BORROWİNG İDEAS : THE CHANGİNG FORM OF METROPOLİTAN HOUSİNG İN BUDAPEST

15th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

BORROWİNG İDEAS : THE CHANGİNG FORM OF METROPOLİTAN HOUSİNG İN BUDAPEST CSILLA V GAL Address: 2228 12th PL, Washington D.C. 20009 e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Capitals often serve as national testing grounds for urban planning, policy and design because of their role representing the state. As such, they not only accommodate local reforms and initiatives, but international concepts and practices as well. A strong reliance on imported ideas characterizes small or late-urbanizing nations, as their limited resources necessitate the adoption of tested examples over uncertain experimentation. In planning history, one can trace the adjustment of existing practices in the accommodation of novel ideas in the development of housing. Located at the crossroads of culture, technology, economy and policy, the design and construction of urban housing reflects the complex interplay of these competing forces. This paper focuses on the history of Budapest's metropolitan housing over the past two centuries. Through a close examination of the development of four characteristic housing types, the article sheds light on the local treatment of these foreign concepts by examining the social, cultural and political challenges that accompanied their introduction. The peculiar courtyard tenement of Budapest became the dominant model of urban housing over the course of the nineteenth century. Although its origin was never discerned, this form was both linked to the Viennese Hof and to the local building tradition. Across Europe, the reformed urban block emerged as an appropriate configuration for metropolitan dwelling at the beginning of the twentieth century. Despite their perceived superiority, only a handful of such residences were built prior to the 1930s due to legal, political and financial challenges. The third form of housing, the Zeilenbau, developed out of the German Siedlungen tradition during the interwar period. Even though the returning Bauhaus students promulgated this concept rather early, it did not gain acceptance until after the Second World War. Then, following the brief Social Realist intermezzo, the model was adjusted to meet the narrowly defined goals of the State. The fourth configuration emerged over the past few decades. Influenced by international trends emphasizing tower-living, this type of housing gained a distinctly local character resulting from height restrictions enforced by the city. The examined cases reveal that the metropolitan housing forms of Budapest are based on imported concepts. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates that the driving force behind the local adjustment of these ideas was not the often romanticized local tradition, but the municipal building code and the economic-political elite.

1

Cities, nations and regions in planning history

1. INTRO Purpose-built tenements became dominant dwelling types in the nineteenth century. The changes witnessed during this era turned houses into a highyielding speculative investment, which culminated in their mushrooming across Europe. By the second half of the century, most cities established their own types of apartment houses. Most of them either evolved from medieval dwellings or were local adaptations of foreign concepts. The characteristic apartment building of Central Europe is organized around a courtyard 1. While local variants developed in many cities of the Habsburg monarchy, the open galleries surrounding the courtyard make the Budapest type distinctive.

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUDAPEST'S METROPOLİTAN HOUSİNG, A REVİEW 2.1 THE COURTYARD APARTMENT The development of trade turned Pest into the commercial center of the country during the eighteenth century. The resulting influx of people was taken up by the expanding suburbs 2. The tenements of this era typically emerged through the extension and adaptation of houses. Nevertheless, they did not become dominant dwelling types until the early 1800s 3. Their appeal as profitable investments grew when the Napoleonic wars brought great prosperity to merchants. Since the Austrian tariff system hindered investment in industry, the acquisition of landed property became desirable 4. The city's first planned extension provided an excellent opportunity for such aspirations. This plan, the work of baron Johann von Schilson, was an undifferentiated grid of roads adapted to existing conditions so as to produce the highest number of regular lots possible. Compared to suburban plots, and to those in the medieval city, these were both wider and shallower, and often close to square in shape. The plan was adopted in 1789 and by 1793, most of the lots were sold 5. The design, with its promise of a well-ordered city, influenced public opinion for decades to come 6. The subsequent scheme—the comprehensive regulatory plan of Pest drawn up by Johann Hild—not only continued the street network, but also extended the practice of orderly development to the rest of the city. The 1 Ákos Moravánszky, Competing visions : aesthetic invention and social imagination in Central European architecture, 1867-1918 (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1998). 2 Vera Bácskai, “Pest-Buda from 1686 to 1849,” in Budapest, the history of a capital, ed. Ágnes Ságvári (Budapest: Corvina Press, 1975), 25–37. 3 Zsuzsa Körner, Városias beépítési formák, bérház- és lakástípusok (Urban built forms, housing and dwelling types) (Terc, 2010); Attila Déry and Ferenc Merényi, Magyar építészet 1867-1945 (Hungarian architecture 1867-1945) (Budapest: Urbino, 2000). 4 Bácskai, “Pest-Buda from 1686 to 1849.” 5 Gábor Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története : Buda visszavételétől a II. világháború végéig (History of the urban development of Budapest : from the recapture of Buda to the end of the Second World War), 2nd ed. (Budapest: Terc, 2004). 6 Zsuzsa Körner and Márta Nagy, A városrendezési szabályozások története Magyarországon (History of urban planning regulations in Hungary), Urbanisztikai füzetek (Budapest: Műegyetemi Kiadó, 2004).


newly established Beautification Committee adopted the Hild Plan in 1805 as the blueprint for action. The unified neoclassical appearance of the Pest's first extension was the consequence of the Committee's activity. At the start, construction requirements were controlled through permit procedures and on-site inspections. Later, following the disastrous flood of 1838, a comprehensive building ordinance was issued. It controlled the aesthetics of the facade, set structural standards, limited the height of the buildings, and defined the lowest allowable room sizes and clear heights 7. The 1838 flood destroyed around three quarter of Pest's buildings. The subsequent housing shortage not only increased the rate of construction, but resulted in taller buildings 8. The threeor four-story neoclassical courtyard tenement, emerging under these forces, became the characteristic building type of the 1820-1850 Pest.

Figure 1 The Schilson Plan from 1787 (Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története, 2004 p.45) 7 Déry and Merényi, Magyar építészet 1867-1945 (Hungarian architecture 1867-1945); Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története : Buda visszavételétől a II. világháború végéig (History of the urban development of Budapest : from the recapture of Buda to the end of the Second World War). 8 Körner, Városias beépítési formák, bérház- és lakástípusok (Urban built forms, housing and dwelling types).

3


Figure 2 The 1805 Hild Plan, the upper section of the map covers the city extension regulated by Schilson (László Gerő, Pest-Buda építészete az egyesítéskor, 1973 p.14)


Figure 3 The Derra-house (1828), a neoclassical courtyard tenement (József Sisa and Dora Wiebenson, eds. Magyarország építészetének története, 1998 p.192)

The oppressive Austrian policies introduced in the aftermath of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution thwarted progress temporarily. The growing industrial and financial sectors soon set the city on the path of capitalist development. At the time, leading European capitals competed against each other in world expositions and city beautification. The reportages of these events—depicting distant, transforming metropolises—impressed the public and contributed to a new understanding of the city as a product of conscious human activity and as a work of art 9. The Hungarian press exerted great effort to capture the interest of the public in the modernization of the capital. They emphasized that the beautification of Budapest was of national interest 10. The examples set by foreign capitals governed the taste of aspiring residents, who now regarded the three-storied, neoclassical buildings unfit for an emerging metropolis. This change in the aesthetic preference for taller buildings coincided with the economic rationale of rising land prices 11. The prime minister's vision—to develop Budapest as a true European metropolis, a Paris of the East—called attention again to the importance of urban modernization in 1868. For both economic and political reasons, the leaders realized the necessity to prove the country's viability through spectacular achievements. Grand urban reconstruction was the quickest way to accomplish 9 Gerő, Pest-Buda építészete az egyesítéskor (The architecture of Pest-Buda at the time of their unification). 10 Emőke Tomsics, “Valóság, tervek, ábrándok : civil vélemények és elképzelések BudaPestről az 1860-as években (Reality, plans, dreams : laymen opinions and imaginations of Buda-Pest during the 1860s),” Budapesti Negyed 15, no. 2 (2007): 147–178. 11 ibid.

5


this aim 12. In 1870, the legislature established the Metropolitan Board of Public Works to supervise the development of the capital. On the basis of building regulations obtained from other European cities, the Board soon introduced an Interim Ordinance. The act sparked a jurisdictional debate over the right to issue building codes and lead to a war of ordinances between the Board and the city's Department of Buildings. In general, the proposals put forward by the Board favored developers with greater financial powers, while the Department strove to defend the interest of its ordinary constituents 13. The long and fruitless debate ended when the Home Secretary finally weighed in favor of the Board 14. The enacted 1894 Building Regulation of Budapest defined basic zones for controlling both building bulk and use. Subdivision practices, building height restrictions, clear height limits, minimum lot and courtyard area specifications governed the shape of terraced tenements. The continuing preference for a well-ordered city extended the practice of orthogonal grid layouts. Following an international trend, the building height limits were now defined in relation to street widths. During the ordinance war, this ratio gradually grew in the Board's proposals. It reached its peak in the 1894 regulation as a height-to-width ratio of 25:15 meters. In the two zones dedicated to terraced buildings the smallest permissible plot size was a bit over 250 square meters, out of which at least 15 percent in general, or 20 percent in case of five-story buildings, were to be set aside for courtyards. In light of these ordinances, it is of no surprise that the courtyard tenement became the dominant dwelling type within the confines of little Budapest. However, building regulations were not the only factor in this result, but rather worked in tandem with socio-economic forces 15. Late industrialization and consequent rapid urbanization restructured the economy and reorganized the society of Budapest during the second half of the nineteenth century. Following the 1873 economic crisis, housing as an investment lost its earlier primacy to emerging industries 16. The introduction of a new financial instrument, the mortgage, altered the mode of housing production and with it, the actors. By the last quarter of the century, speculation in land dictated the utilization of space to its fullest. Whereas bulk zoning defined the outer limits for spatial exploitation, the inner organization of tenements was governed by the pragmatic decisions of architects and investors. Besides local building tradition, the desire to maximize rental revenues also played a part in the popularity of the open galleries 17. This design improved the viability of the construction by both reducing the 12 Attila Déry, Pest története és művészete (The history and art of Pest), Budapest építészeti topográfia (Budapest: Terc, 2005). 13 ibid. 14 Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története : Buda visszavételétől a II. világháború végéig (History of the urban development of Budapest : from the recapture of Buda to the end of the Second World War). 15 Gábor Gyáni, Bérkaszárnya és nyomortelep : a budapesti munkáslakás múltja (Tenement and slum : the history of workers' housing in Budapest) (Budapest: Magvető, 1992). 16 ibid.; Gábor Gyáni, Parlor and kitchen : housing and domestic culture in Budapest, 1870-1940 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2002). 17 Péter Hanák, A kert és a műhely (The garden and the workshop) (Budapest: Gondolat, 1988).


unprofitable yet necessary area for circulation, and the material required for its construction. The prevalence of mixed-class tenements was likewise the result of profit maximization and risk aversion strategies, not the act of conscious class-integration practices—an idea promulgated by housing reformers in Berlin 18. The approach to diversifying unit sizes, and thus rents and tenants, remained a reliable approach in a saturated market that catered to the upperand middle-classes, but was also characterized by a steady influx of poor people. This strategy kept vacancy rates within tenements at a minimum. Building regulations, acting together with socio-economic forces, thus contributed to the crystallization of a universal formula for tenement design. Three additional practices—the plot unification, the zoning-governed land prices and the imperatives of investment—reinforced this tendency towards a prevalent typology. The statistics regarding Pest's downtown indicate growing shares of taller tenements and an overall decrease in the number of buildings 19. This seeming anomaly was the result of lot unifications and building replacements—a trend characteristic to valuable areas. The course of development was as follows: the declining number of undeveloped plots drove land prices higher, which in turn necessitated the replacement of shorter buildings with taller structures 20. In addition, contemporaries soon noticed that the land prices developed in accordance with their future utility, as governed by bulk zoning 21. The common belief of the time held that rents can be kept at an acceptable level through the utilization of the land to its fullest along with the inclusion of the highest possible number of dwellings 22. In the hand of land speculators, the reversal of this logic became a tool in deriving land prices on the basis of attainable future rents 23. This practice thus resulted in a self-reinforcing cycle of rising land prices. Finally, as Gyáni pointed out, the housing boom during the 1890s was less the result of rising demand than of the widely available mortgages 24. As a consequence, similarly to that in Vienna and Berlin, the supply of capital governed the building cycles in Budapest 25. Since the housing sector competed for funds with other investment options, the principles of investment—chiefly their profitability— commanded their output. By the last quarter of the century, speculation became the order of the day, and the exploitation of the land led to ever-taller buildings with even smaller courtyards. The typical apartment changed its style but kept its fundamental organization around a courtyard. Due to the courtyard-facing units and their 18 Gyáni, Parlor and kitchen : housing and domestic culture in Budapest, 1870-1940. 19 Déry, Budapest építészeti topográfia. 20 ibid. 21 Ferenc Harrer, “A modern városigazgatás problémái (The issues of modern city management),” Városi Szemle 4, no. 10 (1911): 665–686. 22 Hanák, A kert és a műhely (The garden and the workshop). 23 Gábor Gyáni, “Budapest,” in Housing the workers, 1850-1914 : a comparative perspective, ed. Martin James Daunton (London and New York: Leicester University Press, 1990), 149–181. 24 Gyáni, Bérkaszárnya és nyomortelep : a budapesti munkáslakás múltja (Tenement and slum : the history of workers' housing in Budapest). 25 Gyáni, “Budapest;” Martin James Daunton, ed. Housing the workers, 1850-1914 : a comparative perspective (London and New York: Leicester University Press, 1990).

7


insufficiency in daylight and ventilation, the tall historicist buildings became the focus of criticism for decades to come.

Figure 4 The Delmedico-hause (1882), a historicist cortyard tenement (Sisa and Wiebenson, Magyarország építészetének története, 1998 p.220)

2.2 THE EMERGENCE OF PERİMETER-BLOCK APARTMENTS Housing reformers made themselves heard rather early. The critical voices grew louder after the 1870 census drew the public's attention to the appalling housing shortage for the first time 26. While reoccurring cholera outbreaks and census data periodically reminded the city fathers about the pressing housing problem, all reform attempts were silenced in the bureaucratic maze of hearings, debates and board meetings. The reason behind these failed attempts, on one hand, was the laissez-faire attitude that envisioned the role of government as limited to ensuring the necessary conditions for a functioning market. On the other hand, even when a consensus was reached over a course of action, none of the reform ideas could take root in the socio-economic reality of nineteenth-century Budapest 27. The social tension, caused by the growing disparity between rents and wages, reached its peak during the first decade of the twentieth century. In the chain of events that led to escalating rents, the mortgage-fueled housing boom of the 1890s played a decisive role. First, the increased construction costs and mortgage interest—the consequences of overproduction and strengthening cartels—were passed through to the tenants 28. Second, the system of 'main rental' exacerbated the situation of the renters 29, since it inserted a middle man between the landlord and the tenants. This arrangement, with a third financial interest in the equation, increased the tenants' exposure to rentusury. Over the course of a decade, the continued rent hikes and evictions led 26 Laura Umbrai, A szociális kislakásépítés története Budapesten : 1870-1948 (The history of social housing in Budapest : 1870-1948), Critica (Budapest: Napvilág, 2008). 27 ibid. 28 ibid. 29 Gyáni, Parlor and kitchen : housing and domestic culture in Budapest, 1870-1940.


to peaceful housing boycotts in 1907, and escalated into violent rent strikes between 1909 and 1910 30. The growing discontent brought the housing question into the limelight again. An increasing number of symposia served as a platform to debate both causes and effects of the problem. The attack on the prevailing mode of housing—the courtyard tenement—came from two fronts 31. One condemned the overcrowded, tiny apartments as the source of discontent and the breeding ground of crime, disease and immorality—problems primarily affecting the lower classes. The other addressed the living conditions in courtyard-facing units, which deprived dwellers from air, light and privacy—an issue increasingly felt by the middle classes. The growing social tension at the beginning of the twentieth century brought substantial change to the stance of city fathers on municipal housing. The newly elected progressive Mayor Bárczy harnessed the general assembly's fear first in 1907 to gain approval for a model housing of small-dwellings, then in 1909 to launch his large-scale housing and school-building program 32 . By 1913, when the financial difficulties brought by the Balkan Wars put an end to the program, the city increased its pool of housing by approximately 6000 dwellings 33. Municipal housing produced two kinds of dwellings: higher quality smallapartments and inexpensive cottages 34. The design of the apartments formed a deliberate contrast to prevailing practices. The sparing use of ornamentation 35, the reduction of building site coverage 36 and the experiments with building forms and site layouts were all intended to set an example. Architectural solutions were borrowed from German speaking neighbors (mostly from Vienna and Berlin). On the pages of the 1905 Der Steadtebau, Theodor Goecke advocated the loosening up of the densely built tenement block by means of internal streets, dwelling courts, setbacks or by indenting the street frontage 37. The composite configuration of the Berzenczei Street municipal housing (1909), proposed by Dezső Komor and Marcell Jakab, is perhaps a modest adaptation of these concepts. In their design, the architects introduced a private street by which they opened up the shared courtyard for better sanitary 30 Gyáni, Bérkaszárnya és nyomortelep : a budapesti munkáslakás múltja (Tenement and slum : the history of workers' housing in Budapest). 31 Zsombor Bódy, “Kislakás, társasház, családi ház : lakáséptkezés és az otthon ideáljának változása Budapesten az első világháború körül (Small-dwelling, condominium, single family home : housing and the changing home ideals in Budapest around the First World War),” Századvég 9, no. 34 (2004): 27–57. 32 András Sipos, Várospolitika és városigazgatás Budapesten, 1890-1914 (City politics and urban management in Budapest, 1890-1914) (Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára, 1996). 33 Gyöngyi Erdei, “A mintaadó polgármester : Bárczy István beruházási programja, 19061914 (The exemplary Mayor : István Bárczy's investment program, 1906-1914),” Budapesti Negyed 3, no. 3 (1995): 97–116. 34 Umbrai, Critica. 35 Moravánszky, Competing visions : aesthetic invention and social imagination in Central European architecture, 1867-1918. 36 Umbrai, Critica. 37 see Wolfgang Sonne, “Dwelling in the metropolis: Reformed urban blocks 1890–1940 as a model for the sustainable compact city,” Progress in Planning 72, no. 2 (2009): 53–149.

9


conditions, and provided access to the inner wings of the building. Another scheme that harnessed Goecke's recommendations is Béla Rerrich's meanderlike design for the Aréna Street small-apartments (1911). The small-apartment complex by Dávid and Zsigmond Jónás, built over three adjacent city lots on Jászberényi Street (1911), introduced a private street to bring light and air to the units. Virgil Nagy's Margit Boulevard tenement for civil servants (1911) employed the 'street court' layout, common in Vienna at that time 38. Gyula Haász and Béla Málnai proposed a layout of free standing apartments for the development on Hungária Boulevard (1909), with the buildings loosely arrange around central gardens.

Figure 5 Municipal housing at Berzenczei Street (1909), the proposed configuration by the Komor and Jakab (“A főváros építkezései,” Magyar Építőművészet, 1909)

Figure 9 Municipal housing at Margit Boulevard by Virgil Nagy (1911), ground floor plan (“Budapest székesfőváros építkezései. II. ciklus”, Magyar Építőművészet, 1911) 38 see ibid.


Figure 6 Municipal housing at Aréna Street by Béla Rerrich (1911), first floor plan with site plan (“A főváros építkezései 3. ciklus 1912. év”, Magyar Építőművészet, 1911)

Figure 7 Municipal housing at Aréna Street (1914), an early picture of the building (“A műtermekből”, Magyar Építőművészet, 1914)

11


Figure 8 Municipal housing at Jászberényi Street by the Jónás brothers (1911), site plan and general floor plan (“Budapest székesfőváros építkezései. II. ciklus”, Magyar Építőművészet, 1911)


Figure 10 Municipal housing at Hungária Boulevard (1909), the proposed configuration by Haász and Málnai (“A főváros építkezései”, Magyar Építőművészet, 1909)

Figure 11 Municipal housing at Hungária Boulevard by Haász and Málnai (1909), first floor plan (“A főváros építkezései”, Magyar Építőművészet, 1909)

In the two-tiered town planning and regulatory system of Budapest, the powers were split between the Metropolitan Board of Public Work and various Municipal Departments. The conservative Board acted as second-instance authority and possessed powers that severely limited the autonomy of the city 39. Its 39 Sipos, Várospolitika és városigazgatás Budapesten, 1890-1914 (City politics and urban management in Budapest, 1890-1914).

13


functions included the drafting and adoption of building and zoning ordinances. The Board members were appointed from the nobility and the haute bourgeoisie 40 and often represented real estate interests. The battle over a legal ban on the construction of courtyard tenements was hence fought on two fronts: with the landowners who opposed any reform that would risk potential profits 41 and with the members of the Board who could also exert their interest through the legislative process. The Board nonetheless made a few attempts to improve the quality of housing. Modern building layouts and regulatory tools, aiming to alter the condemned tenement construction practice, were generally tested on wealthy neighborhoods. Here, perhaps, the loss in buildable space could be justified on the basis of prestige and improved sanitary conditions. On legal grounds, the introduction of so called exceptional and transitional areas in 1886 granted special regulatory powers in designated places—either of great importance or located between the zone of villas and terraced buildings. The Széll Kálmán Square and its neighborhood constituted such an area. Its 1894 detailed regulatory plan—proposed in 1886 and adopted in 1894— limited building footprints through the use of rear building lines on lots along the Krisztina Boulevard. This regulatory tool—already employed in Germany—was introduced to avert back wing construction and thus to improve the quality of housing 42. The plan mandated joint courtyard configuration—a concept borrowed from the Ringstrasse development in Vienna 43. The grouping of three to four neighboring courtyards not only improved the daylighting of apartments, but for the most part eliminated the rear and side wings, along with their tenants. However, since the Board designated innovative configurations on a block-by-block basis these concepts could not take root in the general practice.

Figure 12 Detailed regulatory plan proposal for the plots along the Krisztina Boulevard (1886) (Körner, Városias beépítési formák, bérház- és lakástípusok, 2010 p.102) 40 Attila Déry, “A Fővárosi Közmunkák Tanácsa (1870-1948) : Egy független városrendező hatóság (The Metropolitan Board of Public Works (1870-1948) : An independent planning authority),” Budapesti Negyed 3, no. 3 (1995): 77–96. 41 András Ferkai, “A társasház, mint a budapesti lakóházépítés megújításának egyik módja (Condominium as way to housing reform in Budapest),” in Űr vagy megélt tér (Void space or experienced place) (Budapest: Terc, 2003), 103–123. 42 Körner, Városias beépítési formák, bérház- és lakástípusok (Urban built forms, housing and dwelling types). 43 ibid.


Figure 13 Detailed regulatory plan proposal for the block adjacent to Széll Kálmán Square (1886) (Körner, Városias beépítési formák, bérház- és lakástípusok, 2010 p.102).

The First World War put an end to new, unfolding architectural ideas. The dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy brought the economy to a standstill. In the capital, stagnant wartime housing production and the influx of refugees from lost territories resulted in an acute housing shortage.44 The building industry was paralyzed by both the economic downturn and by the remaining rent control during the first half of the 1920s. The 1926 accord to restore free-market conditions 45 and a League of Nations loan the same year 46 delivered the awaited shift in housing.) During the housing crisis, the cooperative housing movement gained considerable impetus. Since civil servants were in a position to both appeal for political support and bargain with financial institutions, they were the single group to enjoy its benefits 47. The 1924 act on condominiums that turned the units into marketable commodities. According to Ferkai, because of the ownership structure, condominiums contributed to the development of a modern housing design 48. Here, the equal standing of residents required equal shares to light, air and privacy. The design of condominiums soon abandoned back and side wings, and intuitively hit upon the perimeter configuration 49. Hungarian building societies were financially weak, hence they could not secure an entire urban block for the development of an unbroken perimeter. This constraint resulted in two characteristic solutions. The first, developed for individual lots, introduced a shallow court at its front—in a cour d’honneur-like 44 Gyáni, Bérkaszárnya és nyomortelep : a budapesti munkáslakás múltja (Tenement and slum : the history of workers' housing in Budapest). 45 Bódy, “Kislakás, társasház, családi ház : lakáséptkezés és az otthon ideáljának változása Budapesten az első világháború körül (Small-dwelling, condominium, single family home : housing and the changing home ideals in Budapest around the First World War).” 46 Nóra Pamer, Magyar építészet a két világháború között (Hungarian architecture between the two World Wars), 2nd ed. (Budapest: Terc, 2001). 47 Bódy, “Kislakás, társasház, családi ház : lakáséptkezés és az otthon ideáljának változása Budapesten az első világháború körül (Small-dwelling, condominium, single family home : housing and the changing home ideals in Budapest around the First World War);” Ferkai, “A társasház, mint a budapesti lakóházépítés megújításának egyik módja (Condominium as way to housing reform in Budapest).” 48 ibid. 49 ibid. 15


manner. Examples for this layout include the Hunnia-court by István Sailer (1930) and the Turán-court by Károly Reiner (1929). The other formula was utilized at the handful of cases when a number of adjacent lots were joined-up. The conflicting goals, to deliver healthy units and to utilize the land efficiently, were resolved in meander-like manner through a fusion of courts and front yards. József Fischer (1973–1942) designed several such buildings, examples include Vak Bottyán Street (1928) and the Zenta Street (1929) condominium complex.

Figure 14 The Hunnia-court by István Sailer (1930) (“Vendéglő, bérház, társasház”, Magyar Építőművészet, 1930)

Figure 15 The Turán-court by Károly Reiner (1929) (“Rainer Károly: Bérházak”, Magyar Építőművészet, 1930)


Figure 16 Condominium complex on Vak Bottyán Street (1928), the darker gray configuration on the lowerright side of the image (Körner, Városias beépítési formák, bérház- és lakástípusok, 2010 p.104)

Figure 17 Condominium on Vak Bottyán Street (1928), floor plan (Ferkai, Űr vagy megélt tér, 2003 p.112)

17


Figure 18 A meander-like condominium complex along Zenta Street (1929) (Körner, Városias beépítési formák, bérház- és lakástípusok, 2010 p.104)

As courtyard tenement construction dominated the housing industry until the end of the 1920s, the effect of the forward-looking municipal housing and condominium designs were little more than a drop in the ocean. Perhaps they broadened the public's horizon on housing alternatives and contributed to the gradual change of dwelling ideals. The years between 1928 to 1932 mark a turning-point in many aspects. On one hand, the Great Depression prolonged the ongoing economic demise of the middle class, which together with arriving dwelling concepts and the advent of dual-earner families transformed housing ideals 50. On the other hand, the period is associated with the dissemination of modernism in Hungary. During the conservative era of the 1920s, foreign architectural developments were almost exempt from the literature. The turning point is marked with the launching of the journal Tér és Forma “Space and Form” in 1928, a journal for the promotion of New Architecture. The new principles reached Hungary though critical debate and intellectual discourse my means of periodicals, exhibitions and alike 51. In the dissemination of ideas Bauhaus-affiliated artists played a vital role, of whom the most prominent character was Farkas Molnár 52. The Hungarian CIAM group, established under his leadership, undertook the coverage of everything related to modern architecture: reviewed books, publicized exhibitions, reported from conferences and conveyed ideas at public talks and discussions. The effect of the group's propaganda was already felt in a wider context by 1932. 50 Bódy, “Kislakás, társasház, családi ház : lakáséptkezés és az otthon ideáljának változása Budapesten az első világháború körül (Small-dwelling, condominium, single family home : housing and the changing home ideals in Budapest around the First World War).” 51 Pamer, Magyar építészet a két világháború között (Hungarian architecture between the two World Wars). 52 see Ottó Mezei, A Bauhaus magyar vonatkozásai: előzmények, együttműködés és kisugárzás (The Hungarian bearings of Bauhaus: antecendents, collaboration and diffusion) (Budapest: Népművelési Intézet; Művelődéskutató Intézet, 1981); Eszter Gábor, A CIAM magyar csoportja : 1928-1938 (The Hungarian CIAM group : 1928-1938) (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972).


The CIAM group was not alone in advocating for change. Housekeeping and home building manuals likewise conveyed an almost universal disapproval of earlier trends in architecture 53. Tangible events exerted perhaps an even greater influence on the public. The series of fairs, exhibitions and conferences that characterized 1930 culminated in following years. The Napraforgó Street Model Housing Estate, the Weissenhofsiedlung-inspired display of modern homes, opened its doors to the public in 1931. The 'How to Build' exhibition was launched the following year in a desperate move to revive the Depressionstricken market. The exhibition, working with an enormous propaganda apparatus, utilized all means to reach a wide audience and to deliver its message. The predominance of modern housing related topics among the presenters signaled the growing acceptance of modern architecture, a goal to which the activity of the CIAM group contributed significantly 54. During the Great Depression, rampant inflation and weakening currencies channeled investments to housing again. Pressed by constrained budgets and changing housing norms, home builders and investors searched for acceptable housing schemes for the middle-class 55. The outcome of this process was the gradual disappearance of rear wings and the decreasing size of apartments. A wide variety of quality one-room dwellings—furnished with modern conveniences—were developed by the mid-1930s 56. Along with the transformation of former court-facing one-room-and-kitchen dwellings to elegant single-room units, tenements consisting mainly of such apartments started to emerge in prestigious inner-city areas 57. Beyond the interests of the developer and the taste of the public, metropolitan architecture was shaped by building regulations 58. The 1934 property tax break, through an appended detailed regulatory plan, incentivized apartment buildings forming a perimeter block. To compensate owners for their lost right to build rear wings, the plan allowed for greater building depths. Unlike the courtyard apartment's street-side wing, comprising of two spans, subsequent tenements were built with three. This increased depth lead to new kind of dwellings containing a hall—an indirectly lit and ventilated central room 59. Out 53 Bódy, “Kislakás, társasház, családi ház : lakáséptkezés és az otthon ideáljának változása Budapesten az első világháború körül (Small-dwelling, condominium, single family home : housing and the changing home ideals in Budapest around the First World War).” 54 Pamer, Magyar építészet a két világháború között (Hungarian architecture between the two World Wars); László Nyíri, “Beszámoló az MMÉE "Hogyan építsünk?" építési propagandamozgalmának első ciklusáról (A report from the first cycle of the building propaganda movement 'How to Build'),” Magyar Mérnök és Építész Egylet közlönye 66, no. 29 (1932): 169––179. 55 Eszter Gábor, “A polgári lakásigények mélyrepülése — az egyszobás cselédszobás lakás (The bourgeois housing — the one-room apartment with maid's room),” Budapesti Negyed 17, no. 1 (2009): 91–122. 56 ibid. 57 ibid. 58 Déry, Budapest építészeti topográfia. 59 András Ferkai, Pest építészete a két világháború között (The architecture of Pest between the Wars) (Budapest: Modern Épitészetért Építészettörténeti és Műemlékvédelmi KHT, 2001).

19


of the 1934 governmental subvention emerged the modern apartment building as a type 60. As part of this developmental process, architects eliminated everything from the modern residential design not embraced by the public 61. According to Gábor, the emerged architecture can be considered a meeting point of architects starting from two distinct basic positions 62. On one end stood the designers that acquired the new principles indirectly and could not comprehend them entirely due to the lack of appropriate hands on experiences (such as social housing programs). Thus they fall into the errors of formalism. On the other end were the ones, like Molnár, who had some experience and were in direct contact with the international movement, but due to the nature of projects—mostly villas for the educated elite—they needed to tone down or alter some of these principles to meet the taste of their clientele.

Figure 19 Apartment house on Fehérvári Boulevard by Oblatt and Hajdú (1933), containing a variety of small units (Gábor, A polgári lakásigények mélyrepülése, 2009 p.111) 60 Déry, Budapest építészeti topográfia. 61 ibid. 62 “A két világháború közötti magyar építészet tendencia váltásai (Shifting trends in Hungarian architecture between the two World Wars),” Ars Hungarica 12, no. 1 (1984): 67–78.


Figure 20 Apartment house on Felka Street by Barát and Novák (1931), containing a variety of small units (Gábor, A polgári lakásigények mélyrepülése, 2009 p.93)

Figure 21 A characteristic apartment building of Újlipótváros containing dwellings with a hall (Sisa and Wiebenson, Magyarország építészetének története, 1998 p.295)

21


Figure 21 Apartment house on Káplár Street by Fenyves and Fried (1932), a streamlined facade (Gábor, A polgári lakásigények mélyrepülése, 2009 p.102)

Figure 20 Apartment house on Káplár Street by Fenyves and Fried (1932), consisting of two twobedroom-with-hall units and one studio apartment (Gábor, A polgári lakásigények mélyrepülése, 2009 p.103)


Figure 24 The facade of an Újlipótváros apartment building (Photo by the author)

2.3 THE RİSE OF THE ZEİLENBAU DESİGN By the time perimeter block became accepted, it was already regarded inferior to the so-called Zeilenbau design— characterized by parallel rows of apartment buildings. Influenced by Gropius, Hungarian CIAM members opposed the perimeter configuration primarily on hygienic grounds. They argued that the design unavoidably results in north-facing units and creates problematic zones around the negative corners for the provision of adequate light and ventilation 63. The Zeilenbau concept arrived from Weimar Germany, where a new design was called to alleviate the severe housing shortage. The configuration arose out of a complex analysis addressing social needs, technological and economic possibilities. The design ensured access to light, air and greenery to its residents—a provision that was sought after by the pre-war era reformers. The wholesale urban renewal of inner Erzsébet-town, a district entirely developed with courtyard tenements, was put forth by an idea competition in 1932. The announcement asked the participants to present redevelopment 63 Ferkai, Pest építészete a két világháború között (The architecture of Pest between the Wars).

23


proposals on a single urban block. The winning team conceived a plan of two parallel slabs aligned along the streets, running roughly in the ideal north-south direction 64. The enclosed calculations of the winners demonstrated the viability of the design. Although it was never realized, the concept sparked a debate about the Zeilenbau configuration 65 . The first parallel rows of buildings, the so called OTI-bérház “OTI-apartments”, were realized the following years as part of an urban block redevelopment at Tisza Kálmán Square (1935). The design of towers joined along the street front is an interesting response to the already developed metropolitan environment with a canyon street tradition.

Figure 25 The OTI-apartments (1935), site plan (Pamer, Magyar építészet a két világháború között, 2001 p.122)

Figure 26 The OTI-apartments (1935), general floor plan (Pamer, Magyar építészet a két világháború között, 2001 p.122) 64 Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története : Buda visszavételétől a II. világháború végéig (History of the urban development of Budapest : from the recapture of Buda to the end of the Second World War); Virgil Bierbauer, “Városi telektömbök ujjáépítése (Reconstruction of urban blocks),” Tér és Forma 6, no. 3 (1933): 122–126. 65 Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története : Buda visszavételétől a II. világháború végéig (History of the urban development of Budapest : from the recapture of Buda to the end of the Second World War).


Figure 27 The OTI-apartments (1935), photo (Pamer, Magyar építészet a két világháború között, 2001 p.122)

The traditional row-house configuration and the modern Zeilenbau were not native to Hungary. As a consequence, when demand arrived for their construction, the form-based zoning system could not accommodate them. The 1933 amendment to the building code introduced these configurations but without the accompanying dedicated areas. Instead, subsequent ordinances tied strict conditions to their construction. These restrictions together with the lack of dedicated building zones were in part the reasons behind the limited application of linear configurations prior to the First World War. Modernism gained new impetus following the Second World War. The opportunities brought about by the destructions of the war, together with a change in political and architectural elites, filled modernist planners and architects with hope that the city could be built anew according to modern principles 66. However, the economic realities of the country supported another vision. The governmental takeover after 1948 changed the operation of the construction industry profoundly: investment, design, construction and building maintenance all fell under the supervision of the state. Following the Stalinist era—marked by the enforced Social Realist style and ideology—architects return to earlier design principles in 1954. This however 66 Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története : Buda visszavételétől a II. világháború végéig (History of the urban development of Budapest : from the recapture of Buda to the end of the Second World War).

25


was not a straightforward return to modernism 67. With the introduction of state planning mechanisms into housing production the work of architects were increasingly judged along economic efficiency and output measures 68. From 1960, the size of housing estates, buildings and superblocks gradually increased along with their distance to the inner city. While in the composition of housing estates row- and pavilion-shaped buildings prevailed, the rigid Zeilenbauinspired configurations consisting of north-south oriented buildings were gradually abandoned 69. During the 1970s, critics argued for a qualitative rather than quantitative approach to meeting housing needs 70. With the diminishing role of the state in the last decade of communism, architects broke with the prevailing schematism in housing and returned to a human scale 71. 2.4 THE EMERGENCE OF HYBRİD FORMS The 1990s brought a sea of change in the political and economical organization of the country. The belief in the omnipotence of the market was soon felt in housing. The political elite, since they deemed urban planning as a remnant of the communist planned economy, happily abandoned it in favor of the marketled approach advocated by the West 72. Public housing suffered the same fate. Left to the market, it experienced a severe bust during the 1990s. Change came with the introduction of a national housing subsidy program in 2000 as part of the national development plan or Széchenyi Plan 73. In the new millennium, the upturn in housing transformed the industry and increased the position of legal enterprises on the condominium market 74. With the rise of market forces came the need to rebrand the concept of housing estates. The coined term lakópark residential park” was the product of real estate marketing that desperately tried to avoid the term estate, now filled with negative connotations 75. Residential park encapsulates the denial and qualitative surpassing of housing estates, and implies a world of prosperity set in colorful buildings amongst greenery 76. 67 Zsuzsa Körner and Márta Nagy, Az európai és a magyar telepszerű lakásépítés története 1945-től napjainkig (The history of housing estates from 1945 until present in Hungary and Europe), Urbanisztikai füzetek (Budapest: Terc, 2006); András Ferkai, “Építészet a második világháború után (Architecture after the Second World War),” in Magyarország építészetének története (The history of Hungarina architecture), ed. József Sisa and Dora Wiebenson (Budapest: Vince Kiadó, 1998), 205–329. 68 Gábor Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története, 1945-1990 : tanulmányok (History of the urban development of Budapest, 1945-1990 : studies) (Budapest: Műszaki Könyvkiadó, 1998). 69 Körner and Nagy, Urbanisztikai füzetek. 70 Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története, 1945-1990 : tanulmányok (History of the urban development of Budapest, 1945-1990 : studies). 71 Körner and Nagy, Urbanisztikai füzetek. 72 István Schneller, “Előszó (Foreword),” in Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest), ed. István Schneller (Budapest: Terc, 2012), 11–13. 73 Körner and Nagy, Urbanisztikai füzetek. 74 Dominika Vámos, “Fogyasztás és lakásépítés : a lakóparkok viága, 1. rész (Consumption and housing : the world of housing parks, part one),” Kortárs építészet 5, no. 2 (2003), http://arch.et.bme.hu/korabbi_folyam/18/18vamosd.html. 75 Körner and Nagy, Urbanisztikai füzetek. 76 Schneller, “Előszó (Foreword).”


The residential park follows the model of gated community in a manner spatially distinct from its american cousin 77. In the generally safe Budapest, the proliferation of such residences was due to their perceived prestige. The association of residential parks with celebrities and the wealthy was supported by the early precedents built in high quality for confined social strata in the 1990s 78. By the time housing subsidies made residential parks accessible to a wider public, the upper classes already moved on to other dwelling alternatives. In the past two decades, the forces that shaped the form of urban housing were profit, regulations and the inventiveness of architects in their efforts to marry the two. To be profitable, new developments required economies of scale, often covering entire urban blocks. Although residential park covers no explicit spatial configuration, a few authors attempted to categorize them 79. Their analysis identified two typologies with metropolitan character: the opened-up perimeter block and the bouquet of short towers. The former, composed of Lor U-shaped buildings, grew out of the prescribed perimeter configuration for dense urban areas. Whereas international trends of tower-living influenced the design of the latter. This type, consisting of several mid-rise towers joined-up by a common base, arose as a compromise with authorities. While the design surrendered to height restrictions, it resolved the perimeter requirement with a twist. On the grounds of introduced connecting base the towers were regarded as an ensemble—a category that made them exempt from the stringent regulations pertinent to free standing buildings. Consequently, the towers were placed closer than otherwise would have been allowed 80. The characteristic interior configuration of residential parks is the doubleloaded corridors, ensuing from relaxed regulations and from the objective to keep non-marketable circulation areas at a minimum 81 . This layout together with the accompanying narrow and deep dwelling units increased the depth of building 20–22 meters, a number that previously rarely exceed fifteen 82. The facade bejeweled with balconies, the hallmark of recent housing trends, is likewise the outcome of regulation and rationing. Since these external spaces were excluded from building's sum floor area count, they meant additional marketable areas and were applied with predilection. Rather than establishing precedents, residential parks generally recycled routine solutions in their spatial configuration and internal organization 83. 77 Adrienn Csizmady, A lakóteleptől a lakóparkig (From housing esates to residential parks) (Budapest: Új Mandátum, 2008). 78 Mária Kanczlerné Veréb, “A lakóparkok környezeti szempontú értékelésének előzménye (The antecendent of the residential parks' environmental assesment),” in Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest), ed. István Schneller (Budapest: Terc, 2012), 14–19. 79 see Körner and Nagy, Urbanisztikai füzetek; István Schneller, ed. Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest) (Budapest: Terc, 2012). 80 Körner and Nagy, Urbanisztikai füzetek. 81 ibid. 82 Anna Szövényi, “Lakópark-építészet mint marketingtermék (The architecture of residential parks as marketing product),” in Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest), ed. István Schneller (Budapest: Terc, 2012), 60–78. 83 István Schneller, “A kutatás (The research),” in Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest), ed. István Schneller (Budapest: Terc, 2012), 20–42; Vámos,

27


Figure 28 Horizont-home residential park, an opened-up perimeter configuration, site plan (Schneller, Budapesti lakóparkok, 2012 p.135)

Figure 29 Horizont-home, areal photograph (Hámori, Budapest from above, 2008 p.96) “Fogyasztás és lakásépítés : a lakóparkok viága, 1. rész (Consumption and housing : the world of housing parks, part one).”


Figure 30 Kleopátra-house residential park, a configuration with short towers (Schneller, Budapesti lakóparkok, 2012 p.177)

Figure 24 The Kleopátra-house, the photograph of one tower (Photo by the author)

29


Figure 24 The Kleopátra-house, photographed from the distance (Photo by the author)

3. CONCLUSİONS Over the past two centuries, social, cultural, political and economic forces shaped the form of metropolitan housing. Although a sustained reliance on borrowed ideas is rather explicit, the adoption of foreign tested examples of today are unlike that of earlier times. First of all, ideas were influenced by the mode of transmission, which altered their essence. During the long nineteenth century, architectural trends and concepts arrived to the country though the mediation of foreign-trained professionals 84. Hungarian architects, generally educated at the academies of Vienna, Berlin, Munich and Dresden or trained under the apprenticeship of renowned masters in german-speaking countries, applied their hands-on knowledge upon their return home 85. According to Déry, pattern books—containing approved precedents, design and construction guidances—also played an important role in the communication of ideas 86. In the eye of the client, the book certified the appropriateness of a given architectural solution. As explained by Gábor, with the development of the press and transportation during the twentieth century, ideas spread faster and reached a wider public 87. As a consequence, distant works of renowned 84 85 86 87

Gábor, A CIAM magyar csoportja : 1928-1938 (The Hungarian CIAM group : 1928-1938). Déry and Merényi, Magyar építészet 1867-1945 (Hungarian architecture 1867-1945). ibid. A CIAM magyar csoportja : 1928-1938 (The Hungarian CIAM group : 1928-1938).


architects became widely attainable and their influence flooded out local voices and less prominent concepts. The growing importance of secondary influences (such as publications) gradually diminished the role of mediators in architecture. The proliferation of images, transmitted through media, also influenced the taste and preferences of the public. TV and than the Internet hastened these trends during the second half of the century. The abandonment of a complex understanding in favor of easily attainable images changed the transmission of ideas into an exchange of simulacra. Furthermore, the shrinking timeframe of adaptation also affected the outcomes. The reduction of time and effort to adopt ideas go hand in hand with the reduction in time to adapt them. This trend together with the globalization of architectural images, construction standards and products results in a growing similarity among buildings across the planet.

REFERENCES “A főváros építkezései 3. ciklus 1912. év (The constructions of the metropolitan municipality, 3rd cylce 1912).” Magyar Építőművészet 9, no. 9 (1911). https://kolibri.omikk.bme.hu/digit/index.php?page=article&id=15314. “A főváros építkezései (The constructions of the metropolitan municipality).” Magyar Építőművészet 7, no. 7 (1909) https://kolibri.omikk.bme.hu/digit/index.php?page=article&id=15057. “A műtermekből (From the studios).” Magyar Építőművészet 12, no. 7-8 (1914). https://kolibri.omikk.bme.hu/digit/index.php?page=article&id=14237 Bácskai, Vera. “Pest-Buda from 1686 to 1849.” In Budapest, the history of a capital, edited by Ágnes Ságvári, 25–37. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1975. Bierbauer, Virgil. “Városi telektömbök ujjáépítése (Reconstruction of urban blocks).” Tér és Forma 6, no. 3 (1933): 122–126. Bódy, Zsombor. “Kislakás, társasház, családi ház : lakáséptkezés és az otthon ideáljának változása Budapesten az első világháború körül (Smalldwelling, condominium, single family home : housing and the changing home ideals in Budapest around the First World War).” Századvég 9, no. 34 (2004): 27–57. “Budapest székesfőváros építkezései. II. ciklus (The constructions of the metropolitan municipality of Budapest, 2nd cyclet).” Magyar Építőművészet 9, no. 2 (1911). https://kolibri.omikk.bme.hu/digit/index.php?page=article&id=15271 Csizmady, Adrienn. A lakóteleptől a lakóparkig (From housing esates to residential parks). Budapest: Új Mandátum, 2008. Daunton, Martin James, ed. Housing the workers, 1850-1914 : a comparative perspective. London and New York: Leicester University Press, 1990. Déry, Attila. “A Fővárosi Közmunkák Tanácsa (1870-1948) : Egy független városrendező hatóság (The Metropolitan Board of Public Works (18701948) : An independent planning authority).” Budapesti Negyed 3, no. 3 (1995): 77–96.

31


Déry, Attila. Pest története és művészete (The history and art of Pest). Budapest építészeti topográfia. Budapest: Terc, 2005. Déry, Attila, and Ferenc Merényi. Magyar építészet 1867-1945 (Hungarian architecture 1867-1945). Budapest: Urbino, 2000. Erdei, Gyöngyi. “A mintaadó polgármester : Bárczy István beruházási programja, 1906-1914 (The exemplary Mayor : István Bárczy's investment program, 1906-1914).” Budapesti Negyed 3, no. 3 (1995): 97–116. Ferkai, András. “A társasház, mint a budapesti lakóházépítés megújításának egyik módja (Condominium as way to housing reform in Budapest).” In Űr vagy megélt tér (Void space or experienced place), 103–123. Budapest: Terc, 2003. Ferkai, András. “Építészet a második világháború után (Architecture after the Second World War).” In Magyarország építészetének története (The history of Hungarina architecture), edited by József Sisa and Dora Wiebenson, 205–329. Budapest: Vince Kiadó, 1998. Ferkai, András. Pest építészete a két világháború között (The architecture of Pest between the Wars). Budapest: Modern Épitészetért Építészettörténeti és Műemlékvédelmi KHT, 2001. Ferkai, András. Űr vagy megélt tér (Void space or experienced place). Budapest: Terc, 2003. Gábor, Eszter. A CIAM magyar csoportja : 1928-1938 (The Hungarian CIAM group : 1928-1938). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972. Gábor, Eszter. “A két világháború közötti magyar építészet tendencia váltásai (Shifting trends in Hungarian architecture between the two World Wars).” Ars Hungarica 12, no. 1 (1984): 67–78. Gábor, Eszter. “A polgári lakásigények mélyrepülése — az egyszobás cselédszobás lakás (The bourgeois housing — the one-room apartment with maid's room).” Budapesti Negyed 17, no. 1 (2009): 91–122. Gerő, László. Pest-Buda építészete az egyesítéskor (The architecture of PestBuda at the time of their unification). Budapest: Muszaki Könyvkiadó, 1973. Gyáni, Gábor. Bérkaszárnya és nyomortelep : a budapesti munkáslakás múltja (Tenement and slum : the history of workers' housing in Budapest). Budapest: Magvető, 1992. Gyáni, Gábor. “Budapest.” In Housing the workers, 1850-1914 : a comparative perspective, edited by Martin James Daunton, 149–181. London and New York: Leicester University Press, 1990. Gyáni, Gábor. Parlor and kitchen : housing and domestic culture in Budapest, 1870-1940. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2002. Hanák, Péter. A kert és a műhely (The garden and the workshop). Budapest: Gondolat, 1988.


Harrer, Ferenc. “A modern városigazgatás problémái (The issues of modern city management).” Városi Szemle 4, no. 10 (1911): 665–686. Hámori, Gábor. Budapest from above. Pécs: Alexandra, 2008. Kanczlerné Veréb, Mária. “A lakóparkok környezeti szempontú értékelésének előzménye (The antecendent of the residential parks' environmental assesment).” In Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest), edited by István Schneller, 14–19. Budapest: Terc, 2012. Körner, Zsuzsa. Városias beépítési formák, bérház- és lakástípusok (Urban built forms, housing and dwelling types). Terc, 2010. Körner, Zsuzsa, and Márta Nagy. A városrendezési szabályozások története Magyarországon (History of urban planning regulations in Hungary). Urbanisztikai füzetek. Budapest: Műegyetemi Kiadó, 2004. Körner, Zsuzsa, and Márta Nagy. Az európai és a magyar telepszerű lakásépítés története 1945-től napjainkig (The history of housing estates from 1945 until present in Hungary and Europe). Urbanisztikai füzetek. Budapest: Terc, 2006. Mezei, Ottó. A Bauhaus magyar vonatkozásai: előzmények, együttműködés és kisugárzás (The Hungarian bearings of Bauhaus: antecendents, collaboration and diffusion). Budapest: Népművelési Intézet; Művelődéskutató Intézet, 1981. Moravánszky, Ákos. Competing visions : aesthetic invention and social imagination in Central European architecture, 1867-1918. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1998. Nyíri,

László. “Beszámoló az MMÉE "Hogyan építsünk?" építési propagandamozgalmának első ciklusáról (A report from the first cycle of the building propaganda movement 'How to Build').” Magyar Mérnök és Építész Egylet közlönye 66, no. 29--32 (1932): 169––179.

Pamer, Nóra. Magyar építészet a két világháború között (Hungarian architecture between the two World Wars). 2nd ed. Budapest: Terc, 2001. Preisich, Gábor. Budapest városépítésének története : Buda visszavételétől a II. világháború végéig (History of the urban development of Budapest : from the recapture of Buda to the end of the Second World War). 2nd ed. Budapest: Terc, 2004. Preisich, Gábor. Budapest városépítésének története, 1945-1990 : tanulmányok (History of the urban development of Budapest, 1945-1990 : studies). Budapest: Műszaki Könyvkiadó, 1998. “Rainer Károly: Bérházak (Károly Reiner's apartment houses).” Magyar Építőművészet 30, no. 1 (1930). https://kolibri.omikk.bme.hu/digit/index.php?page=article&id=14331 Schneller, István. “A kutatás (The research).” In Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest), edited by István Schneller, 20–42. Budapest: Terc, 2012.

33


Schneller, István. “Előszó (Foreword).” In Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest), edited by István Schneller, 11–13. Budapest: Terc, 2012. Schneller, István, ed. Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest). Budapest: Terc, 2012. Sipos, András. Várospolitika és városigazgatás Budapesten, 1890-1914 (City politics and urban management in Budapest, 1890-1914). Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára, 1996. Sisa, József, and Dora Wiebenson, eds. Magyarország építészetének története (The history of Hungarina architecture). Budapest: Vince Kiadó, 1998. Sonne, Wolfgang. “Dwelling in the metropolis: Reformed urban blocks 1890– 1940 as a model for the sustainable compact city.” Progress in Planning 72, no. 2 (2009): 53–149. Szövényi, Anna. “Lakópark-építészet mint marketingtermék (The architecture of residential parks as marketing product).” In Budapesti lakóparkok (Residential parks of Budapest), edited by István Schneller, 60–78. Budapest: Terc, 2012. Tomsics, Emőke. “Valóság, tervek, ábrándok : civil vélemények és elképzelések Buda-Pestről az 1860-as években (Reality, plans, dreams : laymen opinions and imaginations of Buda-Pest during the 1860s).” Budapesti Negyed 15, no. 2 (2007): 147–178. Umbrai, Laura. A szociális kislakásépítés története Budapesten : 1870-1948 (The history of social housing in Budapest : 1870-1948). Critica. Budapest: Napvilág, 2008. Vámos, Dominika. “Fogyasztás és lakásépítés : a lakóparkok viága, 1. rész (Consumption and housing : the world of housing parks, part one).” Kortárs építészet 5, no. 2 (2003). http://arch.et.bme.hu/korabbi_folyam/18/18vamosd.html. “Vendéglő, bérház, társasház (Restaurant, apartment building, condominium).” Magyar Építőművészet 30, no. 10-11 (1930). https://kolibri.omikk.bme.hu/digit/index.php?page=article&id=14408

BORROWİNG İDEAS : THE CHANGİNG FORM OF METROPOLİTAN HOUSİNG İN BUDAPEST

Recommend Documents