Country/Region: Austria

Europan – Innsbruck Olympic Village

0

Europan – Innsbruck Olympic Village

Mismatches
Urban Design

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2006: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Architect: Frötscher Lichtenwagner Architekten

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Innsbruck
Country/Region: Austria, Innsbruck

Description

This project is a multifunctional city within a city, catering to people of all ages. It includes social housing, assisted living apartments, a day-care centre, a youth club, a multifunctional hall, and a supermarket. It serves as a village within a village, connecting the surrounding Olympic Villages and providing a collective new center. The design showcases both meticulous urban planning and individual attention to detail. It fosters a sense of community, with teenagers gathering at the square and elderly individuals finding a supportive living environment. This mixed-use project successfully accommodates diverse populations, aligning with Europan's goal of promoting inclusivity.

This project is a small city built for people of all age groups, with a complete repertoire of different functions. It includes at the same time social housing for families, assisted living apartments, a day-care centre, a youth club, a multifunctional hall, a supermarket. It is a village in a village in a city… The project is both urban design and architecture, and it shows both an enormous control on the large scale and individual care and creativity on the level of its parts. It stands self-consciously in the middle of the two Olympic Villages, linking them, giving them a collective new centre, both formally and programmatically. Teenagers use the square as a place to hang out, elderly people have found a place where the can live on their own with help when needed. Thus, the capacity of the quarter to house all kinds of different people, one of the main reasons why Europan promotes mixed-use projects, has been increased.

Links

Authors:

Europan – Wien, Austria

0

Europan – Wien, Austria

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2022: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Architect: Arenas Basabe Palacios arquitectos

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Vienna
Country/Region: Austria, Vienna

Description

Arenas Basabe Palacios was runner-up with their project Urban Software to E12 competition. Their project proposed a strategy prioritising the process over the final result, based on the generation of a flexible support able to react to the various scales and context conditions. This award allowed them to take part in the design of the Siemensäcker urban planning for a new 8 hectares residential neighbourhood in the north of Vienna. This urban project was developed through a collaborative process with a dozen or so offices of experts in urbanism, architecture, landscape, mobility, energy,etc.

Once the masterplan was passed in December 2016, the owner of the land (Austrian Real State) commissioned us with the design of 65 housing units, distributed in three blocks of different dimensions (sizes S, M, L).

The project takes advantage of the different building scales and free spaces foreseen in the planning to connect itself to the diverse urban fabrics that surround it and to adapt to the topography and landscape. The scale of the buildings is attenuated thanks to the volumes that project outwards from the façade, which also stablish specific relationships with the surrounding elements, spaces and axes. In parallel to the design of the architecture, we are still involved in the ‘Qualitätenkatalog’- the group of experts that collectively define the qualities of the free space, the landscape, the common parking space and the management of the non-residential uses of the neighbourhood. In this manner, individual decisions are made based on collective work, and vice versa: it is thus a design process that unifies the disciplines of the architecture and urbanism, establishing guidelines at building and neighbourhood scales simultaneously.

Each housing unit is organized around a nucleus of furniture, which integrates within every storage, installation and serving unit. Thanks to this, all living spaces are connected to the exterior, reserving for the ‘day area’ (kitchen-sitting room-dinning room) the area wich will enjoy, due to its two orientations, the most daylight hours.

Links

Authors:

Wien, Austria

1

Wien, Austria_1

Wien, Austria

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2012: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Architect: ex Studio uek
  • Architect: ARGEbKöb&Pollak + Alexander Schmoeger
  • Architect: goya ZT

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Vienna
Country/Region: Austria, Vienna

Description

After the competition, the team engaged in discussions with various stakeholders, including Wien Holding, GESIBA (the housing cooperative), the district head, and the Europan secretary. They refined their ideas and concepts and considered rezoning the area but ultimately decided to make slight adjustments to the urban plan instead. The project was approved to be realized under the Wienese Subsidised Housing framework, leading to the division of the site into three parts and the initiation of another competition called Bauträgerwettbewerb. Studio uek was invited to build one part of the project and contribute to the competition brief. Additional experts were involved to address landscape architecture and participation, resulting in rules and regulations that complemented the existing zoning. The project focused on urban porosity and connecting the housing project with the surrounding area. Two other teams were selected to build the remaining parts, each with their own housing concepts. Studio uek constructed 171 housing units, including sheltered housing and a geriatric day center, and incorporated common spaces and a roof-top route that connects the three parts. The participative activation process allowed residents to define programs for smaller communal spaces and participate in the management of rooftop flowerbeds and gardens. Just after the competition, the team entered in a discussion phase with several actors included Wien Holding, the head of the housing cooperative GESIBA, the head of the district and Europan secretary. They had to sharpen their ideas and their concepts. It was also discussed whether the team should consider rezoning the area but then they decided that through a slight translation of the urban plan without really losing a lot of the qualities, they could avoid this time consuming process. At the end of this first phase it was decided that the project should be realized within the framework of the Wienese Subsidised Housing, which meant that the site should be divided into three smaller parts and thar another competition called Bauträgerwettbewerb should take a place. The team was invited both to build one part of this project and to contribute to elaborate the competition brief. In order to pursue their idea from Europan competition, the team involved additional experts for landscape architecture and for participation and all together they formulated additional rules and regulations for this competition brief, which should complement the existing zoning. These rules concerned the configutation of the whole project, but also the character of the garden courtyard, the rooftop route, several main common spaces in each project part and thar should be included in each project a participative activation process.

Studio uek worked on this specific element of urban porosity, on connecting points between the outside road, the surroundings and the inside world of the housing project. Two Austrian teams were selected to build the two other parts of the area. The first one (ARGE Köb&Pollak / Alexander Schmoeger) on the North side worked on experimental housing providing apartments from a very small size like 30m2 up to big shared apartments. The second team (goya ZT GmbH), in the South part, focused on young and urban housing with a lot of sports and leisure facilities inside the housing project. Studio uek built 171 housing (of which 30 are sheltered housing) + a geriatric day centre. The three built parts have some common spaces dedicated, for some of them, to support the small community of the building and for some other, to offer possibilities to inhabitants of the whole project (like the “play and celebration space” in the studio uek part). A roof-top-route links the three built parts offering also collective spaces (like tenants flowerbeds, glass house, summer kitchen…)

The participative activation process allowed inhabitants to define the programs for smaller common spaces and they were also involved in the management of the flowebeds / garden on the roof.

Links

Authors:

300000km/s

Soft urban renewal in Vienna, Austria

0

Soft urban renewal in Vienna, Austria

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2010: Rehabilitación

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Vienna Housing Rehabilitation

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Vienna
Country/Region: Austria, Vienna

Description

Soft urban renewal, implemented under the 1984 Vienna Housing Rehabilitation Act, is a non-disruptive approach that avoids demolishing historic buildings or displacing residents. It focuses on financial incentives for private homeowners and follows a decentralized and participatory method for building and neighborhood improvements. The emphasis is on improving housing standards without causing social segregation or gentrification. The scheme has successfully reduced substandard housing from 320,000 to less than 125,000 units through rehabilitation efforts. It has created affordable rehabilitated housing without changing ownership, resulting in over 715,000 fully equipped apartments. The approach prioritizes affordability, social inclusion, and the needs of vulnerable households. Redevelopment is managed by district offices, supported by private architects or non-profit building associations and funded by the city. These offices collaborate with tenants and owners to enhance housing stock, including green courtyards and communal facilities, while promoting connections to public transport. There are currently 13 district offices that actively involve vulnerable and socially marginalized households with the support of city funds. It is considered “soft” or ”gentle” as it does not involve the demolition of historic buildings or the construction of entirely new urban areas, nor does it displace and compulsorily rehouse residents living in renewal areas.

Legislated under the 1984 Vienna Housing Rehabilitation Act, the soft urban renewal created financial renovation incentives for private homeowners and was implemented through a decentralized and participatory approach to building and neighbourhood improvement.

Much effort has since gone towards improving housing standards, while avoiding social segregation and gentrification. The urban renewal has involved strategic subsidization of private housing rehabilitation, rather than the demolition of historic buildings. Public authorities first look at bringing empty flats into use and developing communal areas and then later address whole blocks of flats and creating new urban areas.[3] An evaluation of this scheme in 2010 found that soft renewal had made substantial improvements to living conditions in Vienna. From 1984 to 2001, through rehabilitation, houses that were categorised as substandard were substantially reduced – from approximately 320,000 (39 per cent of the total stock) to less than 125,000.

The renewal activities produced a large stock of affordable rehabilitated housing with avoiding a forced change of ownership or occupancy. One important result was the avoidance of social segregation and gentrification. A total of 2,160 buildings with 142,000 apartments were improved as part of the process of soft renewal and the number of fully equipped apartments rose from about 328,000 to more than 715,000.[1]

Notably, limited profit affordable housing is in relatively good condition, in part due to the business model which funds it that requires regular maintenance and periodic renovation. Chapter II on funding and financing affordable and inclusive housing has extensively elaborated on this matter. The soft renewal approach, which is both decentralized and interdisciplinary, prioritises affordability and social inclusion objectives, avoids forced change of ownership and enables rehabilitated housing to remain affordable to existing occupants. Particular attention is given to the needs of vulnerable households (the elderly and new migrants).

The redevelopment is managed by offices in each city district. These are run by either private architects or non-profit building associations and are financed by the city. They work with both tenants and owners to improve the housing stock; for example, by enhancing green courtyards, and making proposals for communal facilities and connections to public transport. There are now 13 district offices (Gebietsbetreuungen) which can also apply for city funds to involve vulnerable or socially marginalised households more actively.

Links

Authors: