Over the last decades, urban heritage has been significantly invested into by both public authorities and private actors, both national and international. These investments concern new projects, the preservation of defined urban perimeters (e.g. Unesco) or single objects (e.g. buildings) as well as the renovation of housing units. The rise of new actors, such as real-estate funds and real-estate service companies, whose activities lead to financialisation, has been accompanied by the internationalisation of markets and the homogenisation of properties turned into comparable, standardised commodities, especially in the housing sector. In Vienna and Budapest, this phenomenon can be observed around Gründerzeit housing estates (historic housing stock) that have been experiencing strong pressure from private developers leading to increasing rents as well as the transformation, destruction, commodification, and social transformation of neighbourhoods. The term “Gründerzeit housing stock” (GHS) refers to objects dating from the industrialisation period within in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, starting in 1840 and ending in 1918. These architecturally noteworthy buildings are particularly predominant in Vienna and Budapest and represent part of their urban identity. Linked to the question of heritage, the emergence and acceleration of the financialization of housing raise new questions in terms of object selection, demolition, preservation, and practices. Housing financialization expressed through actors’ practices, the setup of financial models, housing regulation, as well as architectural and urban planning elements contribute to establishing a specific relation to the preservation (or not) of housing. This document stems out of the in-depth data analysis that has been conducted in order to get a better understanding of the socio-economic and real estate dynmics dynamics in the two cities and of what we have identified as the historic city. This analysis has been useful in understanding the socio-conomic context and trajectories of our two cities and identifying the location of areas coined as „marginal“ heritage. It also serves to identify the socio-economic challenges and issues that this marginal heritage may face.
Sümeghy et al. (Tue,) studied this question.