Concluded projects

of the Institute of Conflict Research

"Hot spots" of social conflict and area renewal offices in multi-storey blocks in Vienna

Project Management:	Dr.in Birgitt Haller (IKF)
Project Team:	Dr.in Evelyn Dawid Mag.a Kerstin Lercher Dr. Harry Schranz (TrendCom) Dr. Wolfgang Tomaschitz
Financed by:	City of Vienna
Concluded in	January 2008
	German

The study is based on the assumption that in Vienna there are "hot spots" of social conflict or at least a potential for conflict, which can be located in certain districts as well as in certain residential facilities. The study aims at identifying the factors that are perceived as constituting a reduction in the quality of life. Furthermore we wanted to find out whether these factors are overlapping in certain districts, generating potentially risky areas.

We interviewed residents of five Viennese neighbourhoods where we expected housing and living conditions to be determined by several unfavourable factors: in two council houses in the 10th district and in one in the 21st district, in a council house as well as in a private multi-storey building in the 20th district, and in various private multi-storey buildings in the 16th district. The 25 interviewees represented both locals and immigrants, various age groups and both sexes.

The interviews focussed on their expectations of "good housing" and their satisfaction with their habitation - the apartment as well as the general living environment -, experiences of conflicts related to housing, their sense of security in the living environment, and their experience of deprivation as well as their fear of the future. So we tried to survey different relevant factors which are experienced as reducing the quality of life.

In the end we did not find any "hot spots" of social conflict in Vienna that can be compared to the "banlieue" in Paris or risk areas in other European cities. The interviewees often talked about conflicts in the style of "actions speak louder than words", but they rarely reported arguments that had escalated. None of the conflicts mentioned were even aimed at "destroying the enemy". "Hot spots" are areas that are perceived as dangerous or at least as insecure, and the interview zones were not perceived as such by any of the interviewees.

But in nearly all of the interviews, on the one hand interferences with regard to "good housing" were stated, and on the other hand efforts for their communicative resolution were widely missing. However, housing policy cannot solely be held responsible for "peaceful coexistence". Other policy areas need to be involved as well. This applies especially to the status of migrants -many interviewees see "the foreigners" as "the main problem" in living together. Migrants remain foreigners who are held responsible for all annoyances. This is mainly because they are socially marginalised and outclassed.

Satisfaction with the apartment does not seem to influence the disposition to getting involved in conflicts. Some interviewees are highly satisfied with their apartments and nonetheless are regularly involved in conflicts. Others criticised their apartments, but never got into arguments. Most of the interviewees find themselves between these two extremes.

Identification with the housing estate plays a more important role, especially with regard to council houses. When the housing estate is highly valued by the individual even if it has a bad reputation, the identification seems to be strong. Such high esteem may generate high satisfaction among the inhabitants, but it may cause a higher inclination to criticism and conflict, when it comes to preserving what is valued as beautiful and good. When the housing estate is not perceived as attractive and valuable, annoyances - e.g. dirt - seem to play a relatively smaller role.

Elderly people in particular or residents who have been living in council houses for a long time perceive a change for the worse of the image of council houses. Some interviewees are proud of the concept of council houses, and are upset by the negative image, which is predominantly influenced by the media. They find it more and more difficult to identify themselves with their tenement and therefore an essential part of their lives gets lost.

In this context the subject of "foreigners in council houses" is a highly emotive one. The loss in reputation of certain town districts as well as of council houses is blamed on the moving in of migrants. The coexistence of different life styles is perceived as problematic by some interviewees, but at the same time they are vague about what exactly is the problem of living together.

All in all, there is only little systematic arbitrage between conflicting parties. The interviewees, too, reported only rarely that somebody had intervened in a conflict as a third party. This is a role played mostly by caretakers - but not necessarily in order to arbitrate; sometimes they also instigate conflicts. Nevertheless, in most cases the interviewees appreciated the caretakers’ interventions.

It was a big surprise that the area renewal offices are hardly known. Out of 18 interviewees who live in council houses, only three (all of them native-born Austrians) have contacted an area renewal office; it was obvious that most of the others had not even heard about this institution.

Having analyzed the conflict potential that had come to the fore in the interviews as well as the handling of conflicts and the expectations of the interviewees, we drafted recommendations for the housing department of Vienna, designed for the efficient settling of social conflicts. For example, we suggested a campaign for improving the image of council houses, and the re-introduction of the role of the caretaker, albeit not the "old kind of caretaker", responsible for cleaning and for the maintenance of order who would assume communicative and social duties only when he/she felt like it. It is fundamental to redefine the role of the caretaker as somebody still responsible for order, but also trained in social work and mediation.