Careful urban renewal
The urban planning concept of careful urban renewal goes back to the initiative of the architect Hardt-Waltherr Hämer . It was initially designed in the architecture department at the Berlin University of the Arts at the end of the 1960s in opposition to the practiced renovation of the area . While this was in fact stopped at the turn of the 1970s into the 1980s by the squatting, the careful urban renewal was in the planning and activities of the International Building Exhibition 1984/87(IBA) as a legally binding urban redevelopment concept, which was adopted by the Berlin House of Representatives in 1983. This paved the way for large-scale renovation of the old town district and occupied houses could also be legalized.
The Cautious urban renewal had been in West Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany generally accepted until 1988, after the reunification of urban renewal from 1990 was in the old quarters of East Berlin and finally in all the major urban areas of the new federal states are generally applied.
Background and history
As a result of the extensive war damage in the Second World War , the repair of the old building stock was the most pressing problem facing the new German administrations, along with the restoration of the transport network.
From the 1950s onwards there were individual new building projects in the city centers and in the 1960s there were numerous “modern” large housing estates in the outer areas of the cities.
Here, however, the costs for the infrastructure to be built 'on the greenfield' soon weighed on the returns and the solution appeared to be the large-scale demolition of old city quarters, since traffic routes and supply systems were already in place there - a procedure used by the construction industry in Berlin in connection with the SPD Senate Klaus Schütz (" Berliner Filz ") was forced.
Against this destruction of the old buildings in favor of new buildings and also a motorway ring around the city center, resistance gradually formed in Berlin from the mid-1970s onwards in the population and partly also in social institutions, in authorities , parties and also in professional circles. Since the "demolition and reconstruction" was legally apparently unstoppable and democratic dialogue, in the early 1980s radicalized especially the youth in the population and started on a large scale with squatting .
At the same time, however, it had to be possible to develop an urban planning concept that could legally undermine the methodology of area renovation and refute the thesis that the construction of new buildings would be more cost-effective than the preservation of old structures.
Differentiated from the background, see: Stages of urban renewal in Berlin
West Berlin became the center of developments .
Creation of the alternative concept
Hardt-Waltherr Hämer saw early on in the area renovation, which was raised as a 'master plan' from 1964 onwards, for which entire blocks of houses were initially blown up and cleared, as a brutal system that was devastating for urban life. The term “clear cutting renovation” comes from him. He coined the term “cautious” in the preliminary discussion on the IBA - thought of as a kind of “stumbling block”, and the word prevailed in “careful urban renewal” as a term that everyone understands immediately and which is nevertheless perceived as very complex.
On June 2, 1967, Hämer was appointed professor of design at the HfBK Berlin (today Berlin University of the Arts ), which he held until 1987.
“At the end of the sixties, Julius Posener , Hardt-Waltherr Hämer and Thomas Sieverts taught at the University of Fine Arts (HfbK), today's UDK. They imparted a new understanding of urban planning to the students, which is characterized by the reference to city history, the scale of the architecture and urban spaces as well as the perception-oriented reading of the city. "
“In Berlin, he began his work as a professor at the Hochschule der Künste at the height of the student revolt and opposed the plans of the Senate to plan away the historical substance of the city center as far as Wedding and to cut motorway aisles all the way through Kreuzberg. He was one of the first to understand the political dimension of urban planning and architecture as a uniform concept and took the side of the residents who had not previously been included. "
However, the event was dictated from another side: “The advocates of Kahlschlag Modernism had once again set a fatal monument for themselves with the ' New Kreuzberg Center ' at Kottbusser Tor [1974], and the no less brutal Rollberg district was created in Neukölln . "
The innovators were able to achieve the breakthrough on the way to realizing the new concept in 1974 after a generous gesture by the Senate. The 'careful renovators' were able to prove themselves in practice: The failure of the idea of 'carefully' = more cost-effective renovation was expected:
Pilot projects
But Hämer was not inexperienced, because as early as 1968 he was able to work in a university project in Wedding (Putbusser Straße) without presenting a program here. He was able to try out the renovation of old buildings with students and craftsmen and receive recognition in sensitized circles. Then he was able to officially implement a comprehensive urban policy measure in 1969:
“Around 1974, Hämer managed to save Klausenerplatz in Charlottenburg , which was so shabby, from being completely demolished and to repair it for a third of the new construction costs, an almost revolutionary example which in 1979 consequently earned him the position of head of the old building section of the 1984 International Building Exhibition. He used this IBA as a showcase for his ideas, overturned the original planning process and had countless residents ask about their ideas. The model worked, the renovation proceeded quickly without the rents rising excessively. "
Confirmed also by a statement on behalf of a later Senate Administration:
“A real turnaround in the redevelopment policy finally signaled the tough social conflict over Block 118 in the redevelopment area Charlottenburg Klausener Platz. Their result was that, for the first time in West Berlin, a significant part of the development within a building block was not demolished. This concept, for which Hardt-Waltherr Hämer was responsible, was implemented in the context of considerable social conflicts against the official Senate policy and against the redevelopment agency, the non-profit housing association “ Neue Heimat ”. Block 118 was presented in the European Monument Protection Year 1975 , which also marked a turning point in urban development for the Federal Republic of Germany and West Berlin. "
"At a symposium held in 1976 on the occasion of the monument protection campaign, the General Secretary of the Council of Europe, Georg Kahn-Ackermann , expressed the new point of view in a similar way to Hämer."
But in the spring of 1976, at the time of the symposium, the overall balance was one of the demolition: "Around 18,000 apartments newly built after clearing are compared to only around 400 modernized ones."
Meanwhile, the machinery of the area renovation works its way from Kottbusser Tor in the direction of Görlitzer Bahnhof .
In 1977 he [Hämer, at the HfbK] founded the research focus on urban renewal , which has had a significant influence on the rehabilitation practice in Berlin. He also gave important impulses to the International Building Exhibition Berlin (IBA) 1984/87 .
Discussion process
“First and foremost, serious social and economic arguments against clear-cut restoration were brought up, for example by Heide Becker and Jochen Schulz zur Wiesch. Dealing with small businesses and with tenants in the context of clearing redevelopment is neither economically justifiable - through the destruction of businesses - nor socially - through the destruction of social structures. Hardt-Waltherr Hämer pointed out that the modernization of old buildings was only seriously discussed after he had shown in a study in 1975 that the renovation was to be preferred to clear-cut renovation, also for financial reasons. "
Various initiative groups and project drafts were formed - for example the strategies for Kreuzberg :
The first ideas for a cautious renewal of Kreuzberg came about through civil society and church engagement: “In 1977 the West Berlin Senator for Construction Harry Ristock announced a citizens' competition on the initiative of the“ worker pastor ”Klaus Duntze to collect ideas for Kreuzberg. Over 100 proposals were submitted that addressed new social ideas, such as school shops, self-help projects and new life and work models, but also set new standards with regard to forms of activation and planning participation of those affected. Pastor Duntze had analyzed the changes in the population structure in the area and found that three different groups of residents live in SO 36: the long-time residents, the socially disadvantaged and newly arriving “outsiders”. He placed the greatest hope in this third group: young people and students, often newcomers to Berlin, who had discovered the “niche” Kreuzberg as an experimental field for trying out new ways of life. They had built up a subculture made up of residential communities, political initiatives, “alternative economy”, women's groups, self-help institutions and children's shops, which was shaped by collective commitment to the common good and could play a key role in the development of initiatives for the careful renewal of Kreuzberg. "
From 1978 it became clear that the debating 'rejection front' of the destruction of the old town reached not only experts and broad circles in politics and institutions, ultimately not only the 'educated classes' but also the 'ordinary' population - but obviously changed it nothing in the progress of the demolition.
Politics and economy in the city had not succeeded in drawing conclusions from the discussions and the resulting proposals; not even to react to the increasing protests with factual changes. And in view of the progress of the destruction, the view prevailed that nothing could be achieved with appeals and the search for a serious dialogue.
And when the first apartments in partially rented houses in Kreuzberg were 're-occupied' in 1979 - on the site of the former Görlitz train station, and some buildings in the SO 36 district of Berlin were 'repaired', the wave of popularity and support 'in the Kiez ' was impressive .
However, the impression continued that although discussions should be held and suggestions considered and dealt with, nothing happened at the actual decision-making level - city government and senate - that even restricted the renovation of the area where it was approved. This was shown in the unabated progress of the demolitions in Kreuzberg, Schöneberg and Neukölln and also in amazing measures such as the clearance of demolished blocks for house combat exercises by the US Army.
_Abriss_1980.png)
For almost the whole of 1980 the Senate did not move - only Block 104 in Kreuzberg was systematically torn down, as was the district south of the Kottbusser Tor on the Fränkelufer. Houses there were occupied in December and vacated on "December 12th," 1980. As a result, street fights spontaneously broke out in the evenings and throughout the night, which became more and more popular and spread around the Kottbusser Tor. The "12.12." Became a legend about the origin of the squatting movement in West Berlin.
The fight for the houses
In retrospect it became clear that the de facto stop of the “demolition machinery” was carried out by the squatting. The demolition process in Block 104 was paralyzed by the occupation of the corner house at Oranienstrasse 198 on Heinrichplatz, and today all the buildings that were demolished at that point in time are still standing. Since that point in time - October 10, 1980 - no rows of front buildings have been removed, at most individual buildings and, generally accepted, heavily marred outbuildings in back yards.
_Oranienstrasse_Berlin_(2011).jpg)
For years, the house at Oranienstrasse 198 was the focus of the 'hardliners' around Interior Senator Heinrich Lummer and its holdings 'hung by a thread' because the squatters there were very young, 'punky' and at first often 'criminal', but the building was there despite improvised repairs, it was in a condition that no other group could have 'endured'. It was not until the summer of 1983, when the alternative redevelopment agency Stattbau took over responsibility, that the 'tug of war' came to an end. Today the block 104 presents itself with "Art in the building" (astronaut), park and the restaurant row in the Oranienstraße as well as the single house on the Skalitzer Straße stubbornly defended by a private owner as a symbol of the successful fight against the deforestation. in the middle 'was stopped.
O198_2013.jpg)
Overall, however, the overall development was only rated as “successful” when Stattbau and its supporters succeeded in renovating and legalizing the neighboring block 103 with 12 houses and the “notorious O 198”.
The resistance on site corresponded with a flexible strategy of the IBA at the legal level, which succeeded in preventing the 'new building sealing' on the cleared area.
See: Further development of block 104
In general, Hardt-Waltherr Hämer assessed the interaction of all protagonists of cautious urban renewal :
“At the time, however, the repair staff probably had the greatest impact. For many Berliners, their breach of the law was morally justified. "
This means nothing else than that the struggle of the youth generation of that time - even if they often felt helpless in evictions and other (police) measures and also took high personal risks and burdens (denunciation, imprisonment, injuries) - was decisive had made it a success. Without the IBA and Stattbau , however, the squatters would "have achieved nothing." A visible sign of success and acceptance was that 60 squatted houses were renovated and legalized:
Formulation of the alternative
It was clear to Hämer from the outset that a concept had to be created that could be integrated into the complex legislative process in terms of both content and form. In fact, this could take place from the moment the existing programmatic system - which regulated the area renovation - was gradually 'remodeled' to the new methodology. This means that individual provisions could be amended or supplemented with new provisions.
Hämer knew from experience that the approach to this could not be motivated for aesthetic or social reasons, but had to consist of economic evidence: that careful urban renewal had to be cheaper than demolition and new construction with comparable earnings in the long term. In the first place, it was decisive that the construction of the living space became cheaper. He succeeded in doing this with the model project on Klausenerplatz, where he stayed a third below the demolition / new construction calculation.
In this context, the 2nd urban renewal program in 1974 had already been prepared for cautious urban renewal by: “Establishing renewal areas with the aim of intensifying the modernization of old buildings. […] A number of funding programs for the modernization of old buildings have been introduced. The involvement of those affected was formalized and the consultancy for urban renewal and modernization (BSM) was commissioned as renovation officer to advise owners in urban renewal areas. "
However, this was initially only on paper, because "the balance sheet from 1976 was: 18,000 newly built apartments were compared to only 400 modernized apartments."
It wasn't until almost 10 years later - after the high phase of the occupations - that the reversal was achieved:
“In balance, it can be said that after the approval of the district [Kreuzberg] and the building senator [1983], the 2nd urban renewal program was heavily modified. Instead of 1,600 new apartments, only around 360 were built and instead of the 1,500 old apartments to be renewed, over 7,000 apartments were renovated. "
The program of cautious urban renewal was concentrated on "12 principles", on which the legislative process could then be carried out 'replacing the system of area renovation':
Formulated from the late 1970s, “in the spring of 1982 [...] the Twelve Principles were approved by the Kreuzberg district. In March 1983, the House of Representatives finally took note of these principles and approved them as a guideline. ”They were thus formally confirmed and were transferred from Kreuzberg to the other areas of renewal in West Berlin. After that they were also part of the program of the International Building Exhibition 1984/87 in Berlin-Kreuzberg .
12 principles of urban renewal
- The renewal must be planned and implemented with the current residents and tradespeople in a way that preserves the substance.
- Planners should agree with residents and businesses on the goals of the renovation measures, technical and social planning should go hand in hand.
- The uniqueness of Kreuzberg should be preserved, trust and confidence in the endangered parts of the city have to be awakened again. Substance-threatening damage to houses must be removed immediately.
- Careful changes to floor plans should also make new forms of living possible.
- The renovation of apartments and houses is to be done in stages and added to gradually.
- The structural situation should be improved by a few demolitions, greening inside the block, and the design of facades.
- Public facilities as well as streets, squares and green areas must be renewed and supplemented as needed.
- Participation rights and material rights of those affected in social planning must be regulated.
- Decisions for urban renewal must be made openly and discussed locally if possible. The representation of those affected is to be strengthened.
- Urban renewal that creates trust needs firm financial commitments. The money must be able to be spent quickly and on a case-by-case basis.
- New forms of sponsorship need to be developed. Fiduciary redevelopment agency tasks (services) and construction measures are to be separated.
- Urban renewal according to this concept must be ensured beyond the time of the IBA.
Some of the guiding principles are still integrated into the current context (“fixed financial commitments”, “valid beyond the IBA”), but their application in principle was secured from 1983 onwards.
As 12 guiding principles of urban renewal in Berlin , they were also applied in a modified form to the later urban renewal process in East Berlin from 1993 onwards .
Involvement of those affected
“The IBA also created an extremely important change in awareness as well as a change and redevelopment of guidelines and procedures in the area of stakeholder participation. One of the most important demands of cautious urban renewal was to plan with the residents and to orientate oneself to the needs of the residents. At least in the demonstration areas of the IBA-Alt, this requirement could also be implemented, which was primarily due to the high public subsidies for the modernization of old buildings. In so-called 'district commissions' in the demonstration areas of the IBA-Alt, decisions on building permits, funding commitments and public projects were discussed. In the course of the IBA, it was possible to enforce that a mutual agreement between tenants and owners on the scope and type of modernization is one of the prerequisites for public funding. In addition, a network was formed with the independent tenant advisory companies that competently advised the tenants and contributed to transparent settlement procedures. "
Conclusion West Berlin 1990
In the seven years from 1983 to 1990, after the negotiated solution for the squatting, the alternative redevelopment agency Stattbau not only refurbished the 13 houses in Kreuzberg in an exemplary manner, but also tried out residents' participation models in practice and developed cooperative forms of ownership. In addition, there was appropriate qualification in planning, calculation and implementation - new 'job profiles' - as well as energetic and ecological innovations in the supply systems.
These achievements, still interspersed with tough and changeable scenarios, not only justified the legalization process, they also brought experiences with which the reunification, which posed completely new demands on all sides, could be met. With the transfer of careful urban renewal to the old building areas in East Berlin, the final implementation of the way of working, which can no longer be imagined in dealing with the population in the East, was realized.
Careful cost accounting
In addition to these obvious, officially recorded successes, Hardt-Waltherr Hämer also tried to prove "in spite of the prophecies of doom" that the involvement of those affected brought neither delay nor increase in costs: Before that, there were “from the decision on demolition, thorough renovation or demolition and new construction to it takes about seven years for the residents to move back in. [Today, 1990] the renewal still takes too long, about two years [...] ”. And: "The voting process [...] helped that the subsidy expenditure per apartment in the IBA area is on average 60% lower than it should have been according to the original program of the House of Representatives from 1979."
In addition, as a result of the modified IBA contract, 4,260 apartments have been renewed more than originally planned.
The average total construction costs (apartment with 80 m²) were according to Hämer 1989:
- New building 4780 DM / m²
- Renewal DM 2070 / m²
Modernization costs (according to § 17. II WohnBauG) were previously 130% higher than comparable new construction costs; the careful urban renewal "actually led to a drastic reduction in construction costs and, in connection with this, to affordable rents after the renewal."
Even before the IBA was completed in 1987, Hämer had founded the STERN company with his “IBA team” in 1986, thereby transferring the 'senate-bound' organization into a private company. This meant that two similarly motivated redevelopment agencies (the other was Stattbau ) were available for current and future tasks. They were unrivaled because they were committed to cautious urban renewal and had experience in dealing with neighborhood residents.
Fall of the wall and reunification
“The drama of the events and the social upheavals in the GDR since autumn 1989 initially had a clearly political and emotional character. In view of the political dimensions, the economic consequences of the change process were initially almost ignored. That changed quickly when, step by step, the economic disaster of the GDR became clear. The appalling balance was not limited to the production sector, but equally to the entire housing industry. In particular, the situation of the inner-city old building quarters in East Berlin was alarming: ":
“High vacancy rates, approx. 25,000 apartments in East Berlin, approx . 8,000 in the Prenzlauer Berg district alone , ie almost twice as many as in West Berlin as a whole at the beginning of the eighties, when the squatting and disputes over housing policy reached their peak ; Decades of neglected maintenance and advanced deterioration of a large part of the old building fabric, lack of urgently needed building materials; no cost-covering management of the houses from current rental income; Urban renewal without citizen participation, demolition of historically valuable buildings, "dictation of the plan" without consideration of social structures and individual needs. "
See: work process reunification
Work area East Berlin
After the East Berlin urban areas were freely accessible in the winter of 1989/1990, the immediate need for action was unmistakable.
“On February 6, 1990, the Senate decided on the" unscheduled provision of funds to promote urgent urban renewal measures in the greater Berlin area "in the amount of 25 million DM for measures to be implemented in 1990 and 1991. The funds are to be used in particular where the need for renewal is greatest, in the districts of Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg. "
In June 1990 the list of projects to be funded was adopted by mutual agreement. There were 11 project categories with a total of 49 projects.
The financial processing and control of the construction measures of the projects were taken over by the companies DeGeWo, BSM, LIST, STERN, SPI, STATTBAU and ARGE MITTELSTRASSE, which were commissioned by the Senate Department for Building and Housing in trust for the State of Berlin.
“After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the principles of the IBA were extended to the east of Berlin with strong continuity in terms of the central urban planning ideas as well as the actors and planning processes. The old building quarters in Mitte, Prenzlauer Berg and Friedrichshain were renewed with the tools of cautious urban renewal acquired in Kreuzberg, and the guidelines for the critical reconstruction of the city provided the basic framework for the renovation of the center of Berlin. The personal networks could also be reactivated very quickly after the fall of the Wall. After the end of the building exhibition, many IBA actors had founded their own planning and architecture offices, which, on behalf of the responsible Senate administrations and above all with Senate Building Director Hans Stimmann , who was in office from 1991, presented concepts for the strategically important areas of the historic city center - as an alternative to the drafts of investors. "
However, due to the renovation that was now required in East Berlin according to Western standards, it was clear that the renewal process could not be carried out by the state alone. The cautious urban renewal implemented in the western part of the city in the western part of the city in the 1980s seemed impracticable when applied to the huge East Berlin areas.
Discussion about a new restructuring concept
Apart from the “ capital city planning ”, the “careful urban renewal” also applied to the old building areas in East Berlin: the 25 million program was a signal of the determination of the West Berlin Senate to maintain the conceptual level. Gradually, however, it became clear that the problem was on another level: The need for renovation was so extensive that it was foreseeable that the available financial resources of the city of Berlin alone (and also with a share of the federal government) would no longer be sufficient. to cope with urban renewal in the conventional, differently developed "cautious" sense in Kreuzberg.
The reaction to this was a discussion process that sought to come to an agreement on maintaining social principles - in essence: rents affordable for poorer sections of the population - and securing this achievement of the 1980s as part of the necessary transfer of the financing of housing construction to private investors .
On the part of the city, this debate was opened with a “Draft on the future design of urban renewal” at the beginning of 1992 under the title “10 guidelines for the future promotion of urban renewal”:
“The draft [according to the author and critic Andrej Holm ] followed a logic that is typical for the privatization of previously public tasks: The city of Berlin has less money, the task of urban renewal must increasingly be borne by the private sector, and in terms of social demands Cutbacks are made. With this, the Senate Administration said goodbye to the previous claim of urban renewal in West Berlin for all-encompassing state responsibility for renewal processes. "
The reduction in funding from 1990 onwards was not a political decision - such as a redistribution - that could have been fought against - it was then underlined by the official budget emergency in 2002, which forced a further reduction in the state's core tasks.
Furthermore - according to Holm - “the Senate Administration complied with this request for friendly labeling. Although its linguistic orientation was based on the principles of cautious urban renewal, it formulated a new redevelopment policy based on the changed starting conditions in East Berlin. [...] In the '12 Guiding Principles for Urban Renewal in Berlin 'of August 31, 1993, a new redevelopment strategy was specified and formulated. "
The only thing left was to design the instruments in the restructuring process due to the dominance of the budget situation in such a way that the greatest possible influence on the maintenance of social objectives was guaranteed.
New strategy for urban renewal
The financial situation of West Berlin was already under pressure and the takeover of urban development by private investors, which was already a matter of course in the 'capital city areas' - such as at Potsdamer Platz - also seemed inevitable in the Wilhelminian style. The consequence had to be a withdrawal of the state from housing construction in order to at least cope with the traditional responsibility for infrastructure and social facilities. However, cautious urban renewal was considered a valuable social achievement and the hopes and expectations of East Berliners in the dilapidated, backward neighborhoods were aimed at democratization, participation and, above all, staying in their neighborhood after a renewal process.
Since the direct funding policy, which was geared towards the interests of tenants after the 1980s - the state financing of housing repairs and modernization - was now excluded due to the budgetary situation, the authorities had to develop a method with which it could succeed, because decisive influence even without it to uphold a dictation of money. The solution was to counterbalance private capital interests in association with also private organizations connected with social issues.
These private companies found themselves with the alternative, meanwhile experienced redevelopment agencies,
The state (Senate) reserved all basic, 'overarching' measures - the districts that were dependent on it regulated the concrete claims and plans of investors and owners using a differentiated principle of permits; The redevelopment agencies planned, coordinated and commissioned the (construction) measures and thus acted as the actual 'doers'; they steered public participation and served as 'buffer stops' in all conflict situations: decisions that were not within their competence could (and had to) direct them to the 'last instance', the Senate Administration. That was the often 'open secret' of the mechanism and the basis of the negotiation orientation of the overall system.
Second upheaval in urban development
Whereas the upheaval in the early 1980s was brought about by active sections of the population, civil society institutions and the IBA, it has now been dictated by the 'empty coffers'. As a result of the surprising fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the GDR, with institutions eroding as a result, down to the district level, responsibilities flowed to West Berlin institutions on an unprecedented scale. This also applied to urban planning, and here especially to Berlin, because it was the only city in Germany, which was growing together, that was divided into two and where East and West met directly and now peacefully. A special feature was that in the (old town) renewal, social thinking was superimposed on the business principle.
“Between 1993 and 1995, the five redevelopment areas Helmholtzplatz , Kollwitzplatz , Teutoburger Platz , Winsstraße and Bötzowstraße were defined in Prenzlauer Berg ; STERN was appointed by the State of Berlin as the redevelopment officer and developed concepts based on the model of careful urban renewal for an area of 344 hectares with around 80,000 inhabitants in 47,000 apartments. "
“However, the careful urban renewal was not only used in the eastern districts of old buildings in Berlin, but was also exported as part of the urban redevelopment - to Potsdam, the new federal states, but even to the old Federal Republic. The field of work was also expanded: the subject was no longer just the tenement districts, but also settlements of different times, even large-scale housing estates in prefabricated construction on the outskirts, in Marzahn , Hellersdorf and Hohenschönhausen . Here the apartments have been modernized, the missing infrastructure has been added, green areas and public spaces have been upgraded. "
Further development
The principle of “cautiousness” in urban renewal emerged in opposition to a profit-maximizing method, which saw its advantage in the undifferentiated demolition of old town quarters (whose supply systems remained usable) with a view to short-term cost avoidance in the “new construction business”. In Germany, in line with authoritarian leadership methods, this could still be enforced into the 1970s (in the GDR until the end of the 80s) - “those affected” were at most the owners - but resistance against it became ever more massive at all levels of society. “Cautiousness” as a differentiated inclusion of diverse interests in planning and implementation appears to be a prerequisite today.
"Cautiousness" as a label is therefore no longer a method term in the 21st century; it has increasingly become a general criterion for action of the social majority. The history of enforcement in urban renewal - which was also accompanied by violent action (by squatters) - shows itself to be successful in its complexity. This shows, on the one hand, the attractiveness associated with old town quarters around the world and, on the other hand, the international recognition that the concept has enjoyed since the 1990s.
"In 1994, the State of Berlin was honored with the European Urban and Regional Award for its exceptional achievements in the context of cautious urban renewal in Kreuzberg."
For the continuation of the history of urban renewal in Berlin since the mid-1990s, see: Overall Berlin Urban Renewal Programs
Remarks
- ↑ The 1968 students were fixated on the university's field of action and international politics in preparation for a social upheaval - urban planning problems were, so to speak, "secondary contradictions" that would resolve themselves after the revolution. Only after recognizing the hopelessness of such a strategy and replacing it with the “march through the institutions” did the '68ers' later lead to objective, persistent work in various career paths.
- ^ The list in: Borgelt, This, Keckstein: The 25 million program in: Urban renewal Berlin, 1990, p. 105; with the following brief descriptions of five projects (pp. 105–108).
- ↑ "While in the period from 1972 to 1985 [...] quarters with a total of 30,000 apartments were formally defined as redevelopment areas, since 1993 [...] there have been over 80,000 apartments in the newly defined redevelopment areas. [...] At the beginning of the 1990s (it was assumed) that 180,000 old apartments in East Berlin would need to be renovated. ”(Holm: Restructuring , pp. 83 & 95).
- ↑ This representation can be countered by saying that residential construction is not part of “public tasks” - “state responsibility” traditionally and in principle refers to the areas of infrastructure and public facilities in which private capital has no interest due to a lack of profit opportunities. Housing construction is essentially private - here the state only intervenes in an emergency (refugees, see post-war period) or: when it is' forced 'by a citizens' movement, as in the 1980s. Holm also sees this historical condition: “Unlike in the 1980s in West Berlin, the greater part of the renovation should and must be financed privately.” ( Andrej Holm : Die Restructierung des Raumes , 2006, p. 76)
Web link
- Collection of interviews on cautious urban renewal based on Berlin portraits - narratives on the architecture of the city
- Learning from IBA - the IBA 1987 in Berlin. Expert opinion on the IBA 1987 on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, Berlin 2010. (PDF). Accessed September 23, 2019.
literature
- Hardt-Waltherr Hämer : Careful urban renewal , in: Senate Department for Building and Housing (Hrsg.): Urban renewal Berlin , Berlin 1990. There also other authors.
- Urs Kohlbrenner: Change in the Seventies - Basis and Models of Sustainable Urban Renewal .
- Bernd Laurisch: No outline under this number , Werkbund-Archiv 7, Anabas Verlag, Giessen 1981, ISBN 3-87038-088-8 .
Individual evidence
- ^ BDA Association of German Architects: Hardt-Waltherr Hämer. In: video interview. Bauwelt, October 27, 2015, accessed on September 21, 2019 . .
- ↑ Ursula Flecken: The public space on the move: A look back on 1970 , in: Ursula Flecken, Laura Calbeti Elias (ed.): The public space. Views, reflections, examples. (Memorandum for Urs Kohlbrenner) , special publication Forum Stadt- und Regionalplanung eV, Universitätsverlag der Technische Universität Berlin, 2011, p. 13. ISBN 978-3-7983-2318-6 .
- ↑ Quotes from both sections: Bernd Matthies: Hämer, Retter von Kreuzberg , Der Tagesspiegel, September 27, 2012 (online, September 28, 2012) . (Accessed September 24, 2019).
- ↑ Bernd Matthies: Hämer, Retter von Kreuzberg , Der Tagesspiegel, September 27, 2012.
- ^ Learning from IBA - the IBA 1987 in Berlin. Expert opinion on the IBA 1987 on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, 2010. (pdf) Accessed on September 24, 2019.
- ↑ Expert opinion on the IBA 1987 on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, 2010, p. 11.
- ↑ Expert opinion on the IBA 1987 on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, 2010, p. 11.
- ↑ Hardt-Waltherr Hämer: Bewutsame Stadternerung , in: Senate Department for Building and Housing (Ed.): Urban renewal Berlin, Berlin 1990, p. 63.
- ↑ Urban renewal Berlin; Experiences, examples, perspectives; SenBauWohn, 1990 ( Memento from February 6, 2013 in the Internet Archive ). (Accessed September 24, 2019).
- ↑ Expert opinion on the IBA 1987 on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, 2010, pp. 11 and 16.
- ^ Hardt-Waltherr Hämer: Careful urban renewal. In: Senate Department for Building and Housing (Ed.): Urban renewal Berlin , Berlin 1990, p. 64.
- ↑ Eichstädt, Wulf: The principles of careful urban renewal . In: Baumeister No. 9/1984, p. 40, in: Learning from IBA, expert opinion on IBA 1987 on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, 2010, p. 41.
- ^ Hardt-Waltherr Hämer: Careful urban renewal ; in: Senate Department for Building and Housing (Ed.): Urban renewal Berlin , Berlin 1990, p. 68.
- ↑ Urban renewal Berlin; Experiences, examples, perspectives; SenBauWohn, 1990 ( Memento from February 6, 2013 in the Internet Archive ).
- ↑ Christiane Borgelt , Hartwig This, Veronika Keckstein: The 25 million program. Initial spark and perspectives for urban renewal in East Berlin , p. 102.
- ↑ Urban renewal Berlin; Experiences, examples, perspectives; SenBauWohn, 1990.
- ↑ Expert opinion on the IBA 1987 on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, 2010, p. 126.
- ^ A. Holm: The restructuring of space , transcript Verlag, Bielefeld 2006, p. 82.
- ↑ Both quotations: Expert opinion on the IBA 1987 on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, 2010, p. 126.
- ↑ IBA 1984 Berlin, in: archivINFORM ( accessed : September 24, 2019).