Recording the use and ownership patterns of apartments in the Athenian apartment block (polykatoikia)

If homeownership through the land-for-flat system concerns almost exclusively the current residents over 50 years old, homeownership for the 20 to 50 years old group derives either from inheritance from parents or grandparents or takes the form of occupancy that will eventually become homeownership—hosting or cohabitation with the parents who are currently the legal owners.

This makes the intentions of the particular age group important as they will become the owners and therefore will manage these apartments in the future; continuing to occupy the apartment or making it available for rent or even selling it, will be their own decision. This age group will affect the ownership map of polykatoikies in the coming years. It turns out that today, young people do not invest in city center apartments, but will not decline homeownership if the latter does not require a monetary capital. This probably reflects the well-known predilection of Greek households for homeownership compared to rented accommodation (Κουβέλη, Σακελλαρόπουλος, 1984).

In the usual process of life, younger generations often inherit owner-occupied houses from their deceased parents and grandparents or benefit from other forms of integenerational transfers of properties while their progenitors are still alive. This inflow of younger people into the polykatoikia tends to compensate for the ageing population that was discussed above (Figure 6). Adult children move out of their parental homes to live elsewhere with their own families, whilst other young people move in the polykatoikia to live in the apartments they inherited. These are counterbalancing relocations that seem to maintain the age balance in the post-war Athenian polykatoikia.

Continuous owner-occupancy since the 1970s

Figure 9 presents two periods for polykatoikia B, the first in the 1970s and 1980s and the second from 2010 to date. It illustrates the gradual ageing of the residents as well as the age renewal. Only households with continuous owner-occupancy to date are taken into account.

Figure 9: Residents’ aging

Figure 9 also shows the size of the apartments in polykatoikia B in order to understand the density of habitation in each one. There are significant differences between the two periods considered. During the first period (1970s and 1980s), the apartments are inhabited by nuclear families with one to three young children or by elderly couples. Since 2010, most of the apartments are inhabited by one or the couple of the elderly parents and are often used as secondary accommodation. Among those who grew up in this polykatoikia and are now part of the 20 to 50 years old age group, only two still live in this polykatoikia. At the same time, there is a renewal of the population resulting from the relocation of the grandchildren of the first residents, who chose to live in the apartment they inherited.

Use of the apartments

Figure 10 illustrates the trajectory of each apartment from the day it was constructed to date. More specifically, information is displayed concerning how it was acquired by the first owner, how he/she used it, if he/she lived in it, rent it, offered its use for free to a relative or sold it. By carefully examining the figure, it appears that the apartments were left empty only for very short periods of time. When they were not being used by the owner or hosted some relative, they were mostly rented.

Rented occupancies alternate throughout the whole examined period in contrast to sales.

Figure 10: Use of the apartments

Specifically, most sales took place in the first decade (1970s) and especially during the year the construction was completed. No sales were reported after 2008, while in the 1980s and 1990s there some scarce sales occured. The acquisition of an apartment through inheritance is also registered, with the new owner often residing in the inherited apartment. This is particularly witnessed after 2000 and especially since 2010, which may be related to the financial crisis. More specifically, all 4 cases of households that inherited an apartment (Figure 8), chose to leave their previous (rented) residence and to live in their own house—even if the latter was not more convenient—due to financial difficulty. Owner-occupancy may result in a neighborhood change or in lowering the quality of living conditions in the owner-occupied, but old apartment. Inspite the negative characteristics of inherited houses, the avoidance of having to pay rent seems overwhelming for some residents.

The apartments that were constantly on the rental market throughout the examined period form a particular category. These apartments were bought for investment, i.e. their purchase was not meant to cover a housing need, but to provide income (through renting) for the investor. This investment was often made by the main actors of the land-for-flats system (land-owner or builder-contractor) who chose not to sell some of the apartments produced by their joint venture and beyond what was intended to cover their own housing needs. The owners of these apartments very often lived elsewhere in Greece and chose to invest in this way in the capital. Depending on circumstances, such apartments host family members for short or longer stays, or become student accommodation for the investor’s children pursuing studies in Athens. These are multifunctional apartments adapting to the needs of their owner’s families at different periods of their life cycles. They are usually the small apartments in lower floors that enabled the partition of apartments between the land-owner and the builder-contractor as well as both parties’ investment strategies.

Eventually, the apartments in the polykatoikies of Athens—whether small or large, owner-occupied or rented—always end up used according to the changes in the family planning of their owners. The family being traditionally an active social cell involving different generations and several members, there is a trend of permanent use of these apartments, going against the tendency to desert and abandon them that may have been recorded in the past (Εμμανουήλ, 2007). Such a negative impression may be given by the ageing image (façade) of the Athenian polykatoikies due to inadequate maintenance and hence their material deterioration. However, despite their material deterioration, these neglected buildings remain ‘alive’ and vibrant cells of the city.

Relocation of residents

Figure 11 depicts the relocations to and from the three polykatoikies between the 1980s and 2010s. The inflow / outflow ratio to and from the three apartment buildings in Kaisariani and Pagrati is as follows: 1/2 in the 1980, 2/3 in the 1990s, 2/8 in the 2000 and 3/2 in the 2010s. In the 1980s, the first relocation is recorded to a vacation home in Sounio, a privileged coastal area at the southern tip of Attica. The second outflow involves a family who sold their apartment to buy a similar property in the suburb of Agia Paraskevi. These episodes illustrate the beginning of the decline of the polykatoikia and the central neighbourhoods in the Municipality of Athens and those around it, like Kaisariani. In the 1990s, the outflows involved relocations to former vacation homes in eastern Attica (Rafina and Loutsa) by middle-aged residents, as in the case of the outflow to Sounio. The 2000s comprise the largest number of movements, especially outflows; all involve young couples that got married and chose a new place of residence. Glyfada, Heraklion, Vrilissia, Chalandri, Pikermi, Neos Kosmos and Galatsi—close suburbs in most cases. This decade is also interesting regarding the inflows. Inflows are not due to dissatisfaction with the previous area of residence or housing unit, but to the desire to move to a privately owned apartment. The financial difficulties expereienced during the crisis in this decade, when these inflows to the study areas are more frequent, explains in some cases the move and use apartments in these polykatoikies as owner-occupants. The owners chose to move in these apartments—even if they have previously been vacant or rented, which indicates that they previously opted for a more convenient housing option—to improve their financial situation. These moves indicate the potential sacrifice of a better neighbourhood, but have the advantage of moving closer to the centre. In the 2010s and amidst the financial crisis, inflows outweigh the outflows for the first time for the three apartment blocks. During this and the revious decade, the outflows to southern or eastern Attica—i.e. to distant suburbs—are not moves to vacation areas, but to places of permanent residence.

Figure 11: Relocations of residents in Attica

Residential mobility, even though rather limited, is constant throughout the whole period under review, with ups and downs. The main reasons for moving out, during the first decades, are the choice to relocate to the suburbs—even to vacation areas—often related to the formation of a new household by young adults, while in the last decade the main reason for moving in is the opportunity to use some existing housing property—often inherited—to alleviate financial difficulties.

Conclusions

This brief investigation outlined the main profiles of residents in the typical Athenian polykatoikia that could be identified in the three apartment blocks under scrutiny.

The first occupants, elderly now, who remained in these apartment blocks while their children moved, when they formed their own families, to other, usually more expensive, areas. Some of these first occupants, also elderly, are now living at these polykatoikies intermittently since they also live elsewhere (usually away from the centre) in a vacation home, but visit the centre and keep the apartment as a secondary residence. Young people, who, under the pressure of the financial crisis, left the previous houses they were renting to came and live in the apartment they inherited to reduce housing expenses.

The apartments of the post-war polykatoikia, although aged and poorly maintained, did not cease to play a decisive role in the planning of Greek families during their long presence. Although less densely populated and with a significant lack of young families with children, the apartments continue to be inhabited and adapt to new housing and economic circumstances. Throughout their trajectory, their owners used them in a way that either covered housing needs or provided extra household income. Their occupants are constantly moving in and out, following different motives according to their age and other characteristics.

Eventualy, the Athenian polykatoikia is not abandoned, but mostly undergoes constant changes that keep it alive. Moreover, its ageing population gets younger through the recent inflows of young inhabitants.

This constant mobility of residents to and from the polykatoikia complements its image, which is certainly not a picture of abandonment but of change. The post-war apartment block is present in the city’s life even if this presence is overlooked. Investigating the role of this type of building is of great importance and should be considered essential for the debate regarding the future of Athens.

[1] Concerning the intensive post-war building construction in Athens βλ. (Burgel, 1976), (Μαντουβάλου, 1988), (Μαρμαράς, 1991), (Μπίρης, 1966)

[2] Users are the tenants, the owner-occupiers and the guests. ‘Hosting’ means the concession by the owner of an apartment for habitation to a third person, while the owner lives somewhere else.

[3] This entry is based on the author’s diploma thesis (2006), in the postgraduate program ‘Architecture-Spatial Design’, ‘Urban and Regional Planning’ supervised by Maria Marcou and Dimitris Isaias.

[4] Significant contribution to this research was provided by the following publications: (Καμούτση, Μαλούτας, 1986), (Κουβέλη, 1986), (Κουβέλη, Σακελλαρόπουλος, 1984)