The condominium system and housing policy in Budapest in the 1920s
Although the construction of condominiums in the framework of social self-organisation and private enterprise had already started in Budapest in 1907, it did not enter the housing policy discourse of the capital at the same time. The capital did not reflect on the development of this direction of housing construction, while the pioneers of condominium building were already thinking about this housing ownership construction in the wider context of the housing system of the capital before World War I. They saw condominium building as a housing system that would replace the tenement system and get rid of the problems it produced. The housing policy adopted by the capital, however, did not attempt to integrate the condominium as a new form of housing before the war.
In the mid-1920s, discussions on housing issues in Budapest first articulated ideas urging the city to participate in processes that would transform housing, focusing on the concept of condominiums. The issue of developing freehold flats emerged in Budapest's housing policy, coinciding with the post-World War I restart in housing construction, the resurgence of housing cooperatives, and the establishment of new freehold flat building ventures. In debates over the direction of municipal housing construction, several urban policymakers advocated for supporting condominium construction, aiming to orient Budapest housing towards the condominium system.
From 1926 onwards, housing became a focal point in the work of Budapest's specialized policy committees and in the city assembly. The prominence given to housing issues was prompted by financial stabilization efforts, the restructuring of public finances, and the impending abolition of wartime controlled housing transactions. Reflecting the heightened importance of the issue, in May 1926, the city assembly established a separate housing committee tasked with supporting private construction and overseeing condominium development. Alongside the formation of this committee, proposals emerged advocating for regulatory support for private construction as a starting point, with calls to develop various forms of assistance and support. These discussions highlighted condominium construction as a key objective in housing policy.
In mid-1925, the idea of condominiums was initially proposed in the context of how to resume social housing construction in Budapest, which had been interrupted by World War I. The concept emerged during a financial debate surrounding the construction of a small rental apartment building in Budapest. It was suggested for the first time that freehold flat construction could be a solution to the housing issue. Antal Becsey proposed that in order to revive social housing construction in Budapest before abolishing controlled housing transactions, it would be beneficial to link it with the condominium issue. His proposal suggested selling newly built Budapest rental apartments as freehold flats, with the funds generated reinvested into further urban housing construction. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 14 August 1925, 862.) This proposal aimed to transfer pre-war Budapest social housing construction, which included apartments for both workers and civil servants, into the framework of condominiums. The apartments would be sold individually within condominiums, initiating a self-sustaining financial process. This approach followed the practice that emerged in the early 1920s of converting existing rental buildings into condominiums and selling the flats individually. It aimed to create a self-sustaining financing mechanism where capital flows would continue as long as the financially capable middle class could support it.
In February 1926, during a housing debate in the city assembly, Antal Becsey revisited the issue. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 5 February 1926, 212.) He argued against government-controlled housing construction, advocating instead for encouraging private construction. He proposed exploring how to integrate private builders into housing construction efforts. Specifically, he emphasized the need to examine the possibilities for intensifying condominium construction. He also suggested that housing cooperatives should be subjected to official control. Becsey recommended preparing a proposal outlining potential methods for integrating private builders into Budapest's housing construction program. This proposal would include considerations for condominium construction and the perpetual lease of building plots.
Simultaneously, the idea of converting the capital's apartment buildings into condominiums has also remained a subject of debate. István Nagy submitted his proposal for the conversion of small apartments to condominiums to be newly built by the capital in December 1925 (Fővárosi Közlöny, 18 December 1925, 1566.), which he presented in detail in February 1926. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 19 February 1926, 346.) The starting point was the obligation of the capital to assist not only the lower social strata but also the middle class in housing matters, thus necessitating the construction of medium-sized apartments alongside small ones. In line with Becsey's proposal, he too advocated the idea that once the rental apartments intended for civil servants were completed, the city should convert them into condominiums, sell the apartments, and use the proceeds to finance the construction of new buildings. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 16 April 1926, 725–726.) The responsible department agreed to support condominium construction and committed to making a proposal in this regard. However, it rejected the proposal to convert existing Budapest rental apartments into condominiums. The reasons included difficulties in relocating tenants, differences in architectural requirements between rental and condominium buildings, and concerns about the financial sluggishness that could impede the circulation of funds in the process.
Development of the Tabán: perpetual lease, freehold flats, and housing management in the capital
In the spring of 1926, the idea of condominium construction resurfaced in the context of Budapest's investment loan and program, which also encompassed housing construction. Károly Wolff articulated a comprehensive concept for housing construction that could be integrated within the framework of the investment loan. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 30 April 1926, Supplement, 32–33.) Wolff, starting from the premise that private capital was not invested in housing, identified public and private officials, who were both willing to build and deemed creditworthy, as the group that should be assisted in this endeavor. He saw potential for this in the development of the Tabán area.
The issue of developing the Tabán area, which was linked to the problem of facilitating housing construction, had already been a topic of discussion for twenty years. The idea dated back to István Bárczy's tenure as mayor, during which it was proposed that a new middle-class and civil servant neighborhood should be established in the area. In 1907, the city had already approved a zoning plan for this outdated and underdeveloped district on the Buda side, which lacked utilities. However, the outbreak of World War I halted the process, and the zoning plan was never implemented. Only the expropriations that enabled unified redevelopment and construction were completed; demolition and utility installations did not take place. This situation persisted into the mid-1920s. The properties, resulting from pre-war expropriations, were now owned by the city. For demolition to begin, the city needed to relocate the residents, and to start construction work – initially utilities and land leveling – financing had to be arranged. The proposed housing construction program once again brought the area into focus. In the spring of 1926, the concept of condominium construction was introduced as a new element, gaining significance on an urban planning scale within this context.
As otulined by Károly Wolff, the redevelopment of the district would have involved large-scale housing construction. The city would only need to provide utilities, road construction, and parceling of the land. Foreign capital would fund the construction, with the building officials taking out the loans. Due to the high cost of the land, Wolff proposed adopting the institution of perpetual lease instead of selling the land, following the English model. This means that the city would lease the plots to the builders rather than selling them, with the possibility of the lease eventually converting into ownership. The housing construction for officials would be partly in the form of villas and partly in the form of condominiums: cooperative houses in the lower zone and villas in the upper zone.
Ferenc Harrer supported Károly Wolff's idea (Fővárosi Közlöny, April 30, 1926, Supplement, 38–39). He also emphasized that for the redevelopment of Tabán, the city only needed to handle the relocation of residents, as the plots were available and the zoning plan was in place. Regarding the construction of condominiums, Harrer expressed his general opinion on this housing form. He believed that rental apartment construction was a thing of the past worldwide, as social housing requirements made building for tenants unfeasible. Instead, the condominium system was the construction method to follow, even though its specifics were not yet fully developed.
In the city assembly's debate on the investment loan and program in April 1926, the interconnected issues of housing construction, condominiums, and the redevelopment of Tabán were discussed again (Fővárosi Közlöny, 23 April 1926, 845). Supporting the proposal, Ernő Bródy, like Ferenc Harrer, also endorsed the condominium system. Bródy viewed housing construction as a governmental responsibility if the lack of profitability prevented private capital from meeting related demands. He expressed the opinion that “in the field of construction, we must get used to the idea that house ownership should not belong to individuals, but we must promote forms that allow multiple people to share ownership in a building, that is, we must emphasize the concept of condominium ownership, the idea of freehold flats, and perpetual leases in today's age.”
Károly Wolff detailed the development plan for Tabán before the city assembly (Fővárosi Közlöny, 30 April 1926, 903–905). The pre-war redevelopment plan for the area, created by László Warga, aimed to establish a modern middle-class district with a tripartite division: large rental buildings in a continuous row on the lower, flat area; detached family houses in the middle section along new roads leading up the hill; and villas on the highest part of the land. In the proposed suburban area, the plots would remain city-owned and leased out rather than sold. Wolff's proposal incorporated the concept of condominiums into this zoning plan. He preserved the characteristics of the villa district and suburban neighborhood with segmented development but replaced the rental buildings and detached houses with condominiums, making them a key element alongside the villas.
Wolff's proposal differed from Warga's plan by starting with significantly smaller plots, not recommending the wide-ranging 150 to 400 square Klafter, but rather 200 square Klafter parcels. Consistent with the existing zoning and development plan, which preserved the vertical segmentation of the proposed garden city, he suggested four to six-unit villas in the higher, elevated part of the area, and three to four-story, twelve-unit condominiums in the lower, flat part. The issue of plot ownership was addressed with 90-year leases. Due to the high plot prices, which were deemed unaffordable even for the targeted middle class, and for land policy reasons, Wolff proposed not selling the plots but keeping them under city ownership and transferring them via perpetual lease. The integration of condominiums as a form of ownership was the new element in his proposal, using the existing concept. This was based on the conviction that otherwise, builders would not be able to bear the financial burden of purchasing plots and construction.
Regarding Wolff's proposal, the city assembly decided that further preparation should be made for the transfer of city-owned plots in Tabán for the construction of detached and condominium houses for officials. During the assembly's May session, in the debate on promoting private construction, Ernő Bródy once again supported condominiums, seeing them as the viable path for future housing construction: “I see the future in the idea of condominiums, as the future in general is moving towards the collective unification of forces and the goal is to meet the needs of the masses. We see that individuals are unable to help themselves with their own strength, let alone others, whereas if several people come together collectively, there is a way and opportunity. In my opinion, future construction is tied to the idea of condominiums, perpetual leases, or inherited apartments”. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 18 May 1926, 1083.)
In the budgetary financial committee debate, raising the question of housing construction, he expressed the same opinion at the end of May 1926, in line with the proposals of Antal Becsey and Károly Wolff. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 28 May 1926, Supplement, 10-11.) A few days later, in the assembly, he again urged the promotion of condominium construction. Since people do not have the capital on their own for house construction, the only solution is cooperation in the form of housing cooperatives, and it is the city's duty to promote condominium construction as the future type of house construction by providing land at reduced rates and with infrastructure development, thus creating homeowners through this route: “I consider condominium construction with flat ownership or perpetual lease as the form of future building. Today, individual people do not have the means to build houses for themselves. Those who can afford it should proceed. But if more people come together, if they utilize cooperative forms with noble altruism forming housing cooperatives, these people can acquire a freehold flat or a perpetual lease with their hard-earned savings. I believe this is the type of future house construction, and the city must do everything possible and provide all necessary support [...] to encourage and promote this form of housing [...].” (Fővárosi Közlöny, 2 July 1926, 1509.) In addition, Károly Wolff consistently urged that the city should seek a way out of the housing construction crisis by making vacant plots available and constructing condominiums, extending the concept developed for Tabán to the entire city. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 2 July 1926, 1448.) At the end of the year, the idea resurfaced during the municipal assembly discussions on the Budapest housing construction program, suggesting that if the city were to build condominiums, the invested capital could be partially reused for further construction through sales. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 7 January 1927, 42.)
The new proposal for the development of Tabán in Budapest provided an opportunity in the city's debates since mid-1925 to shape the concept of a condominium system that had been emerging. Representatives saw it as a chance to develop a housing construction system that could serve as a model for the entire city. Their systematic thinking was evidenced by the emerging elements of municipal house management, which had been hinted at until then. A year after the acceptance of Wolff's proposal, László Warga spoke in an interview (Gy. V .: Az új Tabán lesz Európa egyik legszebb városrésze. [The new Tabán will be one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in Europe.] Az Est, 17 March 1927, 5.) about the advantages of a condominium system linked with perpetual lease of plots, emphasizing the benefit of keeping the area under municipal ownership. This, he argued, would be the financially correct solution for the city, avoiding significant costs associated with land expropriation. Furthermore, the unified development can only be achieved in this manner, and maintaining ownership of the area would ensure that “the usual tensions among residents of condominiums would be avoided because the city would manage the Tabán buildings.” Thus, through perpetual lease, the city could establish a legal basis for managing the condominiums that would be established. All of this indicated that the urban policy ideas based on condominiums went beyond urging support for housing construction and aimed at establishing the operation of the envisioned condominium system.
The concept for the development of Tabán, however, did not become an accepted and implemented plan by the decision-makers in Budapest. In the summer of 1927, it was still an open question whether they should follow the system of perpetual lease and condominiums for the area's development or not. By September 1927, the housing committee's Tabán program was completed, but by June 1928, a new Tabán committee was appointed, which stalled the entire process. The relocation of residents was not resolved, and by the late 1920s, the general economic situation made any practical steps impossible. By 1929, the reconstruction of Tabán was no longer a current issue due to severe financial difficulties, and by the early 1930s, the focus shifted towards a spa town concept emphasizing tourism interests, moving away from the original idea of creating a modern residential neighborhood. At that time, it was no longer an isolated opinion that “turning Tabán into an elegant suburb would be a misguided idea.” (Az új Tabán. [The New Tabán.] Pesti Napló, 24 May 1933, 8.)
The condominium-building campaign of FANSZ
In the fall of 1928, another housing construction initiative provided an opportunity for debates regarding the direction of Budapest's housing policy towards condominiums. In September, the National Association of Public Servants of the Capital (FANSZ) requested the city's support for the construction of detached houses and condominiums. The decision-making process once again prompted discussions among a small group of city politicians about the concept of condominiums.
In early 1929, the issue of granting affordable plots to FANSZ was first discussed by the housing committee. The proposal was presented by urban planning expert László Warga, who had previously developed the urban planning scheme for the Kelenföld area before the war. He suggested that the city provide land from its own holdings in the form of perpetual lease for the construction of detached houses and condominiums for officials, similar to the proposal made for Tabán. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 15 January 1929, 75.) Similar to the Tabán case two years earlier, the FANSZ initiative emphasized the opportunity to develop the primary municipal support method for private housing construction, steering it towards condominium construction as the cheapest method for building private dwellings. The integration of condominiums and perpetual lease was considered the most suitable system for supporting private housing construction, which would have also ensured the healthy operation of municipal land policy by utilizing land according to public needs.
Warga clearly favored condominiums over detached houses within the framework aimed at supporting the creation of privately owned homes. He believed that while earlier urban development efforts aimed to promote the construction of detached houses so that everyone could live in their own home on small plots, this idea was financially unrealistic. Instead, he saw condominium construction as a feasible path towards acquiring one's own home. However, even this option could only be viable for those with limited financial means if the cost of land for housing construction was eliminated. Through perpetual lease, the city would retain ownership of the land, as outlined previously in the context of Tabán. This would enable the city to oversee the operation of condominiums, aiming to eliminate disputes among owners, and eventually, maintenance could also be managed in conjunction with this arrangement. The concept of official control and supervision would have consistently directed processes towards organizing condominiums as a structured housing form.
The issue was discussed again by the housing committee in mid-May 1929. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 21 May 1929, 939–944.) Several participants in the debate took the position that, by elevating the question of a certain housing construction campaign to a general level, a decision must be made regarding the entire concept of apartment building, namely, that it should be employed as a regulatory method of support for private construction and as a tool of the city's housing policy. Antal Becsey, who had already raised the idea of an apartment building system two years earlier, objected to the department's attempt to push housing construction toward the construction of family houses on the periphery, even in the inner areas where viable apartment building could take place instead. He believed that instead of expropriating land, it should be linked through perpetual leases, connecting urban land policy with condominium building policy: regulations should define the legal relationship between the city as landowner and the builders of condominiums, and such regulation could also provide a basis for the maintenance of apartment buildings, placing them under the supervision of the city.
In May 1929, however, the council separated the general issue of Budapest's support for apartment building from FANSZ's specific request, narrowing the problem down to the specific case and avoiding attempts to handle it at the level of the entire housing system. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 21 March 1930, 716.) Regarding FANSZ's initiative, the council made a decisive move regarding the allocation of several city-owned plots for apartment building purposes, but instead of granting perpetual leases, they decided to transfer ownership of the plots. In November 1929, the City Planning Department designated specific properties for this purpose: a corner plot at the junction of present-day Bartók Béla Road and Bertalan Lajos Street, as well as a block bounded by today's Kosztolányi Dezső Square, Bocskai Road, Tas vezér Street, and Edömér Street. In spring 1930, the council passed a resolution on the sale of the designated plots. FANSZ's plan was to start construction in May 1931 and complete the houses by November of that year, but their intention was not realized; full development of the block divided into five plots was only completed by the end of 1938.
Limits to the implementation of condominium concepts
The concept of condominiums followed a well-defined trajectory in Budapest's housing policy during the second half of the 1920s. It first emerged in 1925 as a response to a trend in the city's housing market: the proposal to convert tenement houses into condominiums, echoing a housing market process that had begun a few years earlier. As housing construction began to revive, concepts based on the idea of apartment buildings started to develop, gradually shaping into visions affecting the entire housing system. These concepts went beyond the idea of municipal housing construction, attributing a key role to apartment buildings in facilitating private construction. They saw condominiums as the foundation of a new housing system to replace the rental housing system responsible for many housing issues, positioning it as the dominant housing concept of the future. This was aligned with a general renewal trend observed globally, urging the replacement of the rental housing system with a condominium system. They believed they had found a way out of the deadlock caused by the lack of capital for private and municipal housing construction: directing Budapest's affluent middle class towards acquiring homes through the construction of inner-city condominiums supported by the city, rather than detached houses in the suburbs. While the framework for private construction did not allow for this, on a municipal level, the idea of organizing apartment buildings as a housing system could take shape, encompassing the issue of property management as well.
However, the formulation of concepts related to the condominium system was confined to a very narrow circle of city politicians. Despite their ideological differences, this group of politicians, who voiced these ideas in the latter half of the 1920s, remained closed and did not expand over the years. Although the idea of the apartment building system persistently appeared in discussions between 1925 and 1930, there were no practical signs of a “condominium policy” being implemented: preparatory work for an action program stalled at the planning stage. The unified development of the Tabán district emerged as an opportunity for the theoretical elaboration of the city's condominium system and its large-scale implementation across an entire city district. However, with the failure to develop Tabán, the possibility of creating a complex, district-wide system was lost. Without this, the issue of apartment building construction remained at the level of individual plots, without evolving into an organized system. Apartment building construction persisted within the framework of market-driven housing projects and social self-organization, where condominium associations came together to build individual apartment buildings. This occurred without their spread and operation being incorporated into the city's housing policy and thus subject to municipal oversight.
While the issue was continuously present in housing debates during the second half of the 1920s, its presence faded with the advent of the 1930s. In early 1928, when discussions at the Housing Committee meetings revolved around the construction of single-family houses in outer areas versus multi-unit buildings, including condominiums in inner areas, Antal Becsey pointed out that despite his previous urgings to study the issue of apartment construction, no action had been taken, and his proposal was lost within the city's administration. (Fővárosi Közlöny, 9 March 1928, 444.) By the early 1930s, such proposals and ideas were no longer even mentioned.
Ágnes Nagy (Translation from Hungarian: Barbara Szij)
