Sanierungsförderung in Wien: Muster und Prinzipien der Verteilung öffentlicher Fördermittel für die Gebäudesanierung

Abstract

The idea of the so-called "soft urban renewal" has been pursued in Vienna since the middle of the eighties. It's central point is the preservation and modernisation of the old building substance with regard of the inte rests of the inhabitants. Considering this objective the "Vienna Land Procurement and Urban Renewal Fund" subsidised the housing improvement to the amount of 23,7 billion ATS between 1984 and 1995. Thereby it was possible to set off a renewal-volume of 27,3 billion ATS and to finance at least 65% of the general rehabilitation in Vienna. The means concentrate on the area of Vienna built on in the period of promoterism. However, the distribution of the means shows interesting differences between t he single rehabilitation bodies. 56,5% of the means got into the private building stock and fell nearly exclusively to buildings from the period of promoterism and before. A regression analysis shows that the spatial distribution of the means is predominantly determined by the share of flats from this period. Working places in the retail trade and connections to the tube show at the same time a significant negative influence. Thus the rehabilitation support mainly reached areas with a bad location quality and was made compensationally to the free financed rehabilitation works. In spite of urban renewal political objectives and the information activities of the di strict renewal offices the Vienna urban-renewal areas have no influence on the localisation of subsidiary means. Although the municipal housing stock comprises only 16% of the Viennese flats built before 1945 it gained 38,8% of the means and profited by the improvement subsidy above average. Since the municipality manly conveys large-scale projects the distribution of the means shows a very heterogeneous spatial pattern with the stress on the verge of the densely built urban area. The explanation substance of the regression model for the rehabilitation subsidy of the municipal building stock is with 18% very poor. The selection of the housing estates that are to be improves turns out to be a primarily political decision. The preservation state of the building as well as the incorporation of the rehabilitation into urban-development policies and objectives are of only secondary importance. Considering the new general condition of the Viennese urban development in the 90ies a more effective use of subsidiary means seems to by absolutely necessary. The improvement support has to concentrate stronger on urban areas mostly from the period of promoterism that really require a renewal and has to be combined organisationally with the improvement of the residential surroundings. The stronger consideration of distributional- and housing-political effects of the improvement subsidy is also imperative.