Legalization of occupied houses in Berlin

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The legalized house at Oranienstrasse 198 in Kreuzberg

The legalization of squatted houses in Berlin started in March 1983 with the establishment of the alternative redevelopment agency Stattbau and its practical work, which began in September 1983. By the beginning of the 1990s, around 60 of the 165 houses occupied in the summer of 1981 had been renovated and legalized.

overview

In the first post-war years , the old buildings damaged by the war were repaired. In the Federal Republic of Germany and West Berlin there were individual new building projects in the city centers in the 1950s and numerous modern large estates in the outer areas of the cities in the 1960s . Here, however, the costs for the infrastructure, which had to be newly built, soon put pressure on the returns and the solution appeared to be the large-scale demolition of old city quarters, as traffic routes and supply systems were already in place there and the costs of new construction could be reduced.

At the beginning of the 1980s, massive political and economic circumstances stood in the way of a renovation of the old town that was not only meaningful from today's perspective .

The area renovation

“For two decades entire blocks and streets were 'de-rented', blown up and cleared. [...] Whoever was exposed to this process experienced rehabilitation (healing) as the destruction of the city. [... A large part of the] population was constantly threatened with their house being demolished. The houses had been bought up by housing associations on behalf of the state and then demolished; d. That is, as little as possible was repaired. The maintenance was almost completely omitted. Long before the demolition, it was then 'unleased'. In West Berlin, for example, thousands of apartments were empty, while 80,000 households with a residence permit were urgently looking for an apartment. "

- Hardt-Waltherr Hämer : Careful urban renewal , p. 58 f.
Demolition on Skalitzer Strasse (Block 104), photo: 1980

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 .

Squatting

Over the next several months, the occupations “increased much faster than the police could evacuate the houses. In May 1981, 168 houses in Berlin were occupied, 86 of them in Kreuzberg. Out of sympathy, tens of thousands took to the streets for various reasons. So the politicians were ultimately affected by their own decisions on urban development. "

In the course of the clashes on the streets and the flood of occupations, however, there was a polarization of public opinion in Berlin, which was uncompromisingly enforced against the squatters, especially by the Springer press . At most, a distinction was made between those who were willing to negotiate and those who were criminals.

In the elections for the House of Representatives in May 1981 , the SPD / FDP Senate under Hans-Jochen Vogel, surprised by the movement, was replaced by a CDU Senate that ruled alone . But the Alternative List (AL) moved into the Berlin House of Representatives for the first time with 7.2 percent of the vote and nine members and also jumped the five percent hurdle in all twelve districts . In the Kreuzberg district , the AL achieved 14 percent (seven of the 45 seats in the district assembly ) and, with the support of the SPD, Werner Orlowsky , shop owner in Wrangelstrasse and tenant spokesman, was elected to the building councilor.

But this success did not influence the new Interior Senator Heinrich Lummer - he became a symbol of a 'tough course' against the squatting.

The climax of the confrontation

In mid-1981, around 170 houses in Berlin were occupied and the fronts hardened: the movement wanted to get its “prisoners” free - most of whom had received prison sentences for property crimes typical of the action, such as trespassing or for collectivism (criminal group formation); a 'hard' political faction formed after the change of government around Interior Senator Heinrich Lummer and Police President Klaus Huebner wanted to consistently enforce the existing ownership structure. At the level of the law, the lever was applied, behind it it was a matter of clearing the way for the construction industry blocked by the occupations.

It is true that the Berlin SPD / FDP Senate with the so-called Berlin Line had stipulated conditions for evacuation of the houses, which were based on concrete renovation measures by the owners (i.e. mostly the housing associations) and also the CDU Senate under Richard von , which replaced this in May 1981 Weizsäcker had acknowledged these eviction requirements, but such reservations no longer played a role for Lummer: his goal was to "smash" the squatting movement.

September 22, 1981

After some preparatory evictions in the summer of 1981, a 'major action' was planned for September with numerous police units, including those from West Germany, using armored vehicles and “heavy equipment”. The planned eight houses were evacuated, but an incident occurred during Heinrich Lummer's press conference in one of the evacuated houses after spontaneous protests in front of the house, in which an 18-year-old squatter was killed.

See: Klaus-Jürgen Rattay

The incident generally came as a shock and after initially violent unrest, prudence gradually gained the upper hand on all sides - on the initiative of the Governing Mayor of (West) Berlin , Richard von Weizsäcker , the Bishop of the Evangelical Church in Berlin, Dr. Martin Kruse , mediated talks with the aim of a permanent "peaceful" solution to the conflicts. A representative contacted the organization Netzwerk Selbsthilfe , a foundation of the 1968 movement , which was able to act as a mediator for the squatters.

Prelude to understanding

Since the governing mayor's initiative was not publicly announced, occupations, evictions and subsequent street fighting continued into the winter of 1981/82.

But shortly after the fatal incident, on October 8, 1981, the bishop wrote a letter "to the evangelical Christians in Berlin" - with the introduction:

“We are facing a tough test these weeks, as a city, as a church, as Christians. Nobody can simply stay out of it and pretend that the developments and disputes in our city are none of their business. We are more aware than in any city in the Federal Republic: we are sitting in the same boat, it is about our common future. "

- Martin Kruse: To the Protestant Christians (October 8, 1981), Stattbau 1984, p. 17.

The bishop's initiative was supported by the Synod of the Evangelical Church in Berlin on November 14, 1981.

Winter 1981/1982: The conflict

After the mutual agreement initiative became known, the “political claim” in the “occupying public” was: “Total solution for all occupied houses”, which meant, on the one hand, a uniform legalization concept for all houses, but also an invitation to all occupiers and godparents, the unified political one Movement to remain committed and not to be divided by separate negotiations. "

On the other hand, there was no uniform movement, there were quite different ideas about future regulations: “The occupiers got more and more into the irresolvable dichotomy between the claim to be a political movement and the need for the living, living and working contexts that they had built up by the occupations. "

On the other hand, there were major 'threats' to some houses from eviction threats, while in other cases housing associations such as Samog , "annoyed by the Kreuzberg mix that could not be reduced, wanted to get out there" and great interest in the urban development network that had now formed GmbH showed.

Eight Grundag houses in Schöneberger Winterfeldtstrasse, which were present in a discussion group of the Twelve Apostles congregation with network representatives from January 1982, were particularly threatened . On March 10, 1982, there was a conversation with Building Senator Ulrich Rastemborski , who "encouraged the board of the Netzwerk Selbsthilfe eV to discuss the establishment of an 'alternative provider'."

Foundation of network construction

On March 15, 1982, in a letter to the parishes of the Evangelical Church in Berlin, Bishop Kruse informed the interlocutor of the proposal:

Since the practical issue is "within the framework of the existing legal system to come to a regulated and mutually acceptable coexistence in the area of ​​individually occupied houses", the proposal was developed by the interviewer Rainer Papenfuß after "efforts and discussions on all sides" , "Establish a non-profit trust and renovation agency in the form of a GmbH, which initially takes on the management of some houses in agreement with the owners, residents and the Senate and regulates the repairs and the living conditions contractually with the residents." The Evangelical Church in Berlin saw "the self-help organization Netzwerk eV, which has been working in Kreuzberg for several years", capable of this task .

After numerous discussions, the representative of the Church, the Synodal, proposed in March 1982 the establishment of a redevelopment agency through a network, which should be able to redevelop occupied houses together with the residents and thus also carry out a legalization process.

The Mehringhof (2008), the seat of Netzwerk since it was founded

Shortly before the letter from Bishop Kruse, on March 12, 1983, negotiator Rainer Papenfuß explained the reasoning in a report after a brief description of the organization:

“In my opinion, the self-help network is suitable for the establishment of a carrier model, because on the one hand it works in a neighborhood-specific manner and on the other hand, through strict independence and careful consideration of legal and economic requirements, it also offers the seriousness that is necessary for a carrier who is based on the support of the Senate is dependent. "

- R. Papenfuß: Brief description of the self-help network , in: Stattbau informed , p. 24.

In a letter dated March 15, Bishop Kruse had also announced that the network for the establishment of a trust and redevelopment carrier as a GmbH would receive a sum of 30,000 DM (through a collection) from the church leadership, "so that this initiative can be implemented".

After the relevant resolutions of the network general meeting, the Netzbau Gemeinnützige Stadtentwicklungsgesellschaft with limited liability was founded on May 13, 1982 .

Network raised DM 20,000 from its own resources in addition to the DM 50,000 required for the GmbH.

See also: Network: Foundation of Stattbau

Interlude of the "hardliners" 1982

The establishment of the GmbH, which was initially called Netzbau-Stadtentwicklungs GmbH, became a lengthy process, on the one hand within the network, since in addition to the question of land registry ownership, the controllability of such a carrier had to be considered and discussed. On the other hand, there were strong positions in government and administration who “did not want to postpone their eviction plans” because of a solution.

Confrontation on Winterfeldtplatz

In 1982, the implementation process of a redevelopment agency for occupied houses was in agony and the disputes in the city continued unabated. However, the expectation of the hardliners in the Senate and CDU that the movement would be weakened was not fulfilled and on the occasion of a visit by US President Reagan on June 11 to the “island city”, street fighting broke out on the part of the occupiers and once again demonstrated anger and determination to their sympathizers.

Although there was massive criticism of the now so-called autonomous people from the moderates, it became clear to those responsible that the problem could not be solved with a delaying tactic and that the movement was hardly "tired".

After the violent clashes were brought back to the fore by the media and blame could be brought forward from all sides in all directions, the fronts soon calmed down and the talks continued. The preparations for the International Building Exhibition (IBA), which was scheduled for 1984, continued anyway - here the IBA for old buildings around Hardt-Waltherr Hämer prepared the formulation - also for the legal adjustment - of a new renovation concept to replace the area renovation.

However, the conflict between the CDU and the government had not yet been decided.

In August 1982, Building Senator Rastemborski again assured "his willingness to conclude contracts and [..] his support for negotiated solutions", but shortly afterwards "two days before the conclusion of contracts for the houses in Maaßenstrasse 11/13 [on 1 November] but these houses were cleared. […] As a result of these evictions, the resolution was passed at a general meeting of the Netzwerk eV association to terminate network construction [on December 11], because there was the conviction that, due to the behavior of the Senate, a successful work of this carrier was not possible. "

With that, the matter seemed to have come back to zero.

1983: Renewal of the foundation

Since Senator Rastemborski stuck to his negotiation goals, a strong group formed around the rented and occupied houses in Block 103 with the Kreuzberg City Councilor Werner Orlowsky and the IBA block planner Peter Beck, who called for "network construction to continue the redevelopment agency". After renewed discussions, the resolution to dissolve was overturned by a network general meeting on February 26, 1983. The members of the network construction group remained in the new group and after the fundamental decision it came to “Febr. 1983 after long talks between City Councilor Orlowsky, the IBA and the residents of Block 103 [...] to found the Stattbau GmbH, an alternative redevelopment agency, in which the residents are to receive 50% of the votes on the supervisory board. "

“In the Stattbau GmbH, the residents' own self-help organ, the former occupiers, is represented with 20 percent and the association 'Leben im district' (Life in the District) with 80 percent , the residents are represented with 50 percent. [...] With this, a more than two years of passionate struggle accompanied by violence has come to a reasonable and peaceful end, within the framework of the current legal system, which has proven to be quite flexible. "

- Hans Herbert Götz: Self-administered redevelopment in Kreuzberg , FAZ, October 12, 1983

Instead of building itself, the "development of a non-profit housing association set itself the goal, which, in addition to maintaining inexpensive living space, supporting residents' self-help and organization, is also committed to creating jobs."

With that the idea and the work process got rolling and the earlier opponents of the self-dissolution of Netzbau founded a sponsoring association on March 4, 1983, which supported by Protestant organizations, social democrats, trade unionists and other public figures the recognition of the Senate "in an abbreviated form Procedure "received. In March 1983, the Stattbau Stadtentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH was founded as a replacement from Netzwerk , which was formed with the sponsoring association as 4/5 shareholders and 1/5 as the "Association SUN Self-Help and Neighborhood eV [...] from elected representatives of the houses ( is), which are to be looked after by Stattbau ". “On July 13, 1983, Stattbau was entered in the commercial register”.

The process of understanding now seemed stable thanks to the commitment of Building Senator Ulrich Rastemborski and the main problem - adapting negotiated solutions to legal structures - was made possible by the new concept of cautious urban renewal , which the Berlin House of Representatives "approved" in March 1983 . As a result, the large housing associations, the main owners of the old buildings in the redevelopment areas and thus also of the occupied houses, were deprived of a large part of their operational tools. There was growing interest in these societies to 'sell' these houses. Especially since the previous subsidy policy of the Senate meant that the companies' losses were low and higher costs were expected as a result of the new restructuring concept.

In cases in which these interests were still different, Interior Senator Lummer had the building evacuated again, regardless of the building senator's commitments (June 1983). After he had been further disavowed, Building Senator Rastemborski surprisingly resigned in August 1983 : “The Interior Senator twice thwarted these plans by surprising evictions. In this way, Police Senator Lummer thwarted what Building Senator Ulrich Rastemborski had done. "

A few days later, however - on September 5, 1983 - "the new building senator Franke [FDP ..], taken on by Richard von Weizsäcker, signed the renovation contract from Stattbau, which was ready for signature ."

The parliamentary process

The focus now came on the question of how the houses could be legalized legally and, above all, on what organizational and legal basis, the improvised repaired houses, which are still in a catastrophic condition in terms of building law and technology, could be refurbished.

In this context, activities came to the fore that had previously been suppressed by the spectacular events:

In the context of the foreseeable upheaval in urban renewal in Berlin , active working groups had already been founded in the early 1980s by active experts , which dealt with the practical implementation of a possible legalization of occupied houses as part of a new concept of urban redevelopment achieved by the squatters were. There were two 'factions' - the one from the network organization, supported by the alternative movement, with its network construction working group , which has now founded the company Stattbau , and the one for the International Building Exhibition (IBA), which has been working on a concept for overcoming the renovation of space for a long time working architects and urban planners who organized themselves in the "Altbau-IBA".

Hardt-Waltherr Hämer (2006)

Hardt-Waltherr Hämer - since 1979 planning director of the IBA old building in the center of the Kreuzberg redevelopment area with 12,000 'tenants' and several hundred dismissed businesses - had succeeded in developing (and calculating) a new concept against area redevelopment: careful urban renewal . His co-author Urs Kohlbrenner saw the political implementation of this concept in a new coalition of planners and architects, the commitment of the residents and squatters and also of employees in the authorities involved: It “only succeeded after the contradictions [... after] the fundamental questioning of the previous urban renewal practice had spectacularly discharged into squatting. The changed form of urban renewal had to be fought for. "

This struggle was waged for the houses and on the streets by the youth, the squatters, and on the 'legal level' by men and women in institutions, associations and administrations. It polarized the population of the city in all areas, ultimately in the Federal Republic of Germany, because the clashes were not sporadic, but took place in a permanent 'permanent state' over two and a half years, affecting the everyday lives of very many people.

The media were dominated by the “squatters problem”, the legal process took place in silence and the result was determined by the interaction, which Hardt-Waltherr Hämer weighed: “But the squatters at the time probably had the greatest impact. For many Berliners, their breach of the law was morally justified. "

Rattay's death was understood and understood as a “warning”, “death had” - as it was formulated in the Tagesspiegel - “sharpened the eye for the standards”.

The supervisory board of Stattbau meets on the premises of Block 104

At the same time, the turning point was expressed again later: In March 1983, the alternative redevelopment agency Stattbau was founded, which then redeveloped and legalized the occupied houses with the residents and in the same month the Berlin House of Representatives " approved " the " careful urban renewal " : the renovation of the area was definitely finished and the new concept could be incorporated into the legislation and applied.

Legalization and redevelopment

After the establishment of Stattbau in March 1983 and an agreement reached jointly with the IBA with the Senate in September 1983, working structures were set up among various organizations and with the residents of the affected houses in order not only to handle the (legal) legalization process, but also - in agreement with the institutions that are now ready to cooperate - to carry out a renovation.

Work process

In the middle of the beginning of Stattbau's activities in Block 103 in Kreuzberg, the occupied house at Willibald-Alexis-Strasse 43 in Schöneberg was cleared on June 1, 1983. A solution to the legality question was already at the door:

“The Gossner Mission, an institution of the Evangelical Church, wanted to buy the house for the occupiers at a price of 675,000 marks. Suspiciously eyed by the Senator of the Interior, the contract grew to the point where it was ready to be signed. Then, however, overnight - [on June 1st ...] because of 'criminal environmental pollution' [...] - had Interior Senator Heinrich Lummer evacuated. [... He] announced that he would watch negotiations 'not until St. Never's Day'. "

- Der Spiegel, June 20, 1983, in: Stattbau informs , p. 323.

The eviction criteria for the “ Berliner Linie ” were: “If an approved project was ready for construction and the house owner had filed a criminal complaint.” These criteria were obviously not available in the “Alexis 43” and Lummer's “criminal approach” was also considered in the liberal press a kind of “pretend justification” is valued. But the Senate reacted and emphasized “its 'serious will to negotiate'. Speculations and allegations that he is no longer interested in negotiated solutions are 'absurd', it says in a declaration adopted [on June 28]. [...] At the same time, he underlined the adherence to the so-called Berlin Line ”.

And the evacuated were then "not automatically out of mind" of the public, but had set up camp in the tent city "Chaotenburg" (Alexisstrasse) and on Mariannenplatz (since June 12, the occupiers of Oranienstrasse 198) with the tolerance of the church. As a result, the “final evacuation solution” no longer became a “thoroughgoing method”.

The occupied corner house at Oranienstrasse 198 at Heinrichplatz in 1981

Oranienstrasse 198 (Block 104)

Interior Senator Lummer used the opportunity on June 18, 1983, as part of the dissolution of a large demonstration, to have the house on Heinrichplatz cleared.

But since the house had already been transferred to Stattbau at this point , Lummer had probably overstepped the curve - the support of those who had been cleared was great; They were able to set up camp not far away on Mariannenplatz in front of St. Thomas Church (Berlin) and held out for over two months.

After massive criticism, the Senate was now forced to make a definitive decision:

“During the conversation [in mid-July] that Lummer and Rastemborski (for interior and building senate), Bishop Kruse and the attorney Papenfuß negotiating for the church had, the two church representatives were told that there was already a senate resolution that Instead of construction allows to finally start work. ”This cleared the way for the renovation of the houses“ in block 103 and the long controversial occupier corner in Oranienstrasse, which was cleared on 6/18/83. 198. [...] Lummer at least admitted that he had misjudged the consequences of the evictions. "

In the article in the Kiez-Depesche : "After almost 10 weeks of camp, we were able to return to the house on August 27th, 1983, and were finally given usage contracts from Stattbau."

The "Besetz-A-Eck" at Heinrichplatz came into the focus of the efforts, because the conditions for legalization and also the redevelopment appeared extremely unfavorable. The staff of the house was notorious and the condition of the building was extremely desolate. But Stattbau now also noticed a high level of willingness to cooperate.

The last clear cutting area (block 104 in April 1981)

The house also had a high symbolic value in the fight against area renovation, because after two thirds of block 104 had already been cleared, only the line from Oranienstrasse to the Görlitzer Bahnhof underground station and a privately owned house stood next to Heinrichplatz Skalitzerstrasse. The demolition of this row of houses, which was renovated today, was imminent and was only stopped abruptly because of the occupation of No. 198, as there were now people in the complex. The last 'area' that had been leveled by clear cutting was now in block 104.

Regarding the procedure and measures: Redevelopment of Block 103/4

Stattbau starts work

The contract to take over 11 houses from the Samog housing association in Block 103 in Kreuzberg was signed on October 11, 1983. “With the help of public loans, Stattbau acquired the houses for more than DM 2 million in October [1983].” Finally, there was another house in block 103 and the corner house, block 104, Heinrichplatz, at Oranienstrasse 198. “It acted now around the properties Manteuffelstrasse 39, 40, 41, 42, Oranienstrasse 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 14a, Mariannenstrasse 48, Naunynstrasse 77. ”(and the O 198).

In addition, the renovation process in the interior fittings of the houses, which were often badly damaged by the 'preparatory destruction' of the construction industry, had to be carried out in terms of planning and technology beyond the improvisations of the repair workers. As part of the squatter movement and the conceptual work, groups and individuals were active in the 1980s who were able to plan and carry out many of these regulatory activities, which would have overwhelmed the squatters.

First project block 103 and 104

“Three months after acquiring 13 houses with more than 200 apartments around Kreuzberg's Oranienstrasse, we were able to meet initial expectations. With the self-help of the tenants, the substance of the house was made 'winter-proof' and saved a third of the funds provided by the Senate Building Department. "

First forms of green roofs in Block 103

Measures in the apartment, on the building and in the direct living environment were coordinated in house meetings and discussions; Some of the measures had to be carried out by the tenants themselves. "The consensus was that construction should be carried out with ecological objectives, while maintaining low rents."

Instead of building between the chairs
Already in advance, in August 1983, the squatters created the block office with the idea of ​​"preparing and discussing the demands that the expected renovation process would place on the residents of the various houses." tied in with the structures that had already been set up during the occupation, such as house assemblies and the block council. "The people from the block office [were] accountable to the block council." There was also a certain amount of mistrust towards the new redevelopment agency - "Not a pleasant situation for those who work at Stattbau and can only hold out on the one hand in the belief that they are doing the right thing, on the other hand, to keep instead of construction as transparent as possible and not to take on responsibilities that are not in place. The houses have to find out their possibilities between aspiration and abilities, the politically responsible have to stay that way. "

But after the legalization process of the houses, which often resembled a 'tug-of-war', it soon became apparent that the participation regulation was overburdening the residents, as they could not cope with the "flood of paper" and the associated administrative requirements - Stattbau adapted the decision-making structures to Involvement of “active residents” and set up a “project advisory board” with extensive information and control rights.

In addition to the specific renovation goals, STATTBAU has already developed other 'instruments' in the construction organization that also promoted the social side of the overall process.

Qualification concept

In view of the fact that construction activity is a labor-intensive process - "approx. 70% of the total construction cost "is attributable to" the small-scale, trade-wise awarding of contracts to small and medium-sized companies and offices "- and" a further part of the contract volume is awarded to training and qualification projects ", Stattbau emphasized on this aspect" to combat unemployment . "

“From 1985 to mid-1988, a total of 50 unemployed residents worked on the repair of their houses as part of an employment project. […] Over a period of three years (from 1988) a total of 36 long-term unemployed young adults […] are trained as renovation craftsmen. ('Combobau') "

- S. Kleimeier: Stattbau - pilot project , p. 163.

"After 2-year perseverance rail financing of the construction work was cleared, stood the house concepts that ecological measures in the block composite were decided." The occupants were tasked and lost interest in the commitment to Stattbau : The level of information there could not be kept up and this led also to a “withdrawal” from the committees, so that “ instead of building a different decision-making structure for future tasks outside of Block 103 due to permanent quorum of the supervisory board”: The supervisory board was “dissolved and replaced by an advisory board”. The residents were originally represented with 50 percent.

From the start of work, however, administrative issues had to be clarified in the houses that were previously occupied. Because of the excessive demands of the “paper flood”, only two of the thirteen houses opted for self-administration in 1983, while the others wanted to be administered “normally”. Stattbau temporarily took over this task, but the company was unable to permanently take over this function due to the “re-privatization requirement for redevelopment agencies”.

The seat of Luisenstadt eG today is at Heinrichplatz

Now - in 1985 - the ex-squatters had to and wanted to solve the administration by the "sponsor" Stattbau , decided to "set up their own organizational structures [...] and founded the Luisenstadt eG cooperative in April 86"

Establishment of a cooperative

After a transition period, Luisenstadt eG “ took over the first houses in Block 103 on January 1, 1990, on long leases for rents of DM 3.80 per m². [...] The remaining houses and were transferred to 'die Luise' in the course of the summer. ". The residents' cooperative also functions as the operator of an energy supply company (combined heat and power plant and solar generator).

"By transferring them to the Luisenstadt Cooperative after renovation, the houses are safe from being sold in the long term and the residents pay a comparatively low rent."

Conclusion of those involved

Those involved in the successful restructuring and legalization process succeeded in not claiming a `` major share '' of the success from the Senate or the public:

“Together with 'Stattbau' and the architecture faculty of the Technical University , supported by STERN and many individuals, the residents developed a new usage concept for large communal apartments and loft extensions [...] on their own. At the initiative of 'Stattbau', most of the residents were employed in a project that was covered by Paragraph 19.1. of the Federal Social Welfare Act ('Help for Work') and ABM funds. The house was transferred to the 'Genossenschaft Luisenstadt eG' in 1986. "

On May 19, 1984, the Synod of the Evangelical Church in Berlin-Brandenburg (West Berlin) "noted that the social conflict over the squatting [...] could largely be defused, not least through the mediation of the Evangelical Church in Berlin."

Renovated houses, Oranienstrasse 3–5, 2005

Stattbau moved with the first edition of its information instead of leaf in July 1990 "summary trials":

The development from “former occupiers to owners” and the status of a carrier “who started with the aim of making himself superfluous” were reflected on, sometimes with provocative questions. Details of their own and common history were still being laid out, and the complex process “between bureaucracy and autonomy” was the subject of discussion. Managing director Gerd Behrens describes the "preliminary balance sheet" on the basis of the cooperative renovation of the problem house at Oranienstrasse 198, on the one hand the safeguarding of the "living conditions of the ex-occupiers" and "STATTBAU's job creation and qualification program" as a success that will continue in the founding of the self-administration Luisenstadt eG found "the increasing influence on isolated, isolated house groups and communities." However, it is also a fact that the "STATTBAU experiment [...] in the sense of an effect on the general social and political conditions [ ...] found an echo that was only very weakly perceptible. "

The successful process also consisted of the acceptance of the diverse interests of the young generation of squatters: to work intensively and with high personal risk for a socially meaningful cause - the prevention of city destruction - but then to put their own interests in the foreground again and not to get involved as a whole in the socio-bureaucratic process of “securing what has been achieved”. This was recognized by the consistently older, active members of the previous generations of the 68s and alternatives: The residents "relocated the decision-making process [back] to instead ", as did the property management in order to reduce their burdens. Mutual activity is recognized, says Behrens: “My friends from the O 198 , who - it cannot be said often enough - first helped STATTBAU to achieve a breakthrough, […] they persevered [… and] the people in particular the block 103/4 (are) started in a surprising number of people at the first winter fortification in Potsdam in December of last year [1989]. ”(Behrens ,stattblatt, p. 5).

The Stattbau project itself was not over for the makers, but the '1980s chapter' was in safe hands with Self- Administration Luisenstadt eG and only the squatters in Kreuzberg were now a “history workshop ” for STATTBAU .

“In August 1989, Stattbau took over five more houses from GSG. These houses are also to be repaired and modernized in the foreseeable future. As a goal for these houses, which are not inhabited by groups, but by Turkish and German families and German individuals, the aim is to carry out a renovation that is coordinated with the tenants and that meets their needs. "

Generations

A picture of the time and also the history of the generations - they are assignments that are as distinctive as they are fleeting and can also be determined by opposites - was formed through this collaboration in Kreuzberg- Berlin SO 36 :

Squatters of Oranienstrasse 3

The self-help network , recognized as mediator by the representatives of the post-war generations who dominated politics and society, was an organization founded by the 1968 movement , with leadership, members and support from this age group. This affected first and network construction , but the consequent meant Stattbau then an opening to alternative movement in the mid-1970s had unfolded - in the environmental and anti-nuclear groups and the emphasis on a "different life" and also a large part of the squatters. However, the next generation was already pouring in here, the most noticeable part of which was the punks , such as the O3 (Oranienstraße 3), the Besetzereck (Oranienstraße 198), the Luckauer 3 or the tower (Leuschnerdamm 9).

aftermath

The idea that the squatting movement had failed was explained by various circles, but the importance of evictions and street fights was far exaggerated against the background of the turnaround in urban redevelopment and the prevailing role model and effectiveness of legalized houses.

The urban sociologist Andrej Holm stated a “defeat” with a view to the end of the militant conflicts. In many cases, the death of Rattay was seen as a defeat.

The evictions on September 22, 1981 and the death of Klaus-Jürgen Rattay are to be seen in the context of the "smashing" of the squatters' movement in West Berlin planned by Interior Senator Heinrich Lummer and his circles. The shock caused by the death of Rattay caused a reflection in which the willingness to communicate prevailed on all sides against 'hardliners'. The defeat suffered Lummer, who in the minute of his announcement of the success of the evictions had to watch as almost all journalists left the room to rush to Potsdamer Strasse.

Almost a year later, on June 11, 1982, during the demonstration against the US President's visit to Germany in 1982, it was clear that the movement was still “capable of action”. But even this outbreak of violence only temporarily interrupted the legalization process and the turnaround in the restructuring policy.

House Winterfeldtstrasse 35, which was saved from demolition by (temporary) occupation

Of the 170 occupied houses in the summer of 1981, not only were the legalized buildings preserved, but also most of them, which were evacuated but were no longer included in the demolition / new construction program due to the delay - for example the line in Winterfeldtstrasse around houses 31 / 35/37.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, careful urban redevelopment as a program to preserve traditional urban structures was finally implemented and the renewal of East Berlin districts such as Friedrichshain, Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg was carried out under these conditions. STATTBAU and STERN developed into authoritative, professional redevelopment agencies . The careful urban renewal did not rule out new construction, however, because Berlin had extensive "fallow land" that were already reserved for future plans, such as the Tiergartenviertel or still existed in the west and above all in the east as a result of war destruction, as well as the area of ​​the former wall strip . In the wake of the new view of urban structures, initiatives that turned the clear-cutting area in Block 104 into a park were successful, and later the grounds of the Anhalter Güterbahnhof or Tempelhof Airport were also withdrawn from rebuilding except for the peripheral areas.

The today recognizable and accepted 'rescue of the cityscape' of Berlin with its lively old building quarters by the squatters could not be brought about by the squatters without the 'alternative establishment' as embodied by IBA and Stattbau and 'classical' institutions such as the Evangelical Church - just as little as they would have succeeded in implementing cautious urban renewal without the young people who risked health and freedom . Rattay's death was the occasion to work with the liberal circles in politics and society to achieve a solution - also across the social 'blocs' - against 'circles' that had formed in the post-war period and ultimately in their authoritarian mentality and rooted in anti-communism or in national socialism . These weren't just “those above”, but also “those in the population” who wanted the youth to go to a labor camp or “over to the east”.

Further legalized houses and buildings in West Berlin

The Georg-von-Rauch-Haus im Bethanien (1971) and the Tommy-Weisbecker-Haus (1973) were able to conclude user agreements as early as the early 1970s . They still exist today.

Chronicle of legalizations

  • August 1983: “Of the 165 houses that were previously occupied, 44 have been pacified by amicable solutions. Church or charitable institutions were often intermediaries and legal entities. Occupiers became tenants, users (for a limited period because the building fabric was too bad in the long run) or even real entitled persons (hereditary building). "
  • January 1984: “Regarding the 'occupation problem', which is still depressing the Senate, [Senator for Building] Franke said that he believed that a 'not insignificant part' could be dealt with through contractual solutions, so that there would not be too many evictions. The 29 houses currently occupied will also be evacuated. "

Houses and buildings

After reunification

The occupations of New York 59 (2005) and the Gerhart Hauptmann School (2012) were tolerated and later legalized.

Remarks

  1. In the 'heated' mood in autumn 1981 it was clear that only careful explorations could lead to success. Later, the Protestant Bishop Martin Kruse announced in a letter "to the parishes of the Protestant churches in Berlin" that "after the dramatic escalation of the conflict last September [...] the churches and welfare organizations were (were) asked to find ways of resolving the conflict to explore and to help with their implementation. ”(Letter of March 15, 1982, fully documented in: Stattbau informed , Volume 2, Berlin 1984, p. 22.).
  2. So the 13 houses in Kreuzberg SO 36 in the two blocks 103 and 104 were demolished in preparation for the demolition of the area by 'construction crews' of public or private companies in order to make a new use impossible. Despite the repair work by the squatters, they had a great need for renovation.
  3. The extent to which the police's actions during the dissolution could only have been a planned prelude to the eviction cannot be determined.

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Hardt-Waltherr Hämer | Careful urban renewal , in: Stadternerung Berlin, Ed .: Senate Department for Building and Housing, October 1990, p. 61.
  2. Quotations in the chapter: Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig: Ein Baustein , in: Stattbau informs , Volume 2, Stattbau & Oktoberdruck, Berlin 1984, p. 44. ISBN 3-924536-00-7 .
  3. ^ Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig : Negotiation History 1 , in: Stattbau informed , p. 57.
  4. Discussion minutes and reports in Stattbuch informs , 1984, pp. 37 to 102.
  5. ^ Report from attorney Rainer Papenfuß in Stattbau informed , p. 31.
  6. Siegfried Meier Klei: Stattbau: A pilot project with a future in: urban regeneration Berlin, ed .: Senate Department of Building and Housing, Oct. 1990, p 161st
  7. S. Klei Meier: Stattbau: A pilot project with a future in: urban regeneration Berlin, October 1990 S. 161st
  8. ^ Report by R. Papenfuß, 1984 in: Stattbau informed , p. 31.
  9. "The Berlin Line is a corpse" - How the Weizsäcker Senate wants to end the squatting movement . In: Der Spiegel . No. 25 , 1983 ( online - 20 June 1983 ). (Accessed: September 17, 2019).
  10. Peter Beck: Negotiation History 2 in: Stattbau informed , p. 85.
  11. Urs Kohlbrenner: Upheaval in the Seventies - Fundamentals and models for conservative urban renewal in: Urban renewal Berlin, Ed .: Senate Department for Building and Housing Berlin, October 1990, p. 54.
  12. Hardt-Waltherr Hämer: Bewutsame Stadternerung , p. 63.
  13. Der Tagesspiegel : "Death sharpened the eye for the standards", September 14, 1997, p. 10.
  14. Siegfried Meier Klei: Stattbau: A pilot project with a future in: urban regeneration Berlin, October 1990 S. 161st
  15. Der Tagesspiegel: Senate affirms: 'Berlin line remains the yardstick of action' , June 29, 1983, in: Stattbau informed , p. 328.
  16. Taz: Aufatmen im Block 103 , July 18, 1983, in: Stattbau informed , p. 330.
  17. Kiez-Depesche , April 1984.
  18. Der Tagesspiegel: Between Basis and Authority , January 22, 1984, in: Stattbau informed , p. 364.
  19. Stattbau informs , negotiation history 2, 1984, p. 70.
  20. Der Tagesspiegel: Where occupiers became co-determining tenants , January 22, 1984.
  21. Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig: Ein Baustein , in Stattbau informs , p. 56. For details on the situation in the houses and the disputes in the block office- Stattbau in: Stattbau informs (Volume 2), chapter Block 103/1/4 , p. 111 bis 167.
  22. Gertrud Trisolini: An alternative Sanierungsträger between bureaucracy and autonomy or: The movement was carrier , in: instead of sheet No. 1, 07-90, p. 3
  23. G. Trisolini: Between Bureaucracy and Autonomy , 1990, p. 3.
  24. The Stattbau property management company introduces itself , in : stattblatt Issue 1, 07-90, p. 14.
  25. Florian von Buttlar / Stefanie Endlich: Lenné in the backyard. The story of a Berlin block of flats , publisher: Deutscher Werkbund Berlin eV in cooperation with STERN, the Society of Cautious Urban Renewal Berlin mbH. : transit-Buchverlag, Berlin 1989, p. 45.
  26. Stattbau informs , Volume 2, Berlin 1984, p. 33.
  27. Gerd Behrens: From utopia to niche? 7 years of struggle between socialist ideas and the petty bourgeoisie in : stattblatt No. 1 / 07-90 , Ed .: STATTBAU Stadtentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin 1990, pp. 1 and 4 f.
  28. In place Journal 1 / (07-90). The Stattbau Property Management imagines , p.14.
  29. Andrej Holm, Armin Kuhn: House warfare and urban renewal. Sheets for German and International Politics 3/2010, p. 108.
  30. ^ Günter Matthes: Stattbau im Stadtbau , Der Tagesspiegel, August 2, 1983. In: Stattbau informs , p. 334.
  31. ^ The daily newspaper: Annual press conference of the building senator Franke , January 5, 1984, in: Stattbau informs 2 , p. 359.
  32. Berlin occupied Interactive map of occupied houses in Berlin (collective project) Accessed: October 16, 2019.