By the 1910s, the cholera barracks built by the municipality of Budapest in the last decades of the 19th century were completely ruined and in no way met the needs of the time. The municipal government therefore planned to build 900 emergency housing units, evenly distributed among the districts, in parallel with the demolition of the old wooden barracks, as part of its housing programme launched in 1909. However, not many of these plans were realized. A complex of 105 apartments was built on the Újpest quay, but it was later declared a small flat housing estate, which means that these apartments were not included in the housing scheme for evictees. By 1912, a large-scale emergency housing estate was completed at 15 Vágóhíd Street, and a competition was launched to replace the emergency housing on Egressy Street. Meanwhile, preparations also started on the Babér Street estate, but nothing more was done in the housing construction campaign (1909–1913) under the mayorship of István Bárczy.
Thus, although the plans for portable buildings consisting of flats with living room kitchens were drawn up, the municipality hardly had the opportunity to implement them, as the Ministry of the Interior's austerity decree and the official statement that "there were no free plots" led to the cancellation of the investments, so Budapest only gained 103 emergency flats as a result of the investment on the plot at 15 Vágóhíd Street (lot nr. 9629/a/1/a-9631/a/1/1. ). Four of the emergency housing units built on the site of the Disinfection Institute were the work of Magyar Humphreys Ltd. The company was renowned for its dismountable, transportable houses, which had been a subject of interest in the press for some time.
The special buildings, however, only moderately fulfilled the hopes pinned on them, and in 1920 the capital was forced to evict tenants from some of the apartments because, according to the minutes, the walls were constantly "sweating", and water was constantly dripping from the ceiling when it rained.
Such portable houses were also erected in the Ciprus Street and Palotai Street housing estates, but there in the premises of the Hungarian Mineral Grinding and Chemical Factory. The walls of the temporary buildings, made with the so-called 'montanit' system, were made of asbestos cement slabs on both sides, and the cavity between them was filled with montanite (silica) cassettes for their moisture insulation properties.
But what did ordinary people think of these construction projects? According to an article in the 5 January 1913 issue of Az Ujság newspaper, “Good Life at the City's Emergency Housing Estates”, ‘We have been asked to publish the following: Outside on Üllői út, behind St. Stephen's Hospital, the municipality of Budapest has built a colony of “emergency housing”. Ramshackle little houses with paper-thin walls, through which the wind blows and the dampness crawls in. Narrow, small rooms with no kitchen. The rooms are used for cooking, and the primitively furnished stoves belch smoke. And when the poor children want to go out for some fresh air in such conditions, the steward of the colony chases them back into the smoke-filled ugly rooms with the most vile swearing. A thousand complaints have been made against this rude steward, and no one has ever admonished him to be decent.
On the outskirts of Óbuda, at the end of Bécsi Road, there are 100 similarly small, makeshift apartments. There are no roads there, and between the houses there are deep holes in which even a big man can break his neck. A constant danger to the poor children are these muddy streets with deep pits, which, when it rains, are filled to the brim with the water rushing down from the hills. In Óbuda, however, at least the steward of the colony is a decent, intelligent man, and has never been the subject of a complaint. Could not such a good man be appointed for the emergency housing in Vágóhíd Street? Mayor Bárczy listens to all complaints, and perhaps he will also hear the complaints of the poor residents of the emergency housing estates.’
The majority of residents did appreciate the new emergency housing in the first few years. The family rooms accommodated 4-8 people. The weekly fee was 2 crowns, which meant that families living in emergency housing paid about half as much as their counterparts in the small housing estates of the municipality, which were also being built at the time and were considered cheap housing. Common rooms still in operation accommodated on average 20-25 people, but there were also rooms for 5 or 33 people. Overnight stays in these shared dormitories cost 10 fillér a day.
Thus, in the first decade of the 20th century, the number of emergency housing units for the homeless in Budapest was decreasing compared to the end of the century, but they increasingly met better quality requirements.
Further new developments improved the lives of the residents. An early manifestation of productive social policy can be seen, for example, in the case of the garden tenancies on Vágóhíd Street. In the years of the First World War, the city set up a tenement garden estate on the outskirts of the emergency housing estate here (in the area of the future Kiserdő slum), following foreign models. Here, in addition to tenants from the small flats in the area, 16 destitute tenants were given small gardens and loans from the city to buy seeds.
From 1 July 1912, the emergency housing units of Budapest were placed under the supervision of the newly created Department of Public Welfare and Social Policy. In May 1912, the City Council issued the following decree under No. 20199/1912-XVI:
‘1. All the emergency dwellings and mass night lodgings (shelters) of the capital city shall be administered by the council from 1 June 1912.
2. Emergency housing can accommodate families and individuals:
a) who have become temporarily homeless as a result of eviction due to public interest (public health, public order), b) who are officially determined by the authorities as being temporarily unable to pay their rent, c) who have become temporarily homeless for other reasons (eviction by the courts, lack of housing, etc.). However, the use of this accommodation does not give anyone the tenancy right.
3. Families and individuals listed under 2. a) and b) can stay free of charge in emergency accommodation in certain cases and for up to two weeks. However, free use may be limited to one time per year. In exceptional cases, the Department for Social Policy on behalf of the Municipal Council may extend the period of occupancy of the premises, subject to the following conditions: a) the premises may be occupied for a maximum of three (3) months per year, including the extended period, b) a weekly fee of 3 crowns per week for the extended period of occupancy must be paid in advance to the steward against an unstamped receipt.
4. Families and individuals admitted under 2. c) must pay in advance, against an unstamped receipt, a rent of 4 crowns per week to the steward from the first day of admission. In this case, too, accommodation at the estate shall be limited to once a year and to a maximum of three months.
5. Even in the case of unavoidable necessity, the Social Policy Department may depart from the maximum rent set out in 3 and 4 above only if authorized to do so by the Council on a case-by-case basis. In that case, the rent for any stay of more than three months shall be 5 crowns for all residents.
6. Anyone in need of emergency accommodation should apply for admission to the Municipal Council's Social Policy Department, where their application will be recorded. The District Magistrates, with the exception of those in Districts 3 and 10, are normally responsible for referring those in need of emergency accommodation to the department. In cases of urgency as defined in 2. a) and b), the department may immediately refer those who apply for free emergency accommodation to the most appropriate one, taking into account the circumstances of the applicant as fairly as possible. The department shall at the same time request the district magistrate responsible for the last place of residence of the person temporarily admitted to make an assessment of the person's circumstances in accordance with the Poverty Law and prepare a short report on it. However, if the situation of the applicant for free emergency housing does not require immediate action, the report of the District Magistrate should be awaited first. The admission of tenants liable to pay under 2. c) and 4 to emergency housing is entirely within the competence of the department.
7. In cases where families or individuals in need of emergency housing in the district are faced with an urgent need for action by the District Magistrate, the placement of individuals in emergency housing shall be decided by the Magistrate without the ordinary admission procedure.
8. The magistrates and estate managers are authorized to refer individuals who are confined in emergency housing to their own responsibility for one night in cases of emergency procedures indicated in point 7. However, they shall report on this the following morning, with a detailed explanation of the decision not to follow the procedure indicated in point 7.
9. The department maintains a list of families referred to emergency housing and adjusts it permanently on the basis of the daily reports of the estate managers.
10. The residents of the emergency housing estate are obliged to follow in all respects the House Rules issued at the same time and to obey without contradiction both the House Rules and the measures taken by the estate manager within the framework of the House Rules. Failing this, the manager shall reprimand the resident and, if this is unsuccessful, after hearing the member of the committee who has been sent to the estate for supervision by the Social Policy Department and after obtaining the prior agreement of the Department, shall immediately remove him/her from the estate, if necessary, with the assistance of the police.
11. Emergency housing units are managed by estate managers employed by the Mayor of the capital. They are subordinate to the Council's Social Policy Department as the central housing management office. The estate manager can normally only take in and terminate tenants in emergency housing estates on the basis of an order from the central housing management office.
12. The estate manager must record the complaints and requests of the residents in the complaints book, with the signature of the residents. Complaints against the estate manager or his/her assistants should be addressed directly to the central housing management office.’
At the same time, the regulation of emergency housing settlements was also regulated. The main points of the new rules were the following:
‘Each tenant is responsible for keeping his/her home clean at all times and is responsible for the furnishings and equipment in the home. Swearing, fighting, playing with money or valuables on the premises is prohibited. No alcoholic beverages may be brought onto the premises unless prescribed by a doctor. Alcoholic beverages brought in without permission may be taken and poured out by the manager. No washing is allowed in the apartments. The gate to the premises is locked by the manager at 9 a.m. in winter and 10 a.m. in summer, after which time residents may be admitted only in exceptional circumstances. No drunk persons are allowed on the premises. No subletting or overnight accommodation for strangers is allowed.’
The municipality did not stop building housing afterwards. In 1915, during the war, the small flat and emergency housing estate between Babér Street and Göncöl Street was built as a continuation of the Palotai estate, and in 1918–19 the municipality built a 64-room emergency housing estate on the site designated by Balkán and Bihari Streets.
Due to the economic difficulties after the World War, the Municipality of Budapest could not participate in the construction of housing until 1926, and could not increase the number of its emergency housing units during this period. Then, as the economy recovered and housing restrictions were gradually lifted (more and more flat owners were given back the right to freely choose tenants or to terminate the tenancy of those who were unable to pay rent), the municipality started building again, as the need to clear the slums that had proliferated in parallel with the evictions became more urgent.
Of the 1,000 new flats completed as a result of the programme, most of which consisted of a living room kitchen, the Bihari Street project of 1932 was the most publicized in the architectural press. What made this unique was that the contractors used a prefabricated steel frame structure to complete the 123-apartment complex in less than 40 days. The emergency dwellings, equipped with a wood-burning stove, electric lighting and gas connections, included separate cellar and drying compartments, an outside toilet, 5 laundry rooms and 2 mangle rooms.
Who lived in the emergency housing units?
In 1932, the city council surveyed the situation of the tenants and came up with some surprising results: 3.6% of the emergency flats in the capital were occupied by one resident, 16.8% by two and 18.3% by three, and 40% of the tenants had a steady income. Moreover, 3.2% received a housing allowance as a civil servant. However, most of them were still protected (like the tenants of private dwellings) by the housing regulations 6200/1926 N.M.M.; 2220/1927 M.E.; 8888/1927 M.E.; 4444/1929 M.E. still in force at the time. Under these, houses built before the World War were not subject to the owner's free disposal rights.
The Social Policy Department was therefore prevented by the regulation on the prevention of homelessness from replacing those who were not considered to be in need with families who were. Following the 1932 survey, the eligibility of tenants for public assistance was reviewed and, once the last obligations protecting tenants had been removed, those whose need could not be established were evicted. As a result, 750 homeless people were housed and a thousand more homeless families found shelter in similarly vacant places at state-run settlements. The authorities have continued to monitor the situation of people living in emergency accommodation. In 1938, for example, the limit for determining eligibility was 18 pengő per person for two persons, and 4 pengő for each additional person, which could amount to 35 pengő for a larger family.
Laura Umbrai (Translation from Hungarian: Barbara Szij)
(November 2024)