Social housing in Berlin
Social housing in Berlin describes the state-subsidized construction of apartments in Berlin for social groups that cannot meet their housing needs on the free housing market due to their low income. The state increases the private supply of affordable housing through subsidies. Private builders, commercial or non-profit housing construction companies and also cooperatives can take advantage of subsidies. The upper limit of the rent claim is the social rent. This is less than the cost rent , which is necessary to cover ongoing expenses, taking into account the actual financing costs - including the public building loan. In order to compensate for the difference between social and cost rent, building owners or owners receive financial support, for example through grants or low-interest loans. They are therefore obliged to offer affordable housing to the socially disadvantaged. Once the funding has been repaid, there is no document binding or the social rent.
Social housing is to be distinguished from state housing, in which the public sector builds, purchases apartments themselves and offers them at discounted conditions. This practice characterized the housing construction policy of the GDR , in which the housing stock was subject to state control. For these reasons, it has only been possible to speak of social housing in the eastern federal states and East Berlin in the above sense since the reunification .
Chronology of social housing in Berlin
prehistory
Social housing has its roots in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the first half of the 19th century, the influx of workers from rural areas led to severe housing shortages in many European cities. There was a lack of state housing policy and housing construction subsidies, and municipal subsidies began only hesitantly. In 1889, the Cooperative Act enabled the establishment of cooperatives with limited liability. Between 1890 and 1915, various housing cooperatives built around 5,000 apartments a year in Berlin without direct state aid, which despite their social commitment did not significantly alleviate the housing problem. Prototypes of the cooperative apartments in Berlin are various inner-city block construction methods as well as garden cities and courtyards with a lower construction height and density.
After the First World War , Berlin developed a system of public housing subsidies and a functioning credit system for the first time. Efficient housing construction companies were founded, which essentially acted as corporations. They were built by municipalities and federal states, by trade unions and social institutions, and as company housing associations by industrial and commercial enterprises. After 1918, eight urban housing companies established themselves in Berlin, which worked independently until 1936 and later merged as the non-profit settlement and housing association (GSW). GSW was founded in 1924 by the city of Berlin and the Prussian state and is currently the largest housing company in Berlin. At the same time, various trade unions built the German Housing Association (DEWOG) and the non-profit Heimstätten-, Spar- und Bau-Aktiengesellschaft (GEHAG).
A rational and social mass housing construction was favored. In the emergency years up to 1923, 500,000 new apartments were built, and between 1924 and 1932 another two million, mostly with public funding. In the 1920s and early 1930s, Berlin built a number of internationally important workers' settlements , such as the Britz Horseshoe Estate, the Falkenberg Garden City , the White City , the Siemensstadt housing estate , the Carl Legien housing estate and the Schillerpark estate . These six so-called Berlin Modernist settlements have been included in the UNESCO World Heritage List since 2008 .
Social housing after the Second World War
After the Second World War , there was an acute housing shortage in Germany. Housing construction was high on the list of political priorities from now until the 1970s / 1980s. The passage of the First Housing Act in 1950 marked the beginning of social housing construction in Germany. From 1952, this law also applied to West Berlin . Non-profit societies should use public funds to create affordable and needs-based rental apartments for broad sections of the population. The first projects that arose in West Berlin were the Ernst-Reuter-Siedlung in Berlin-Gesundbrunnen in 1955 and the Otto-Suhr-Siedlung in Berlin-Kreuzberg in 1956 . The second Housing Act of 1956, on the other hand, aimed to promote individual property ownership, especially by lower-income sections of the population. All builders, including private individuals, had access to the housing subsidies.
In the 1960s, Berlin began building modern large estates , including Märkisches Viertel and Gropiusstadt , which were implemented as social housing within the framework of state funding programs. In the 1970s, new social housing construction activities shifted more to smaller individual projects. Deviating from the high-rise concept of “urbanity through density” and “ car-friendly city ” as in the Märkisches Viertel and Gropiusstadt, the high-deck housing estate was built. The urban planning concept of a functional separation of pedestrians and car traffic with elevated, greened paths (the eponymous “high decks”), which was originally assessed as innovative, quickly proved to be a failure.
A highlight of social housing construction in Berlin are the projects that Berlin carried out as part of the International Building Exhibition 1984–87 (IBA Berlin 1987). Numerous residential buildings for the socially disadvantaged were realized under the catchwords “careful urban renewal” and “critical reconstruction”. This manifested a departure from the urban planning ideas that led to the large settlements of earlier years. These emerged from the idea that the urban environment should be clearly divided into zones with different functions - work, living, leisure, etc. Since the 1970s, however, the criticism of such models grew increasingly. Urban planners elevated the spatial mix of workplace, place of residence, consumption and leisure activities to the ideal, as it had been established over centuries in the centers of European cities. With the IBA in 1987, inner-city structures were rediscovered as a place to live for socially disadvantaged residents. This also resulted in resource-saving and environmentally friendly buildings, such as the Lützowstrasse solar house in the Tiergarten district, an early example of an apartment building as an energy-saving building. In the 1990s, funding for social housing was increasingly reduced, which meant that fewer and fewer projects were implemented. In 2002, the Senate completely stopped building social housing in Berlin.
chosen projects
Hansaviertel
In the Hansaviertel in Berlin-Tiergarten, which was completely destroyed by the war, residential units for 5,000 people each, provided with the necessary infrastructure , were built as part of the 1957 International Building Exhibition ( Interbau ). Most of the around 1,200 apartments were realized through subsidy programs for social housing. The new Hansaviertel was created as an alternative to the then new buildings on Stalinallee (today Karl-Marx-Allee ). With them, the GDR realized mass housing construction in east Berlin, which was based on Soviet monumental architecture. Instead of a kilometer-long, dead straight boulevard, a loosely built-up quarter in the style of post-war modernism was created in the Hansaviertel. 53 architects from 13 countries, including internationally renowned representatives such as Alvar Aalto , Egon Eiermann , Oscar Niemeyer and Walter Gropius, designed high-rise and low-rise buildings that are surrounded by numerous green spaces. The Hansaviertel is considered a showcase project for modern urban planning and architecture and was completely listed in 1995.
Gropiusstadt
Gropiusstadt was designed by the Bauhaus architect Walter Gropius and is one of six large West Berlin housing estates built after the Second World War . The satellite settlement with 18,500 apartments, 90 percent of which were built as social housing, was built between 1962 and 1975 in the Berlin district of Neukölln. The architect planned circular structures that alternate with residential areas, single-family houses and large green areas for local recreation. With the construction of the wall , the plans changed and the building projects were significantly condensed: almost 19,000 residential units for more than 50,000 people were to be built on 264 hectares. Green areas were significantly reduced and instead of the maximum five storeys originally planned, much higher buildings were built. In 1986, measures were taken to upgrade the residential area, such as the redesign of the public space, the establishment of a youth club and neighborhood management.
Märkisches Viertel
The Märkisches Viertel was built as a satellite town in the Reinickendorf district from 1963 to 1974 and comprises around 17,000 apartments for 50,000 residents. The 3.2 km² satellite town with its ten-story apartment blocks extends over two kilometers in diameter. The Märkisches Viertel is the first large new housing estate in what was then West Berlin. In 1962 the Berlin Senate commissioned the architects Hans Christian Müller , Georg Heinrichs and Werner Düttmann with an overall urban planning concept for the area. More than twenty domestic and foreign architects planned the numerous buildings and created varied house and apartment forms that frame larger areas with single-family houses. The Märkisches Viertel is characterized by its many water and green areas as well as its diverse infrastructure. The settlement had a bad reputation at the beginning, but this could be improved by adding and expanding the infrastructure and buildings.
Falkenhagener Feld
In 1965, the construction of the large urban estate “ Falkenhagener Feld ” in the Spandau district began. It was not completed until the 1990s. The area is characterized by a mosaic of multi-storey buildings with lots of open spaces and green spaces. A total of 21,000 people live in 10,500 apartments in this settlement. Due to the worsening of social problems, the district launched a district management to avoid social conflicts and to remedy the negative consequences of economic and demographic change.
Block of flats 103
As part of the IBA 1987 , a model project began in Block 103 ( Oranienstrasse ) in Kreuzberg with the renovation of 23 houses according to ecological criteria. The work was planned and carried out in cooperation with the residents. The aim of the ecological project was to sustainably improve the quality of living, the living environment and the technical infrastructure across all buildings in an inner-city old building district. At the same time, the combination of various ecologically effective measures should reduce environmental pollution and the consumption of energy and water.
Admiralstrasse residential shelf
.JPG)
Another IBA 1987 project is on Admiralstrasse in Kreuzberg. The “living shelf” was designed by the Berlin architect Peter Stürzebecher as an alternative to a home in the “green”. The execution of this project was divided as a self-help project into the three phases "plan together, build together, live together". The seven-storey social rental apartment building in Wilhelminian style facade architecture has some special features: a scaffolding with tendril plants as a continuation of the loggia and terrace as well as a green roof area.
Heinrich-Böll-Siedlung Berlin-Pankow
The Heinrich-Böll-Siedlung in Berlin-Pankow was built between 1995 and 1999 and consists of 17 houses with a total of 450 residential units. With this social rental housing, GSW implemented a future model for cost-effective and ecological construction on a former gardening site. The courtyards between the houses are heavily landscaped and the apartments are equipped with a terrace, balcony, winter garden or loggia. At the Heinrich-Böll-Siedlung, the board-and-pile construction was used for the first time in Berlin's apartment building, which offers several ecological and economic advantages. Wall heating, clay plaster and natural colors ensure a healthy living environment.
Promotion of social housing in Berlin
The state of Berlin was unable to provide the legally required housing for the socially disadvantaged from its own budget. To relieve the burden, social housing in Berlin has not been financed directly and exclusively by the public sector since 1972, but in a public-private partnership.
As part of the so-called First Funding Path, Berlin mobilized investors from all over Germany to invest in social housing in Berlin with tax breaks, special loans and guarantees. Private investors carried out the construction project as builders and took out bank loans to finance the construction project. From 1972 to 1976 there was a basic grant over 15 years and a follow-up grant over a further 15 years. The direct construction costs were not funded, but the owner's loan costs. The owner (fund company) received expenditure support from the Investitionsbank Berlin (formerly housing loan company WBK) in the amount of the annual income deficits between the cost rent and the social rent. The cost rent is calculated from the owner's costs for interest on borrowed capital, interest on equity, management costs and depreciation (according to the II. Calculation Ordinance ).
Since 1976, 2/3 of the expenditure support has been granted as a grant and 1/3 as a loan. These spending grants were also approved for 15 years (basic funding) and, after review, for a further 15 years (follow-up funding). Reasons for the application aids were, on the one hand, the high land prices and construction costs in Berlin, which led to a cost rent of 18 € / m². In order to make the rents affordable, the cost rent had to be financed through subsidies. On the other hand, the State of Berlin had given a guarantee for the subordinated loans (1-b loans) due to its island location at the time and the associated risk of loss of property and the uncertain return on long-term investments. The federal government has approved a counter guarantee of 50 percent for this guarantee.
| Funding period | Type of promotion | number of apartments |
|---|---|---|
| 1952-1968 | Home loan | 272,000 |
| 1969-1971 | Annuity grant for 30 years | 27,000 |
| 1972-1976 | Expense loan: basic funding and follow-up funding each 15 years | 49,000 |
| 1977-1997 | Aid for expenditure: basic funding and follow-up funding for 15 years each; 1/3 loan; 2/3 grant | 69,000 |
| 1989-1997 | Building loans, plus expense loans and expense grants | 12,000 |
| total | 429,000 |
_Sozialer_Wohnungsbau.jpg)
As part of the first funding path, a total of 12,000 medium-sized investors from the old federal states invested in social housing in Berlin in the form of closed real estate funds.
From 1991 social housing in Berlin was primarily supported through the second funding route. The target group of the second funding path were people who lived in social housing, but who had exceeded the ceiling due to increased income over time. In order to induce them to move, the Senate and the building owners agreed on subsidies, the amount of which was based on property-related costs and a cost rent.
From 1995 onwards there was only lump-sum funding in the second funding path, which in turn was replaced in 1998 by income-oriented funding (EOF). The owner or the property management company submitted an application for the tenant to the Investitionsbank Berlin and reduced the rent by the amount of the subsidy. The introduction of the EOF also means the discontinuation of the first funding route. As of 2002, the EOF also ceased to exist.
Due to the desperate budget situation in the state of Berlin, the Senator for Urban Development Peter Strieder convened an expert commission in 2002 to save expenses in social housing. At this point in time, there was a surplus of 100,000 apartments in Berlin. As a future shortage of simple dwellings has been classified as very unlikely, the Commission believes that savings solutions should also be considered, which provide for an expiry of the housing ties. "A suspension of funding can be interpreted in this context as a clear and tough decision with which the Berlin Senate demonstrates its determination to overcome the budget crisis." The expert commission discussed various models for withdrawing from follow-up funding on the first funding route. One variant was the discontinuation of subsidies in social housing. This position with the supposedly highest savings potential prevailed. In February and March 2003, the Senate Wowereit II decided to completely withdraw from the so-called follow-up subsidy for social housing construction and thus to end the employee commitments.
The funding years for 1972 to 1986 received follow-up funding, whereas the years 1987 to 1997 were left with nothing. The 1996 follow-up funding guidelines that had been in force until then were repealed with effect from January 1, 2003. The decision affects 659 companies with a total of 25,731 apartments. Finance Senator Thilo Sarrazin thus deviated from the recommendation of the expert commission. According to the Commission, the exit from the previous system should be combined with hardship compensation for the tenants and the offer of public-law contracts to the owners to largely avoid bankruptcies.
Finance Senator Sarrazin (SPD) promised 2.5 billion euros in savings by 2029. Urban Development Senator Peter Strieder (SPD) questioned the amount of the savings in the discussion about the exit. According to his calculations, the total exit would even be 84 million euros more expensive than his favored exit with “modified funding”.
In addition, the Berlin Senate sold numerous social housing from its own portfolio: since the fall of the Berlin Wall, more than 310,000 apartments have been sold by municipal housing associations. That is more than half of the former 585,000 municipal apartments. In 2004, the GSW with a portfolio of 65,000 apartments was sold to an international consortium at a price of 405 million euros. The cost rents in Berlin are now above the comparable rents.
Consequences of the exit from social housing
- The state can only achieve occupancy and rental commitments without financial expenditure from public housing associations and has to buy occupancy rights from privatized companies. Thus, the number of social housing tends to decrease after the privatization of municipal housing associations.
- The exit from social housing will lead to a shortage of affordable housing for social tenants. In its housing market report from 2006, the Investitionsbank Berlin forecasts that the stock of social housing in Berlin will decrease by around 40 percent by 2016.
- The shortage goes hand in hand with an increase in rents in previous social housing. Of the 11,500 apartments for which the basic subsidy expired at the end of 2007, more than 70 percent received a rent increase as of December 31, 2007. Tenant protection measures in the form of rent compensation and relocation assistance have so far burdened the Berlin budget by more than 4 million euros.
- With the stop of the subsidy, the investors not only lose their originally made, tax-subsidized contribution, but now have to raise another amount that roughly corresponds to the equity they have raised. Depending on the legal form of the real estate fund, considerable additional tax claims have to be met, liquidity distributions received must be repaid or bank loans paid out due to the personal liability of the investors. There is an acute risk of insolvency for the funds and for private investors.
- As part of the follow-up funding, the state of Berlin has signed deficiency guarantees in social housing construction for several billion euros. In the event of the insolvency of 290 companies, the commission of experts set up by the Senate in 2002 assumes that guarantees of 900 million euros will be drawn upon.
For these guarantees there are counter-guarantees from the federal government for 50 percent of the amount. In contrast, the federal government rejected the reimbursement of the federal share in a precedent at the end of August 2007. Because of the withdrawal of the State of Berlin from follow-up funding, so the reasoning, the federal government is no longer obliged to pay out. The state of Berlin sued this in 2008. The State of Berlin has lost its lawsuit both before the Berlin Regional Court and the Berlin Superior Court. The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the complaint of non-admission by the State of Berlin.
- In the case of foreclosure sales of objects, the buyer receives the object and the property, but does not have to pay any ground rent to the leaseholder. 134 properties affected by the subsidy stop are held in trust by the city of Berlin. In May 2008, 25 insolvency proceedings were pending against properties belonging to the Liegenschaftsfonds Berlin.
- The independent auditing company Dr. Röver & Partner KG has come to the conclusion that the Senate's decision to stop the follow-up funding will not save any money, but that additional burdens in the three-digit million euro range can be expected. The difference (35 percent of GbR partner according to the estimate of Dr. Röver in contrast to 10 percent at the Expert Committee), and a lower for the next sale proceeds in the case of compulsory auction (13-fold in a substantially higher number of private failures net cold at Dr. Röver as opposed to 15 times the net rent excluding charges from the expert commission).
In 2006 the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the action brought by a fund company against the decision of the Berlin Senate. A subsequent constitutional complaint was not accepted by the Federal Constitutional Court. The decision on the acceptance of an individual complaint by the European Court of Human Rights is still pending.
Restart with social housing
Due to the housing shortage in Berlin, the Senate began to promote social housing in Berlin again in 2015. After initially subsidizing new living space to a very limited extent, the funds were topped up by the Berlin rent referendum.
literature
- Claus Steffan, Michael Prytula: Eco-projects of the International Building Exhibition Berlin 1984-87 . Seminar documents in the field of building technology and design, TU Berlin, WS 2003/2004.
- Final report . Expert commission on follow-up funding in publicly funded housing construction in the State of Berlin, on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, Department IV, January 27, 2003.
Web links
- kottiundco.files.wordpress.com (PDF) kottiundco.files.wordpress.com (PDF) Brochure on social housing in Berlin
- Nothing is going right here - information on social housing in Berlin. In: keine-laeuft-hier-richtig.de. November 13, 2012, accessed March 2, 2019 .
- Cabinet minutes online "B. Resonance of the gap plan" (2.24.3 :). In: bundesarchiv.de. January 27, 2010, accessed March 2, 2019 .
- Marietta Schwarz: light, air, space! Out. In: dradio.de. March 27, 2008, accessed March 2, 2019 .
- Social housing: Elimination of follow-up funding / State of Berlin. In: stadtentwicklung.berlin.de. Retrieved March 2, 2019 .
Individual evidence
- ↑ Dieter Hanauske: Housing Policy in the Cold War - Housing Construction in East and West Berlin 1949–1961 . In: Berlin monthly magazine ( Luisenstädtischer Bildungsverein ) . Issue 3, 2001, ISSN 0944-5560 ( luise-berlin.de ).
- ↑ investors Initiative Berlin
- ↑ Extract from the final report of the expert commission on follow-up funding in publicly funded housing construction in the State of Berlin, on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, Department IV, January 27, 2003, p. 54.
- ^ Jan Kuhnert, Olof Leps: New non-profit housing . Springer, S. 266 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-658-17570-2 ( springer.com [accessed February 27, 2017]).
- ↑ AZ: 2 O 217/08
- ↑ AZ: 22 U 196/09
- ↑ AZ: XI ZR 399/10