pp. 75). The combination of public subsidies, extensive citizen participation, mediation through local urban renewal office and the support of Federal Economic Chambers (as well as art projects – especially by SOHO IN OTTAKRING) caused the revitalization of the Brunnenviertel to be one of the best examples of soft urban renewal in Vienna. Again, gentrification per se is denied in this context. Nevertheless, it has to be observed critically, as a change in commercial and social mix can be clearly identified. Even if the local residents did not have to leave their neighbourhood because of rent increases, cultural and social exclusion were a serious outcome of the transformation of a former workers’ district to the chic and bohemian place-to-be it is today.

Karmeliterviertel in Leopoldstadt, District 2 The third example for a gentrified neighbourhood in Vienna is the Karmeliterviertel in District 2. Like Spittelberg and Brunnenviertel, Karmeliterviertel is also characterized by a central location and high population density which again contributes to the perception of an urban village. The urban fabric consists of Biedermeier and Gründerzeit buildings mixed with smaller green spaces and a proximity to Danube canal. Over time, especially a large Jewish community developed their characteristic cultural and intellectual life to the present day. Affordable rents and spacious apartments attracted artists and students toward the end of the 1980s to move to Karmeliterviertel. Nevertheless, the re198


Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 199

putation of Karmeliterviertel was on the decline until the beginning of the 1990s due to crime, prostitution and gambling activities in the neighbourhood (Huber, 2010, p. 8). The run-down housing stock was in the end the reason why City of Vienna decided to create a development plan for this neighbourhood in order to improve the situation. With the support of the newly founded Urban Renewal Office, through 2008 the city began buying and constructing city-owned apartment buildings in order to mitigate urban decline. Additionally, the city invested in various projects in order to improve public institutions and the urban space. Finally, an important impact on the renewal dynamics can be attributed to the extension of the subway line U2 (Huber, 2010, p. 8). A crucial role in the renewal process of Karmeliterviertel was played by the market, a variety of restaurants, cultural activities and media (Huber, 2010, p. 9). With the influx of higher strata, especially students and artists, commercial and cultural activities changed tremendously. The Karmelitermarkt transformed itself from a former weekly market to a mix of upscale shops and restaurants serving high-end needs like organic and regional grocery supplies. Former market stalls, vendors and traditional restaurants still exist, but they now decreased and have to face a more affluent and sophisticated class of customers. The transition of Karmeliterviertel from a former no-go area to a “trendy neighbourhood” can be observed predominantly in the public spaces and in media coverage, which impacts the branding of the urban village substantially (Huber, 2010, p. 9). In summary, these changes within the urban renewal process of Karmeliterviertel provide strong evidence for gentrification. Even moderate rent increases can be found within the neighbourhood, which again obviously did not result in direct displacement of the former, mostly lower-strata residents. As explanations for the protection of households we find again the strict tenancy low, mechanisms of the soft urban renewal concept as well as the successful work of the local coordination office (Huber, 2010, p. 9). Nevertheless, a form of exclusionary gentrification can be identified in the Karmeliterviertel. As Huber (2010, p. 10) states, “[...] displacement from public and social spaces becomes eminent”. As the social and cultural offerings serve more and more a group with higher social and economic status, the lower strata become excluded from their everyday world. This effect may not be con7 Gentrification Trends is Vienna

199

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 200

sidered a hard form of gentrification, but it is certainly soft gentrification. The current transformation of the neighbourhood has to be taken seriously as “[...] social relations, bonds and networks are dissolved” (Huber, 2010, p. 11).

Transforming Vienna: more evidence for gentrification in Mariahilf Mariahilf is District 6 in Vienna and located at the Southwestern edge of the inner city (District 1). This district is an early “suburb” of Vienna and underwent continual growth and development during the mid-17th century. Interrupted by the plague and demolishment during the Siege of Vienna, heavy building activity was restarted, and Mariahilf became a thriving suburb. By the end of the 17th century, Mariahilfer Straße had become a successful location for trade, and after 1848 this street became the leading shopping street in Vienna. The prosperity of the area around Mariahilfer Straße trickled down to Gumpendorf, a neighbourhood located predominately between Mariahilfer Straße and Linke Wienzeile. The Eastern boundary is Amerlingstraße; in the West the Gumpendorfer Gürtel serves as a delimitation of the neighbourhood. During the 11th century, this neighbourhood was a small village situated at the edge of town. It was dominated by agricultural use and during the period of industrialisation changed into a fragmentised juxtaposition of cottage industries, centralized manufacture and trade. To date, Gumpendorf is characterized by a high density and a large stock of Gründerzeit buildings as a result of heavy building activity during the early founding period (Hovorka–Redl, 1987, p. 18). In the following chapter, I analyse tendencies of ongoing gentrification for the Gumpendorfer Straße2. The analysis comprises mapping, observations and interviews. This analysis serves as a baseline study. The aim of this study is to identify evidence of gentrification in a less-studied area in Vienna. As a next step, further analysis could be conducted on the wider area of the district including adjacent streets and public spaces. Additionally, research could be enriched by analysing socio-demographic data and expert interviews involved in this area of urban renewal process.

200


Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 201

The physical makeup of Gumpendorfer Straße Gumpendorfer Straße cannot lay claim to being a typical example for gentrifying neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, it is emblematic for an important access road with the function of local supply, which nowadays is changing tremendously in social, economic and demographic aspects. One basic indicator that can be used to measure gentrification is the physical appearance of the buildings in a neighbourhood. Mapping the condition of the housing stock is also a suitable approach to analysing the renovation activity or processes of vacancy and urban decay within a neighbourhood. As already mentioned, Gumpendorfer Straße is characterized by a large number of buildings that were erected during the founding period; a smaller proportion of buildings date back to the Biedermeier period – and some new buildings from 1960s onwards can also be found. Figure 25: Physical Appearance of Gumpendorfer Straße in 2010

Source: Vienna GIS 2010, Layout: Mohammad Aduhammad and Kristoffer Westad, 2010. Adapted by Philip Glasner, 2011

As Figure 25 shows, the physical appearance of Gumpendorfer Straße was analyzed regarding four categories covering a range from ‘poor condition’ to ‘currently under renovation’. Besides single buildings facing signs of deterioration, the high proportion of newly renovated buildings is remarkable. Combined with re-


201

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 202

novation activities, one can identify two clusters of ongoing urban renewal. The first cluster stretches from the inner city to approximately Stiegengasse; the second cluster is located in the Western part of Gumpendorfer Straße reaching the Western boundary of the neighbourhood, the ‘belt.’ Figure 26: Residential Gentrification at Gumpendorfer Straße in 2010

Source: Vienna GIS 2010, Layout: Mohammad Aduhammad and Kristoffer Westad, 2010. Adapted by Philip Glasner, 2011

Observations show that a high proportion of all buildings currently under renovation or newly renovated also offers high-end attic flats. Combined with the fact that most of these newly constructed apartments are sold – and not rented – to new residents, we can clearly make out evidence for residential gentrification as shown in Figure 26. Although newly constructed housing for higher strata does not displace former residents per se, a shift in the social mix of the neighbourhood is one possible outcome. Renovated buildings financed privately and not subsidized by public funds are not subject to the strict rent regulation and tenancy laws. Newly created housing can be rented at market prices that are considerably higher than protected rent contracts. Additionally, the conversion of former rental apartments into owneroccupied flats is also an important force behind residential gentrification and excludes lower-income residents from parts of the housing market.

202


Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 203

Commercial gentrification in Gumpendorf Commercial variety can be a further indicator of gentrification. Sharon Zukin goes into more detail by describing commercial gentrification as a sort of ‘boutiquing.’ In her opinion, certain types of restaurants, cafés and stores are visible signs of gentrification in cities and create stylish commercial spaces for more affluent residents. As a result, social inequality occurs which excludes lowerincome households from new commercial suppliers (Zukin, 2009, pp. 47): “Boutiques tend to support the interests of more affluent and more mobile residents. In current conditions of globalisation, they provide a material base for new kinds of cosmopolitanism that ignore old expressions of ethnic homogeneity and contrast with cultural forms, including consumption spaces, which embody lowstatus identities. They also signal to private developers and state agencies that a neighbourhood is ready for larger investments and grander development; these risk disrupting local social life and may alienate and displace long-term residents.” (Zukin, 2009, p. 62) Gumpendorfer Straße offers a variety of commercial firms and is highly interesting for studying the `boutiquing´ process. Interviews with local residents also showed that the perception of the inner-city stretch of street changed from a former ‘faceless’ quarter to ‘Little Berlin.’ Usage of the ground floor was therefore mapped to identify specific commercial suppliers for a changing and more affluent target group. Figure 27: Commercial gentrification at Gumpendorfer Straße in 2010

Source: Vienna GIS 2010, 4CITIES Students 2009–2011. Adapted by Philip Glasner, 2011


203

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 204

Figure 27 shows that the street can be subdivided into three parts regarding ground floor usage. The first part is located close to the historic city centre. A high concentration of galleries, bars, cafés and restaurants are found within this part of the street with no vacant spaces. The second part is adjacent to the first and be called the in-between area. Here, many phone shops are found, usually an indicator for non-gentrified areas. This part of the street consists predominantly of lower-status commercial suppliers, e.g. supermarkets, non-chain bakeries and other retail. The usage of ground floor changes significantly in the third part of the street located at the Western edge and facing the belt. A significantly high proportion of furniture and interior design shops can be mapped. It comes as no surprise that the local street-marketing calls this quarter ‘Möbelmeile – furniture cluster.’ These interior–design shops target middle-class and even more affluent customers. Interviews with shopowners show the reasons for the concentration of this specific retail branch: They appreciate the central location and the proximity to their affluent customers. Additionally, low rent allows the large floor space necessary for a branch like interior design and furniture sales. Because a large number of different interior shops are already located in this part of the street, the impact and visibility of this cluster should also not be underestimated. This area can thus be considered commercially gentrified. Local residents who live in Mariahilf explained that they appreciate the variety of commercial suppliers combined with a good connection to public transportation. Still, Gumpendorfer Straße provides the local supply chain, which is an important factor for a lively and attractive neighbourhood. Nevertheless, the commercial variety has changed and local residents now regret the fast closing of traditional shops and small grocery stores. Young creatives working predominantly in the Central or Western part of Gumpendorfer Straße notice an increase of creative industries (e.g. architects, fashion designers, hairdressers) in the neighbourhood. These young entrepreneurs choose Gumpendorfer Straße mainly because of low rent and the central location. Surprisingly, the factor of personal networks is not considered as important.

204


Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 205

The current project called ‘die GUMPENDORFER. Eine aktive Straße’ aims at a coherent revitalisation of the street. The urban renewal office for the districts 6–9 has initiated various attempts to vitalize and renew even the underdeveloped stretches of the street. As a first step, they want to improve the communication and cooperation between residents, entrepreneurs, cultural institutions and politics in order to provide an efficient communication platform. For instance, street festivals, cultural interventions or guided walks are supposed to create awareness for Gumpendorfer Straße among all actors (http://diegumpendorfer.at). This project can be considered a further attempt by public authorities to initiate an urban renewal process in order to raise the attractiveness and to stimulate further private or publicly funded investments.

Conclusion Gumpendorf in Vienna A mapping of the physical appearance as well as usage of ground floor clearly shows that a wave of various kinds of gentrification is occurring at Gumpendorfer Straße. Also, the perception of the street has changed as the interviews show. Parts of the street are now perceived and known as vibrant urban neighbourhoods with an attractive physical appearance, a large variety of upscale restaurants and shops, and a close proximity to the inner city supported by a good connection with public transport. In terms of commercial gentrification, Zukin’s argument of an ongoing exclusion of long-term residents and the displacement of traditional shops are replicable, but cannot be verified in the case of Gumpendorfer Straße (Zukin, 2009, p. 62). Further research has to be done at the micro-level to identify the undesired effects of gentrification. It also remains to be seen whether future largescale investments will be undertaken because of the new higherstatus consumption spaces. Privately initiated investments can be found regularly in Gumpendorf, ranging from refacing to creation of loft-living spaces, as the current project in Hornbostelgasse shows (see Picture 3). Nevertheless, a transformation process in the neighbourhood is clearly visible and could be verified by this baseline study.


205

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 206

CONCLUSIONS Cities face an ongoing transformation and have to deal with everchanging frameworks in order to compete within the global competition of cities. Urban renewal is only one, but a very important, aspect of competitive cities. Of course, cities depend on the political and economic state system; but principles of urban renewal also differ severely from city to city and show diverse outcomes. “[...] urban renewal will continue to be required for as long as cities exist and it must constantly adapt to changing conditions and demands. Urban renewal can, however, take different directions: it can follow the neo-liberal laisser-faire principle and rely upon the ability of the market to solve the problem – as in the American urban development model; or it can build upon the concept of socially-oriented urban renewal with sufficient public investment, in the tradition of the European city.” (Förster, 2004, p. 25) Vienna is embedded in a system of social welfare and is well known for its achievements in social housing. Even the concept of soft urban renewal is a further attempt to stimulate socially compatible investments in the housing stock. For a long time, gentrification in Vienna was denied with reference to the strict protection of tenants. Compared to other European cities, the dynamics of urban renewal are indeed much lower in Vienna. But evidences show that the situation may change because of cutbacks in social housing investments, especially in terms of housing subsidies. More and more investors choose private residential construction in order to avoid the inflexibility of protected rent contracts after completion of housing construction. Their return of investments is based on market rented apartments and condominiums which results in increasing housing prices predominately in inner-city district. Despite all that, large-scale luxury housing projects with exclusionary effects like Marthashof or Choriner Höfe in Berlin are not found in Vienna: There is still a verifiable, well-balanced social mix in Viennese neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, it is important to rethink gentrification in Vienna, to demystify the term and to discuss gentrification more reflectively. The scientific literature shows that processes of gentrification are occurring in Vienna, and there is even evidence of stateled gentrification, as the section on soft urban renewal or the example of Gumpendorfer Straße show. As the process of gentrification becomes more and more complex over time, simply equating gentrification with direct displacement is no longer suf206


Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 207

ficient. Evidence of social, cultural and residential exclusion is significant in specific neighbourhoods in Vienna and result in, at least, soft gentrification processes. Excluding low-income households from newly created housing opportunities or the rising living costs in a renewed neighbourhood can also lead to indirect displacement (Van Criekingen, 2009, p. 845). Clearly, further research has to be done. Gumpendorf is a new example for a gentrifying neighbourhood in Vienna and provides a basis for further more in-depth, less descriptive studies. More efforts have to be undertaken to understand the process of gentrification within a specific local context. It is important to analyse and synthesize the differences of gentrification in various cities, something that can be supported by comparative research. The goal is not only to understand gentrification; rather, the goal is to go one step further, i.e., learning how to handle gentrification. What can and should be done by the relevant actors in the urban context to regulate or even stimulate the desired positive aspects of gentrification is then the topic of our research.

NOTES 1 2

See Statistics Austria, Statistik des Bevölkerungsstandes (per 19 May 2011). This analysis was conducted with master students from the 2nd cohort of UNICA Euromaster in Urban Studies (4CITIES). Special acknowledgments to all students who put their efforts on the Urban Analysis project during Summer Term 2010: Mohammed Abu Hammad, Claudia Bernhard, Gonzalo Cantos, Muhammad El Daidamony, Zsuzsanna Fodroczi, Corinna Friedrich, Isis Frisch, Patrice Hershbain-Blondin, Jessica Kramer, Paula Mett, Christian Meyer, Cecilie Sachs Olsen, Johannes Riegler, Morten Rishede Philipsen, Tina Steiger, Nicola Thomas, Sabeth Tödtli, Sander van Parijs, Jacob Waltman, Kristoffer Westad and Christina Zaff Juhlin. The author would like to especially thank Kristoffer Westad, Mohammad Abu Hammad and Philip Glasner for their efforts and support.

REFERENCES Bernt, M. – Holm, A. (2005): Exploring the substance and style of gentrification. In: Atkinson R. – Bridge G. (eds.): Gentrification in a Global Context. The new urban colonialism. Routledge London and New York.


207

Urban 7-8.qxd

11/16/2011

12:13 PM

Page 208

Baldauf, A. – Weingartner, J. (2008): Sanfte Gentrifizierung: Das Verhältnis von Kunst. Raum und Ökonomie in Wiens Brunnenviertel. Springer Wien. van Criekingen, M. (2009): Moving In/Out of Brussels. Historical Core in the Early 2000s: Migration and the Effects of Gentrification. In: Urban Studies. 464(4), pp. 825–848. Kohlbacher, J. – Reeger, U. (2010): Housing Integration of Immigrants in Vienna – Equal Opportunities? In: Fassmann, H. – Franz, Y. (eds.): Integration Policies at the Local Level: Housing Policies for Migrants. ISR Forschungsbericht 36. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Fassmann, H. – Kohlbacher, J. – Reeger, U. (2002): Zuwanderung und Segregation. Europäische Metropolen im Vergleich. Förster, W. (2004): Stadterneuerung – der Wiener Weg. Urban Renewal – The Viennese Way. Sterk, pp. 9–26. Glass, R. (2010): From ‘London: Aspects of Change. (1964)’. In: Lees, L., – Slater, T. – Wyly, E. (eds): The Gentrification Reader 2010. Routledge. New York. Hatz, G. (2008): City Profile Vienna. Cities. Nr. 25. pp. 310–322. Huber, F. (2010): Sensitive Urban Renewal or Gentrification? The case of the Karmeliterviertel, Vienna. Conference Paper for “Everyday Life in the Segmented City”. Florence, July 22–24, 2010. Hovorka, H. – Redl, L. (1987): Ein Stadtviertel verändert sich. MA 25 (2009): Gebietsbetreuung Stadterneuerung. Jahresbericht 2009. Smith, N. (1979): Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement by capital, not people. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 45,4; pp. 538–548. Smith, N. (2002): New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. In: Antipode 34, 3; pp. 427–450. Zukin, S. et al. (2009): New Retail Capital and Neighborhood Change: Boutiques and Gentrification in New York City. In: City & Community 8:1. pp. 47–64. Online Sources http://www.diegumpendorfer.at, as of May 30, 2011 http://www.malekherbst.com/, as of May 30, 2011

208
