Could Vienna’s approach to affordable housing work in California?

[durangodawood]

I replied to the other user with:

How is it a distortion?...you go to a government website after you've waited 3 years, and they say "these are the 3 you're allowed to pick from"...and they're taking private ownership and bargaining off the table, how is that not "the government choosing"? If your number comes up, and 3 crappy ones from 1940s are all that's available, how is what I said inaccurate?



Here's a user doing an "AMA" about it:
View attachment 347287

While they still think it's an overall "excellent system", they outline some of the parts that aren't well-advertised.

Flat allocation criteria - Socialhousing

socialhousing.wien

This site links to some of their resources where you can peruse the process and the rules (if you use the google translate tool...unless you're fluent in German)

But the allocation criteria is based on more of a "to each according to his need" mindset (not surprising that their largest complex is named after, and has a big statue out front of, Karl Marx). For instance, if I as a non-married person with no kids wanted one, they would show me only the available ones, that "meet my needs" (not my wants, my needs). If you want a bigger one (that has either extra bedrooms, or more living space), you need to provide a justification for that. And I'm guessing that "well, I want a 3 bedroom because I want to have one spare room to be used as an office, and another spare bedroom for a guest room" isn't going to be an approved reason.


So, unless we're splitting hairs over vernacular here.

If I were to register, put in my household situation, they'd show me my spot on the waiting list, and when my ticket came up 2 years from now, they'd then show me the filtered list of the ones currently available, and that THEY felt were suitable for a single guy with no kids.

Would it make you feel better if I changed it to say "the government will show me a slimmed down list of the 3 available options for a 800sq ft 1bd 1ba apartments that they feel are suitable for someone in my situation" rather than "the government picks it for you"?

Like I said, I feel like that's splitting hairs.

The government saying "well, we decided you should be drinking coffee with breakfast, so here's 2 brands of coffee we'll allow you to choose from" isn't really a real choice if I wanted my morning beverage to be orange juice, and if the government owns 70% of the places in the city that serve breakfast (and are aiming to up that even more over the next 5 years), it limits my ability to exercise my real breakfast choice from other sources as well.

I'm not saying there's no "pros" to their system, I'm just saying that many people here aren't fully thinking through the "cons". If someone doesn't prioritize having absolute choice about where they live, and are content having an older place if it means their rent is $600 then great, sounds like they'd be a good candidate for Vienna. But that's not going to be applicable for a lot of younger people here in the US.

Everything youre describing there is the result of demand for this housing, probably because, as the guy noted: "overall its an excellent system" - which is the headline youve been burying until just now.

I suppose the govt could develop even more housing to the point where theres always loads of vacancies available. Or maybe if youre a single person who wants a 3 bedroom, thats what the private market is for - which still operates there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Everything youre describing there is the result of demand for this housing, probably because, as the guy noted: "overall its an excellent system" - which is the headline youve been burying until just now.

I suppose the govt could develop even more housing to the point where theres always loads of vacancies available. Or maybe if youre a single person who wants a 3 bedroom, thats what the private market is for - which still operates there.

Right, I noted that's what they said, I also elaborated that depending on person's priorities, that may be just fine for them.

But one has to acknowledge that priorities aren't the same everywhere. Nor would certain aspects of the program (and the overall culture) be as popular here if people knew about them or fully thought them through.

Here's one that stands out (per the Guardian article)

“Keeping a mix of people from different backgrounds and different paths of life in social housing is key, and yes, it isn’t always easy,” says Kathrin Gaal, Vienna’s deputy mayor and executive councillor for housing."


Now, Vienna is much more socially cohesive than a lot of our major cities, wouldn't you agree? If the Deputy Mayor (and person who's in charge of housing for the city) says it's not always easy (and that's in a city of people where it's a socialist party stronghold), how well do you think that would work in some of our major cities before neighbors would be at each others throats?

Point of reference, the Vienna Municipal Council (which is made up of 100 seats) has:
46 democratic socialists
(plus additional members of their sister coalition party The New Austria liberal party)

16 green party members

A handful of people from the moderate party (which by US standards would be considered center left)

...and only 8 members of the Austrian Conservative party


I say that because often times when people want to select a place to live here in the US, they're often times not selecting solely based on the apartment, but also based on the neighborhood and who their neighbors are going to be.

People tend to want to live around like minded people. Everyone who's familiar with greater metropolitan areas knows which areas are known for what...they know where the liberal area and conservative areas are, they know where the "artsy" scene is. They know which areas are "college/young people areas" and which ones are where the older people tend to congregate....most major cities have a "China Town" and "Gay-friendly area", "The Hipster Area" etc...

Their chancellor is saying "it's not always easy" getting people to mesh. That's in a city where arguably 85%+ of people all are in relative agreement about all of the issues that would normally be polarizing. Pretty much everyone speaks the same language, the majority are all from the same 3 denominations of Christianity, and most were native born Austrians (or come from other nearby Central/Eastern European countries with similar cultures)

With kind of divides we have here, that would be more of an uphill battle, correct?

So I think my original assertion still stands which is that if we tried to duplicate their model, even people on the left here in the US would reject several aspects of their model (and some of the aspects that would be needed to make it work, and ones that take time)

If a 20-somethings uber-progressive couple sees that their choices of "suitable units" (by the government's definition) are ones where they have a 70 year old Greek Orthodox couple on one side who likes to have things quiet after 8pm when they go to bed, a guy with MAGA flags on the other side, and a person who works for an oil company across the hall... And in the part of town where there's a butcher shop, and auto repair place, and a gun store (and not the side of town that has the coffee shops and museums) they're not going to like that, even if it's one of the newer units and the rent is only $600.

Now, they can turn that down and go back to the waiting list...but how long is that really gonna last before they say "enough of this, we both have decent jobs, and we want to live on the cool side of town amongst other people who think like us, I don't like this system anymore"

What they consider to be their "getting people to mesh" challenge is "Let's find a way to get this $70k software developer to live across the hall from this $35k retail clerk". Here in the US it would be "How do we get this Southern Baptist, this gay couple, this vegan, and this butcher to all live in the same block without having screaming matches in the courtyard every night?"

 

[Whyayeman]

Right, I noted that's what they said, I also elaborated that depending on person's priorities, that may be just fine for them.

But one has to acknowledge that priorities aren't the same everywhere. Nor would certain aspects of the program (and the overall culture) be as popular here if people knew about them or fully thought them through.

Here's one that stands out (per the Guardian article)

“Keeping a mix of people from different backgrounds and different paths of life in social housing is key, and yes, it isn’t always easy,” says Kathrin Gaal, Vienna’s deputy mayor and executive councillor for housing."


Now, Vienna is much more socially cohesive than a lot of our major cities, wouldn't you agree? If the Deputy Mayor (and person who's in charge of housing for the city) says it's not always easy (and that's in a city of people where it's a socialist party stronghold), how well do you think that would work in some of our major cities before neighbors would be at each others throats?

Point of reference, the Vienna Municipal Council (which is made up of 100 seats) has:
46 democratic socialists
(plus additional members of their sister coalition party The New Austria liberal party)

16 green party members

A handful of people from the moderate party (which by US standards would be considered center left)

...and only 8 members of the Austrian Conservative party


I say that because often times when people want to select a place to live here in the US, they're often times not selecting solely based on the apartment, but also based on the neighborhood and who their neighbors are going to be.

People tend to want to live around like minded people. Everyone who's familiar with greater metropolitan areas knows which areas are known for what...they know where the liberal area and conservative areas are, they know where the "artsy" scene is. They know which areas are "college/young people areas" and which ones are where the older people tend to congregate....most major cities have a "China Town" and "Gay-friendly area", "The Hipster Area" etc...

Their chancellor is saying "it's not always easy" getting people to mesh. That's in a city where arguably 85%+ of people all are in relative agreement about all of the issues that would normally be polarizing. Pretty much everyone speaks the same language, the majority are all from the same 3 denominations of Christianity, and most were native born Austrians (or come from other nearby Central/Eastern European countries with similar cultures)

With kind of divides we have here, that would be more of an uphill battle, correct?

So I think my original assertion still stands which is that if we tried to duplicate their model, even people on the left here in the US would reject several aspects of their model (and some of the aspects that would be needed to make it work, and ones that take time)

If a 20-somethings uber-progressive couple sees that their choices of "suitable units" (by the government's definition) are ones where they have a 70 year old Greek Orthodox couple on one side who likes to have things quiet after 8pm when they go to bed, a guy with MAGA flags on the other side, and a person who works for an oil company across the hall... And in the part of town where there's a butcher shop, and auto repair place, and a gun store (and not the side of town that has the coffee shops and museums) they're not going to like that, even if it's one of the newer units and the rent is only $600.

Now, they can turn that down and go back to the waiting list...but how long is that really gonna last before they say "enough of this, we both have decent jobs, and we want to live on the cool side of town amongst other people who think like us, I don't like this system anymore"

What they consider to be their "getting people to mesh" challenge is "Let's find a way to get this $70k software developer to live across the hall from this $35k retail clerk". Here in the US it would be "How do we get this Southern Baptist, this gay couple, this vegan, and this butcher to all live in the same block without having screaming matches in the courtyard every night?"

Whereas parts of cities without social housing are beacons of neighbourliness? Perhaps.

While daggers are drawn between social groups there are two ways to go in neighbourhoods; segregation or integration. Segregation is easy, wrong and useless; integration is difficult, right and socially desirable. Maybe Vienna has more social coherence than say, Los Angeles. If so how much is it accidental and how much derived from integrated housing schemes? We probably can never really know, I suppose. While negative attitudes about this persist there will always be the kinds of objections to social housing being raised here.

It might be useful to look at Vienna's history of building municipal housing which is long established. Any problems of integration must have been settled long ago. Nowadays 75% of Viennese qualify for and 60% actually live in council accommodation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Whereas parts of cities without social housing are beacons of neighbourliness? Perhaps.

While daggers are drawn between social groups there are two ways to go in neighbourhoods; segregation or integration. Segregation is easy, wrong and useless; integration is difficult, right and socially desirable. Maybe Vienna has more social coherence than say, Los Angeles. If so how much is it accidental and how much derived from integrated housing schemes? We probably can never really know, I suppose. While negative attitudes about this persist there will always be the kinds of objections to social housing being raised here.

It might be useful to look at Vienna's history of building municipal housing which is long established. Any problems of integration must have been settled long ago. Nowadays 75% of Viennese qualify for and 60% actually live in council accommodation.

We're not discussing segregation in a governmental sense (like the government demanding that people be separated), we're talking about the organic outcomes of freedom of association.


People tend to naturally want to congregate with other people who have similar interests/values/etc... That's something that will be somewhat lost if the US were to try the Vienna model (and I would imagine it probably took them decades of getting used to...their system is going on nearly 100 years now)

In Vienna, the Overton Window of viewpoints isn't as wide as it is in the US.

If in the US, people had strong agreement on 85% of the issues (in either direction), and were relatively indifferent on the other issues where they didn't get too worked up one way or the other, and it wasn't considered a "liberal or conservative thing" to enforce things like official languages and citizenship requirements, they it may have a chance.

But that's not where we're at. Both progressives and conservatives (and the various ideological/identity branches of each) tend to want to congregate and be around other likeminded people.

 

[Whyayeman]

Both progressives and conservatives (and the various ideological/identity branches of each) tend to want to congregate and be around other likeminded people.

Self-segregation?

People in need of housing will have other priorities. If it was a choice between sleeping on somebody's sofa and having - say -a Southern Baptist (or for balance, a Roman Catholic) next door I would not hesitate. I don't think those considerations weigh heavily in Vienna. There are probably not many Baptists in Vienna; there are a great many Catholics.

My view is that the objections to social housing provision in the USA have more to do with ideology than anything else. It's the same here in the UK.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Self-segregation?

People in need of housing will have other priorities. If it was a choice between sleeping on somebody's sofa and having - say -a Southern Baptist (or for balance, a Roman Catholic) next door I would not hesitate. I don't think those considerations weigh heavily in Vienna. There are probably not many Baptists in Vienna; there are a great many Catholics.

My view is that the objections to social housing provision in the USA have more to do with ideology than anything else. It's the same here in the UK.

But then we're not really talking about the true Vienna model.

If we're talking about homelessness vs. having a home, yes, many people who are homeless will choose the latter regardless of who their neighbors are.

The vienna model, by design, was meant to have a broad mixture of haves and have nots and people from different backgrounds.

Upper middle class people in Vienna are eligible for social housing (in fact, being that the city owns and subsidizes so many of the units, it may not be all that avoidable).

Middle class and upper middle class people aren't in the position you're describing so that desperation factor isn't there.

For example, converted to USD, a 90k income would be eligible for some form or level of subsidized social housing in Vienna. Most people making 90k aren't having to choose between homelessness and sleeping on someone else's couch with or without socialized housing.


And, I may be so bold to suggest that with how polarized things are in the US, plenty of people from both factions would opt for the couch of an ally rather than a subsidized apartment that would make them neighbors with <insert political pejorative here>.

The country is currently full of a bunch of college kids going to expensive universities (and who have parents with money) who are opting to sleep in tents outside rather than stay in provided dorm facilities provided by school administrators in order to "prove a point" about an issue they're undereducated in.

 

[durangodawood]

Right, I noted that's what they said, I also elaborated that depending on person's priorities, that may be just fine for them.

But one has to acknowledge that priorities aren't the same everywhere. Nor would certain aspects of the program (and the overall culture) be as popular here if people knew about them or fully thought them through.

Here's one that stands out (per the Guardian article)

“Keeping a mix of people from different backgrounds and different paths of life in social housing is key, and yes, it isn’t always easy,” says Kathrin Gaal, Vienna’s deputy mayor and executive councillor for housing."


Now, Vienna is much more socially cohesive than a lot of our major cities, wouldn't you agree? If the Deputy Mayor (and person who's in charge of housing for the city) says it's not always easy (and that's in a city of people where it's a socialist party stronghold), how well do you think that would work in some of our major cities before neighbors would be at each others throats?

Point of reference, the Vienna Municipal Council (which is made up of 100 seats) has:
46 democratic socialists
(plus additional members of their sister coalition party The New Austria liberal party)

16 green party members

A handful of people from the moderate party (which by US standards would be considered center left)

...and only 8 members of the Austrian Conservative party


I say that because often times when people want to select a place to live here in the US, they're often times not selecting solely based on the apartment, but also based on the neighborhood and who their neighbors are going to be.

People tend to want to live around like minded people. Everyone who's familiar with greater metropolitan areas knows which areas are known for what...they know where the liberal area and conservative areas are, they know where the "artsy" scene is. They know which areas are "college/young people areas" and which ones are where the older people tend to congregate....most major cities have a "China Town" and "Gay-friendly area", "The Hipster Area" etc...

Their chancellor is saying "it's not always easy" getting people to mesh. That's in a city where arguably 85%+ of people all are in relative agreement about all of the issues that would normally be polarizing. Pretty much everyone speaks the same language, the majority are all from the same 3 denominations of Christianity, and most were native born Austrians (or come from other nearby Central/Eastern European countries with similar cultures)

With kind of divides we have here, that would be more of an uphill battle, correct?

So I think my original assertion still stands which is that if we tried to duplicate their model, even people on the left here in the US would reject several aspects of their model (and some of the aspects that would be needed to make it work, and ones that take time)

If a 20-somethings uber-progressive couple sees that their choices of "suitable units" (by the government's definition) are ones where they have a 70 year old Greek Orthodox couple on one side who likes to have things quiet after 8pm when they go to bed, a guy with MAGA flags on the other side, and a person who works for an oil company across the hall... And in the part of town where there's a butcher shop, and auto repair place, and a gun store (and not the side of town that has the coffee shops and museums) they're not going to like that, even if it's one of the newer units and the rent is only $600.

Now, they can turn that down and go back to the waiting list...but how long is that really gonna last before they say "enough of this, we both have decent jobs, and we want to live on the cool side of town amongst other people who think like us, I don't like this system anymore"

What they consider to be their "getting people to mesh" challenge is "Let's find a way to get this $70k software developer to live across the hall from this $35k retail clerk". Here in the US it would be "How do we get this Southern Baptist, this gay couple, this vegan, and this butcher to all live in the same block without having screaming matches in the courtyard every night?"

Mainly I wanted to push back on your insinuation that the Vienna model was some kind of state communist "we tell you where to live" thing. Its not. You simply choose from whats available. Given the popularity of the setup, obviously they arent going to rent a 3 br to a single person.

The interesting question for me is: whats the state of the private market there? Does the city massively put its thumb on the scales against private development? Obviously if it heavily subsidizes the cost of its municipal housing, then private developers cant compete against that - except in leftover markets like the single guy who wants a 3BR unit, etc.

Im concerned that housing in the US is a broken market. For sure overregulation plays a part - especially zoning and parking requirements. But Im also suspicious of big time private equity participation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Mainly I wanted to push back on your insinuation that the Vienna model was some kind of state communist "we tell you where to live" thing. Its not. You simply choose from whats available. Given the popularity of the setup, obviously they arent going to rent a 3 br to a single person.

The interesting question for me is: whats the state of the private market there? Does the city massively put its thumb on the scales against private development? Obviously if it heavily subsidizes the cost of its municipal housing, then private developers cant compete against that - except in leftover markets like the single guy who wants a 3BR unit, etc.

Im concerned that housing in the US is a broken market. For sure overregulation plays a part - especially zoning and parking requirements. But Im also suspicious of big time private equity participation.

Right, but it's popular in a place where everyone thinks alike and similar cultural backgrounds.

And, if I can point out the slight bit of irony, it's kind of hard to claim that it doesn't have any link to communist roots when it's literally a case where the beacon of the program (and the largest social housing complex in the program) is both named after, and has a big statue, of Karl Marx out front. I can't be the only one to notice the irony in that right? (it's called the Karl Marx HOF if you'd like to look it up)

But I digress...I understand that some people are drawn to certain ideas that are associated with certain people (even if they're not on-board with everything they stood for)... much like a lot of the college "radicals" who wear Che Guevara shirts wouldn't be on-board with all of his ideals, it's just a way to virtue signal their "radicalness"

...but I still think it's a case where it is "the government telling you wear to live". Maybe not with the pinpoint accuracy of "Comrade, you will live in unit 2B at the Stalin Estates at the corner of Lenin street and Engels avenue", but enough that people here wouldn't like it if forced to participate.

If you have to get on a waiting list, and then they show you the filtered down list of options you're allowed to choose from based on what they think your need are... while that's not full blown communism, it's certainly not full blown freedom either.

While unrestricted capitalism certainly has its fair share of pitfalls and blind spots, collectivist models have trade-offs as well.

Let's be honest here, you wouldn't want to live in a building full of "MAGA deplorables" anymore than they'd want to live in a building full of what they see as "woke libs"

 

[durangodawood]

Right, but it's popular in a place where everyone thinks alike and similar cultural backgrounds.

And, if I can point out the slight bit of irony, it's kind of hard to claim that it doesn't have any link to communist roots when it's literally a case where the beacon of the program (and the largest social housing complex in the program) is both named after, and has a big statue, of Karl Marx out front. I can't be the only one to notice the irony in that right? (it's called the Karl Marx HOF if you'd like to look it up)

Your re composing my claim for some purpose of your own. Of course govt developed and owned housing is socialist. Never said it wasnt.

But I digress...I understand that some people are drawn to certain ideas that are associated with certain people (even if they're not on-board with everything they stood for)... much like a lot of the college "radicals" who wear Che Guevara shirts wouldn't be on-board with all of his ideals, it's just a way to virtue signal their "radicalness"

...but I still think it's a case where it is "the government telling you wear to live". Maybe not with the pinpoint accuracy of "Comrade, you will live in unit 2B at the Stalin Estates at the corner of Lenin street and Engels avenue", but enough that people here wouldn't like it if forced to participate.

If you have to get on a waiting list, and then they show you the filtered down list of options you're allowed to choose from based on what they think your need are... while that's not full blown communism, it's certainly not full blown freedom either.

While unrestricted capitalism certainly has its fair share of pitfalls and blind spots, collectivist models have trade-offs as well.

Let's be honest here, you wouldn't want to live in a building full of "MAGA deplorables" anymore than they'd want to live in a building full of what they see as "woke libs"

Before we can agree about the meaning of any of your claims, we need to know about the private market alternatives over there. In the USA, the private market is showing some huge cracks. Its not looking so good right now. Still, its my market, both as a consumer (homeowner) and producer (housing designer). And I still have some faith in it.

 

[Whyayeman]

Let's be honest here, you wouldn't want to live in a building full of "MAGA deplorables" anymore than they'd want to live in a building full of what they see as "woke libs".

Either of these distant possibilities would be an odd set-up. I doubt if many people in Vienna are ever faced with comparable difficulties. We know (see above) a wide range of Viennese live in local authority housing. Vienna is not a homogeneous society and never has been but it is evidently not the issue suggested here.

The alternative to social housing is of course the private sector. I gather that is in something of a mess in the USA. The UK experience of declining social provision under Thatcherite policies is another case where right-wing ideology has had an enormous effect on the housing market, as it is referred to here in the UK.

Social housing in the UK was intended for and almost exclusively lived in by working class families. In the eighties and nineties local tenants were encouraged to buy after a qualifying time in residence. This has reduced the available stock to almost nothing. The private sector likes to build bigger, more expensive houses and people who cannot afford them are forced into private tenancies. Housing in the UK is now in a desperate state.

I think most of us here would love the Viennese model.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Either of these distant possibilities would be an odd set-up. I doubt if many people in Vienna are ever faced with comparable difficulties. We know (see above) a wide range of Viennese live in local authority housing. Vienna is not a homogeneous society and never has been but it is evidently not the issue suggested here.

The alternative to social housing is of course the private sector. I gather that is in something of a mess in the USA. The UK experience of declining social provision under Thatcherite policies is another case where right-wing ideology has had an enormous effect on the housing market, as it is referred to here in the UK.

Social housing in the UK was intended for and almost exclusively lived in by working class families. In the eighties and nineties local tenants were encouraged to buy after a qualifying time in residence. This has reduced the available stock to almost nothing. The private sector likes to build bigger, more expensive houses and people who cannot afford them are forced into private tenancies. Housing in the UK is now in a desperate state.

I think most of us here would love the Viennese model.

Actually, Vienna is a lot more homogenous than cities in the US. From the looks of it, their main divide would be between Catholics and other types of Christians. racially and politically, they're pretty homogenous.

Black in Austria | RFK Human Rights

2020–22 USTA Allison Gilmore spent two years living in Austria. In this article, she describes the stages she went through as a Black woman from the US adjusting to life in Austria.

rfkhumanrights.org

(this author mentions that in the entire country of Austria, there's only 40,000 Black people)

Austria Demographics Profile

www.indexmundi.com

This link seems to mirror that author's assertion.

It'd be less of a leap to go from the current UK housing to the Vienna model than it would be to go from US to Vienna.
(As UK already has some components of it from my understanding, and the private sector apartments or "flats" as you Brits would say)

Plus smaller living spaces are already the norm in the UK from what I'm reading

English houses are more cramped than New York apartments

This New York City studio apartment (top right) may look small, but at just under 43sqm it is still provides more living space per person than the English average.

www.dailymail.co.uk

People in the US tend to value "space" a little more than Europeans.

The housing sector (in terms of apartments/rentals) is a bit of a mess in places, but oddly enough, it's in the places that tend of have more progressive policies.

I'll go back and see if I can find the articles I linked about a some months back, but the homelessness problem is actually worse in places that have implemented things like rent control... primarily because it disincentivizes new development...who's going to want to build and operate a block of apartments if the know they won't be able to increase their operating budgets?


We also can't discount the "coolness factor" that's replete in the US.

There's a certain amount of "coolness" associated with living in certain places, and people will spend double on their rent just to live there, and then complain about the rent prices (when there's apartments 12 miles away that are half the price)

It'd be kind of like saying
"The Cadillac is nicer, that's the one that will make me look cooler, and I need a car"
- Well, you have enough money for the Chevy Cruize, and it's using the same engine and transmission as the Caddy
"No, the Chevy's not cool, I want the cool one, and since cars are a necessity, the government should cap the price and subsidize it so that I can get the cool car for the same price"


So to bring it full circle, just like I was touching on before, while people make like the idea here on the surface, the devil's in the details, and they'd have to divorce themselves from the idea that they "have to" live in the "cool" part of town with all of the other "cool people". As with the true Vienna model, there's no guarantee they'll be living in the Arts and Theater district. They could very well end up in the flat that's over by the grocery stores and gas stations 5 miles away from the place they want to live, and with some people they have absolutely nothing in common with. As with the Vienna model, they specifically want people from different walks and backgrounds living together as they say that's what makes it work.

 

[trophy33]

Actually, Vienna is a lot more homogenous than cities in the US. From the looks of it, their main divide would be between Catholics and other types of Christians. racially and politically, they're pretty homogenous.
...(this author mentions that in the entire country of Austria, there's only 40,000 Black people)

Thats quite a lot, actually, for a central European country. There are about 15,000 black people in Poland, in the Czech republic the number is so small that its not even established (I guess few hundred), few hundred in Slovenia, about 7,000 in Hungary etc.

Despite Austria being the most immigrant-open from those countries, a negative attitude towards outsiders seems to be the highest, there:

Austria ranks among worst EU countries for racism, new study reveals

Austria and Germany have both ranked the worst in a new study on racism against black people conducted in over a dozen EU countries.

www.thelocal.at

 

[Whyayeman]

Actually, Vienna is a lot more homogenous than cities in the US. From the looks of it, their main divide would be between Catholics and other types of Christians. racially and politically, they're pretty homogenous.

When I visited Vienna I was struck by the many Polish, mainly young men seeking work. The figures quoted do not include them or other European nationals in Vienna.

It'd be less of a leap to go from the current UK housing to the Vienna model than it would be to go from US to Vienna.
(As UK already has some components of it from my understanding, and the private sector apartments or "flats" as you Brits would say)

Plus smaller living spaces are already the norm in the UK from what I'm reading

True by and large, but not especially relevant. Nowadays there are many more privately rented houses than hitherto; there has been a sea-change over ownership with many houses being bought as investments - so-called buy-to-let.

I think houses in the USA are larger than here. Land prices are behind this, not preference. New houses are smaller than older ones as builders squeeze more buildings into the new estates.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

True by and large, but not especially relevant. Nowadays there are many more privately rented houses than hitherto; there has been a sea-change over ownership with many houses being bought as investments - so-called buy-to-let.

I think houses in the USA are larger than here. Land prices are behind this, not preference. New houses are smaller than older ones as builders squeeze more buildings into the new estates.

I think there is some relevance to it...living conditions that people have become accustomed to in certain places (but that they often don't think about) will impact how receptive people are to certain adjustments that would undoubtedly be required.

I actually had this conversation with people in a thread some months back in a thread that was along the lines of "Portugal just ran on 100% renewables, the US should do the same". I had pointed out them that over 80% of homes in Portugal don't have central air, and much to many peoples' surprise, over 70% of their homes don't have central heat, and that it would be a pretty tough adjustment for people (even people who were advocates for it in the US)

So while that doesn't necessarily mean it's not doable (people lived without those things for generations), that's the kind of adjustment people who are already used to having it may bristle at once they realize some of the finer points and details. And it would be a much easier adjustment for people who were already used to not having that vs. people who've become accustomed to having those things.


With regards to the housing sizes in the US, it's actually a bit of a grab bag in terms of whether or not the older houses are bigger or smaller. You'll see some massive century homes that are much larger than a lot of new real-estate, but then you'll see some rather small 1950's homes that are much smaller than most of the newer houses being built.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Thats quite a lot, actually, for a central European country. There are about 15,000 black people in Poland, in the Czech republic the number is so small that its not even established (I guess few hundred), few hundred in Slovenia, about 7,000 in Hungary etc.

Despite Austria being the most immigrant-open from those countries, a negative attitude towards outsiders seems to be the highest, there:

Austria ranks among worst EU countries for racism, new study reveals

Austria and Germany have both ranked the worst in a new study on racism against black people conducted in over a dozen EU countries.

www.thelocal.at

what you're mentioning lines up with what I was reading in that article I linked. The person writing the article was describing being one of the few Black people in Vienna, being in a car with one of the few other Black people, and having people shouting the N-word at them out a car window within the first few weeks of being there.

I think that's where some terms get conflated. "Immigrant-open" doesn't necessarily mean inclusive or that it's non-homogenous.

In the case of Austria, it sounds like despite having a lot of second-generation immigrants, a large majority of them are from other countries that were already relatively similar in many racial/cultural aspects. (I think the one article I was reading suggested that half of them are from Germany -- another country that speaks the same language, and has a relatively similar culture)

That'd be kinda like if the US was claiming "look how easy integrating is, we accepted all these people from Canada, and the Anglican Canadians are getting along mostly fine with these Episcopalians from Minnesota they're now living amongst each other, there were a few challenges, but everything's working out"

and used that as the basis for "Well, since it worked out there, let's duplicate that model with Mexican Catholics and the Southern Baptists in Houston" and expecting it to be just as easy.