Self‐Managed Housing in Vienna: Managing Ambivalences Between “Invitability” and Resistance

This contribution addresses how self‐managed collaborative housing (CoHo) groups engage in and with urban planning in Vienna and thereby how they manage the ambivalence of simultaneously getting involved in established planning and maintaining their alternative and subversive character. These groups aim to shape their own living environments and contribute to more sustainable, affordable, and collaborative housing and living. The relations and interactions between self‐managed housing projects and municipal planning actors are ambivalent and include both invited and uninvited forms of engagement. To be able to realise their projects and to intervene in urban planning, CoHo groups thus need to manage the boundary between making their aims compatible with and challenging urban planning visions and strategies. I analyse this by paying attention to how CoHo actors enact “invitability” while maintaining their resistance against certain urban policies. For doing so, I draw on and contribute to literature at the intersection of urban planning and STS that address public participation in collaborations and controversy contexts. The empirical materials stem from a multi‐sited ethnography, comprising interviews with members and proponents of CoHo groups, observations of public and semi‐public events of, with, and about CoHo, as well as documents and social media posts. I find that CoHo creates invitability by negotiating and working on three aspects that are directly or indirectly challenged by municipal and professional actors: their relevance, expertise, and reliability. They do so by engaging in infrastructuring activities that stabilise both the invitability and resistance of CoHo in Vienna.