Lisboa 01 July 2015

ReHABITATJulia Lindenthal

Gabriele Mraz

Constance Weiser

Franz Gugerell

75% of all Austrian buildings are single family houses

By 2030, 70% of those living alone will be women aged 65+

When single family houses no longer match the needs

OR different ways to live together

in which 58% of all Austrian residents are living in

ReHABITAT

Housing is a basic need.

In lower Austria 57 % of all the buildings are not fully

occupied

Research subject

• How can abandoned or not fully occupied

single family houses be transformed into

„multi-person homes“ (MPH)?

• What solutions are needed to achieve these

options at a technical, social and

administrative level?

• What convinces and what impedes the

relevant target groups from deciding in

favour of these solutions?

Method

• literature und project research

• Focus group and interviews to survey the needs and

requirements of house owners and residents

• Workshop with subject matter experts to survey the

quality features

• Selection of the building typologies

• Integral design process – architecture, HVACR, law,

financing

• Quality assurance by subject matter experts(workshop and interviews) ⇨ Revision

Multi-person home is NOT:

• Multifamily residence

• multiple storey residential building

Requirements on multi-person homes

• Age and Gender sensitivity

• High standard of living quality

• Provide different options of communal living

• Efficient use of floorspace

• Minor interventions

• Affordability

• Within the existing cubature

• Opening towards the community

Settlement-

house, 1957

Bungalow-

style, 1975

Semi-detached house,

1994

Building typologies from 50s to 90s:

Country

house – style

1984

Results

These options are working very well:

• Separately accessible dwelling units

• Shared house

• dwelling +: office, medical practice,

workshops, cafe, day care facilities etc.

• 24h caring and assisted living

• MPH as part of „residential compounds“

These options are working with restrictions:

• Smaller units with generous joint spaces for

interactions (p.e. common kitchens) :

- possible, if the dwellers are singles or

couples

- possible, if there is a minimum of 10 – 15

housing units available

Suitability for common use of classical secondary

rooms like garages, washing rooms, storing rooms

or cold storage rooms etc. should be verified in any case ⇨ extreme reduction of material andimmaterial resources (tools, floor space, time, money...)

Good to know:

- New staircases might be needed in order to

make apartments accessible separately

- Dormers might be needed to use attics

efficiently

- start-up apartments not too small ⇨ less

fluctuation ⇨ better for community-building

- Size of the rooms rather generous⇨ increased flexibility

- Importance of the outdoor spaces

- Leave a creative leeway (indoor and outdoor)

Residential compound

Three eldery neighbours found a household in one of their renovated

homes. For example in house A.

Before:

3 houses, 3

inhabitants

After:

3 houses, 9

inhabitants

By selling and renting houses B and C they can finance the

renovation.

Before

3 houses, 3

inhabitantsA B

C

Constructional and technical challenges:

• Barrier-free accessibility

• Ceiling heights, building heights, pitched

roof areas

• Noise insulation, Energy efficiency

• Fire prevention

• Illumination

• Water- and wastewater supply

• Heating

• Electrical power supply

What solutions are needed on a social level

to achieve these options?

• Aspects of „living- and architecture

psychology“ have to be respected:

– Protection of privacy and guarantee of

everybodies personal areas within the private

space

– Possibilities for communication and

interaction with cohabitants have to be given

– differentiation in private – semiprivate –

semipublic – public zones is important

Ideal composition of the housing community:

• Multigenerational living / homogeneous age groups

living, living with family or beyond intra-familial concepts ⇨ everything is possible, but

⇨ it is Important to offer a large spectrum of different

housing communities:

flatsharing for young & old, for people with need of

assistance, start-ups, Singleapartments, Family-

flats....

⇨ tuning expectations, interests and needs right at thebeginning of group-building processes

⇨ professional advice and supervision during thewhole process is strongly recommended

Crux of the matters that have to be

eased

• Emotional attachment towards one´s house

• Resistance against change

• Fear of taking risks by joint living

• Fear of being too close, of conflicts

• Fear of living with „strangers“

• Fear of „what will my neighbour be saying“?

Chance: Identification with the house is possible

also by tenants and/or in a house that belonged to

somebody else before

CONCLUSIONS

There is no universal solution⇨ there are many

solutions!

The spectrum of needs is equally broad as the

spectrum of possibilites to live together

The more jointly a dwelling form is, the less intense

the needed transformations of the house are, the

more the actual square meter per capita is lowered

The biggest barriers are the ones in our heads

Important that the „right persons“ find together

Prospects

• Handbook with analysis results and

designing options will be ready by

September 2015

• Blog (rehabitatprojekt.wordpress.com)

• Invitations to several events, to present our

ideas

• Follow-up project „ReHABITAT-

ImmoCHECK+“

• Long-term objective: IMPLEMENTATION

Team members

Austrian Institute of Ecology: Julia Lindenthal, Gabriele Mraz

architope network for sustainable architecture Constance Weiser

Gugerell KG Energy- and building consultance: Franz Gugerell

Project management: Julia Lindenthal, ÖÖIContact: lindenthal@ecology.at

Funded by the Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology

within the framework of the FEMtech research projects programme, 2013 - 2015

Thank you for your attention!

Julia Lindenthal

Austrian Institute of Ecology