Urban renewal Berlin

The urban renewal of Berlin is a form of urban development and was planned as urban redevelopment after 1945 and only partially planned as redevelopment . As a result of the extensive war destruction in the Second World War through the bombing and above all through the artillery bombardment in the final battle for Berlin, this urban renewal was the most urgent problem facing the new German administration in addition to the restoration of the transport network. In the first post-war years , the old buildings 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 settlements on the outskirts of the cities in the 1960s . Here, however, the costs for the infrastructure, which had to be newly built, 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. From the mid-1970s onwards, massive resistance arose from the population and partly also in social institutions, in authorities , parties and also specialist groups against this destruction of old buildings in favor of new buildings and also motorway construction plans. Since the "demolition and reconstruction" was legally apparently did not stop and in the democratic dialogue in early radicalized 1980s parts especially the youth and began a large scale with squatting . West Berlin became the center of these developments.

Modernized old buildings on Chamissoplatz

In cooperation with squatters and the liberal public succeeded in large organization IBA , the "International Building Exhibition" to develop by the unincorporated concept of "Gentle Urban Redevelopment" an enforceable political and practical alternative that after the German reunification on East Berlin could be applied .

In the GDR , a similar development of urban destruction had spread in other ways, which over time also created "political explosive" and silted up in passive resistance and the mismanagement of the authorities. In East Berlin , too, from the end of the 1970s a concept for the “renewal of the old building fabric” prevailed, which was less effective, but ultimately brought the old city quarters with it into German reunification . A new 'twist' towards demolition at the end of the 1980s became irrelevant.

history

After antiquity , the 'development of the city' was no longer reflected on for a long time, as there were no ' authorities ' that could have been responsible for it. In the course of the early Middle Ages there was an almost complete extinction of urban life. Settlement development was uncontrolled and was at best driven by rulers who were able to "make room" in their surroundings out of a personal interest. There were a few new foundations in the Carolingian heartland and only among the Ottonians did a modest wave of new foundations set in from the 10th century. An increase in the number of city ​​foundations took place between 1100 and the second half of the 14th century with the general European economic and social development. Around 1500, at the beginning of modern times , important cities emerged and with the beginning of this urbanization , living conditions in connection with the emergence of urban or clerical administrative work were brought back into planning considerations. First and foremost, it was about demolition in favor of new buildings; a long-term design can only be spoken of again in the context of the Enlightenment . The Renaissance defined the city plan and cityscape - especially in terms of geometry. The far-reaching structural, legal and urban sanitation decrees of the baroque princes prepared the management and administration of the much more extensive mass phenomena of the impending industrialization in the cities. It was also about urban hygiene. This is how Haussmann created large residential buildings in Paris , which are imitated by other cities. The classicist England gave impetus to the inclusion of nature in the narrow dark cities. Movements for green and hygienic residential areas are increasingly gaining ground, but their realization will not begin until the end of the 19th century.

Berlin under the Hohenzollern

Plan 1789. In the southwest the as yet undeveloped Köpenicker field

Well-thought-out urban planning, taking general interests into account, was ruled out in Berlin for a long time and even “the Prussian town order of Baron von Stein [...] had left Berlin without a trace. Berlin did not enjoy self-government because it was the Hohenzollern residence ; and the residences were excluded from self-government. In all other cities the police were subordinate to the magistrate. In Berlin there was a state police that was subordinate to the magistrate. Even the Prussian king had to watch helplessly as his police chief put a genius like Karl Friedrich Schinkel in check and prevented large-scale urban development in Berlin. ”In 1810, the police had decreed that Berlin had to limit itself to the area within the old customs wall. Only under the pressure of mass immigration with the beginning of industrialization did the city expand - space was found in a south-easterly direction: “In 1812, the [Prussian] Interior Minister Sack issued an order to Police President LeCoq to draw up a development plan for the Köpenick field. Until then, the area consisted of fruit fields, gardening shops and farmland, but within the excise walls [customs wall] it was the largest contiguous area for city ​​expansion . ”Schinkel and Lenné were busy with planning, but“ everything that concerned town planning was concerned after Schinkel's death (1841)] the chief of police. ”Only after a police ordinance in 1853 - 40 years after the first referral -“ then also [on the Köpenicker field] the construction activity starts rapidly ”. Highly speculative and organized as a 'tenement town'.

Topic "Tenement City"

Construction of the tenement town

In Berlin, Wedding emerged from 1862 in connection with the Hobrecht Plan as the city's first workers' residential area in an area that was still almost unpopulated until 1850. "It thus became part of the Wilhelminian tenement belt around the city center at that time, which absorbed the flow of people triggered by industrialization ."

A reflection on "urban renewal" soon began in view of the drastic developments in the context of industrialization after the "urban expansion of the imperial era [... in the last third of the 19th century" with the writings of the urban planning critic Werner Hegemann .

“The ' tenement city ' was demonized like no other type of city in the history of architecture, it embodied the un-city par excellence in the optics of urban modernism, the barbaric fusion of human contempt and ugliness.

- Harald Bodenschatz : The "tenement city" in: Urban renewal Berlin , p. 19.

In 1913 the liberal land reformer Damaschke called it “mass grave for the people's welfare”, it was fought jointly by the SPD and KPD - during the Nazi era the optics changed: the neighborhoods were now considered “fertile breeding ground for the Marxist labor movement […] them were seen as a breeding ground for the hated political opponent that had to be 'cleaned up'. ”Nothing was changed by either side.

This “cultural devaluation” of the “barracks” urban building type had spread since the two decades before the First World War and was also often discussed artistically. From the 1960s onwards, this picture served as an argumentative basis for the renovation of the area : the "practical implementation of the criticism."

Unrecognized, as it were, after the Second World War, a “partial rehabilitation of the tenement town” took place in the eyes of the new generation of young people in particular in the 1970s and 1980s. The protest against the demolition of entire blocks of houses arose not only from economic motives (“inexpensive living space”), but also - in contrast to the aesthetics and structure of the new buildings - from the possibilities of a cozy neighborhood, of living together (large apartments), of work (business , Studios on the factory floors). This was seen in a realistic view of the need for a disposition and design determined not by private, but by social interests.

To this end, the “models affected” gradually offered new approaches for the first time after the Nazi rule, which was now also democratically regulated here in urban development.

Participation of those affected

The participation of the residents was initially not a goal - it was “only politicians, administrative employees, planners, architects and other experts who defined poor or good housing or social conditions.” And “those affected” were at most owners.

Only by securing the rights of the residents - and informing them about planning - was it possible to integrate this group into the development of legislation and the financing of urban development.

Stages of urban renewal in Berlin

End of war

City center Berlin, as it was in 1947

In 1945 Berlin was a large area of ​​ruins that was concentrically destroyed in wide aisles. The inner city areas, severely affected by air raids , were 'laid down' by the Soviet artillery after the city was enclosed on April 25, 1945 . Most of the streets outside the aisles of the tenement city remained damaged in the battle for Berlin , generally the non-defended areas of the city.

Planners such as Hans Scharoun with the collective plan and Max Traut soon developed ideas “which on paper radically settled with the tenement town”, but hardship dictated the program: the old town was again poorly repaired.

In the first post-war years , the procurement of housing and the reconstruction of the transport network were at the center of all efforts to bring the urban functions back into operation in the rubble landscape of Berlin. In addition to the Reichsbahn and the BVG , the Siemens -auunion was able to reorganize quickly. The construction industry as a whole is initially oriented towards the construction of new buildings in the outskirts.

1950s

The Ernst-Reuter-Siedlung from 1953 to 1955 in Berlin-Gesundbrunnen was the first demonstrative building project of the post-war period that initiated the urban renewal in West Berlin , which was characterized by demolition and new construction . In the interior of the city, "on the soil of the 19th century city [...] the Hansaviertel in the Tiergarten district , the central prestige object of 'Interbau', the 1957 International Building Exhibition ."

Hansaviertel , Klopstockstrasse, 1957

Argumentatively - but still rarely practically - the dissolution of the cramped old quarters was denounced, noise, dirt, the confusion of living and business, of churches between pubs and dance halls, the decay.

In the outdoor areas, preparations began for the new large housing estates of the following decade.

1960s

Now new suburbs emerged in the western part of Berlin - the Märkisches Viertel , Gropiusstadt and Falkenhagener Feld .

However, the increases in costs in the 1960s for the construction of new building complexes in the outdoor areas - the complete transport and supply networks had to be built as well - led to the idea of ​​moving forward more cheaply by demolishing old districts and redeveloping them. The infrastructure as a basis was already in place there. One of the decisive factors was that “the entire technical and bureaucratic apparatus in the construction industry was geared towards the development of free space.” The same applies to the skilled workers and the capacities of the suppliers. Any change would have meant high investments.

Thus “in 1963 [...] the first urban renewal program was announced. Renewal initially meant demolition and new construction. ”The first large experimental field was the redevelopment area of ​​Wedding Brunnenstrasse (SWB).

Wutzkyallee, 1968

But the 'social idea' was already beginning to spread in the local building authorities and among experts and planners: "Tabula rasa, a secret dream in urban renewal, was ruled out as a viable option in Wedding."

The quality of this phase in the 1960s - according to the authors Suhr and Enke - was the new land regulation: in 1968 43% of all land in need of renovation in the SWB was owned by (non-profit) renovation agencies, whereby largely speculative land prices could be avoided. This laid the foundations for greater political influence on urban development.

But without a new attitude towards the methods, this only diverted the flow of money:

The financing concerns of the construction industry ...

“… The state accommodated by enshrining in law [in the Urban Development Act (StBauFG), which came into force in Berlin on August 1, 1971] that all unprofitable costs were reimbursed by the public purse; these are the costs of moving the tenants (renting out), demolishing the houses and clearing the land. The property prices, driven up by speculation, are also 'offset' by reimbursing up to 70% of the property costs to the redevelopment agency. […] The state created the same conditions for the construction industry as existed in new building areas on the outskirts. The renovation began. "

- Bernd Laurisch : No outline under this number , Werkbund-Archiv 7, 1981, p. 14.

In a nutshell:
"Subsidized with public money, non-profit housing associations bought entire blocks of houses in order to demolish them, also subsidized by the state, and to replace them with new buildings."

In the background, the notorious "Berliner Filz" acted, the mutually profitable interweaving of politics and business.

1970s

At the same time, however, "a broad professional public discussion on urban renewal [...] as a result of the 1968 movement (and the) changed professional profile of architects and town planners and the critical questioning of the social causes and backgrounds of urban renewal practices at that time."

In the Urban Development Promotion Act (StBauFG), which came into force on August 1, 1971, the social aspects were "given more weight than before by the demand for social plans to be drawn up for those affected", but there were still no regulations for practical implementation. And the question of “extensive renewal” or “conservation” was not decided either.

Since a sharp decline in population was expected for the 1970s, urban planning assumed that “especially in the Wilhelminian style residential districts [...] there would be considerable vacancies [...] and the] expected 'burnout' - e.g. B. the area Kreuzberg SO 36 - would have created the necessary conditions for this [for the urban redevelopment]. "

New Kreuzberg Center (NKZ)

“For this”, redevelopment agencies and the construction industry still mean “clear cutting” with subsequent redevelopment - the ' New Kreuzberger Zentrum ' (NKZ) at Kottbusser Tor became the model at that time .

“A more economically oriented approach to the costs incurred [as the city administration now had to undertake], which went beyond the comparison of the pure construction costs, showed that shifting the focus of urban renewal to the repair and modernization of old buildings also makes economic sense. [...] There was still a clear gap between what was theoretically recognized as necessary and practice - according to the author. "

While the advocates of a cautious approach were dealing with “pilot projects” which “were, however, still heavily controversial”, politics and the construction industry drove the deforestation further - after all, the city ​​motorway with a potential connection to East Berlin was still being planned. The 'brakes' of this concept tried to react with a “change in the framework conditions for urban renewal [...] partly including a preceding seminar phase and the involvement of the residents concerned [...] and with an extended award of expert opinions”. Accordingly, in parts of the administration "a participation model for the preparation and implementation of urban renewal measures was developed and bindingly regulated in the implementation regulations of the StBauFG 1977, but without being able to participate in the planning."

The "broad urban opposition to urban renewal policy" - after "since around 1973", increasingly left the bodies set up for those affected as part of the alternative movement and began to structure and network in self-organized groups.

The first conflict arose in July 1977 when district groups in Kreuzberg occupied the “old fire station” on Reichenberger Strasse, which was planned for demolition, in order to convert it into a district center. While the Berlin Higher Administrative Court ruled on the demolition request, "the then town planning officer [...] had the guard cleared and torn down at dawn."

Numerous representatives elected through the statutory participation of those affected then founded "the 'Stammtisch SO 36', from which the [independent] citizens' initiative SO 36 later emerged."

Demolition in block 104

The race to save the old building fabric also gained a new dynamic “in the 'Strategies for Kreuzberg' for the SO 36 area, initiated by Pastor Klaus Dunze in 1977/78 .” This started a process that the author in his 'summary' sums up: "The changed form of urban renewal had to be fought for."

1980s

This fighting situation was not long in coming: as early as the mid-1970s, "self-organization" had become a common practice in all areas of life, not only among young people, and the behavior of the "renovators" in Kreuzberg, Neukölln, Wedding and also in Charlottenburg demanded it Resistance outright:

“Over 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, the building was '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 ff

US Army at the house combat exercise

Some redevelopment agencies reacted to the increasing resistance (also from tenants who did not want to be evicted) with acts of destruction in buildings that were still partially inhabited, which were also intended to 'prevent' the possibility of renewal. “The US Army received permission from the Senate to carry out urban warfare maneuvers in the redevelopment area. [... After that] there was really nothing left to save on the houses, and the last tenants saw to it that they could leave this 'battlefield' as quickly as possible. "

Squatting

In 1979 the first “ repairs ” took place - the processes were so strongly “embedded” in the population that hardly any measures were taken against them. Legal action was often taken in parallel: in Görlitzer Strasse 74, following the misappropriation ordinance, which forbade vacancies of more than three months. After years of "tug of war", two apartments in the house were occupied. The process attracted a great deal of attention:

"Due to the events of the last few years, public opinion had become extremely skeptical of homeowners and housing associations, and this action received a consistently positive response in the press."

Shortly thereafter, the company rented the two and another 40 apartments.

A number of apartments in different buildings were also inhabited clandestinely or sporadically. The first major action was the "maintenance staff in Cuvrystraße". Nevertheless, the movement had barely spread beyond a small area in Kreuzberg SO 36 , but the potential for it grew steadily and after an evacuation on Kreuzberg's Fraenkelufer, it ignited in the first street battle on December 12, 1980 around the Kottbusser Tor .

Over the next few 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 again and again for various reasons. In this way the politicians were ultimately affected by their own decisions on urban development. "

In a representative survey conducted by the Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy in 1981 , when asked whether the squatters were right with their criticism of the “deforestation”, […] 53.7 percent of those questioned answered “yes”. Another 18 percent were undecided, while 31 percent had no understanding. [...] 86 percent of the population advocated a gentle and non-police solution to the maintenance occupation conflict. "

The last clear cutting area in the 1980s is today

During this time, the renovation of the area actually came to an end - still recognizable today in Block 104 on Skalitzer Straße between the Kottbusser Tor and Görlitzer Bahnhof subway stations , which was largely demolished, but whose row of houses on Oranienstrasse 'remained standing' . The bare area was no longer rebuilt, but turned into a park.

International Building Exhibition (IBA)

"IBA buildings" on Fraenkelufer

A company - the " International Building Exhibition 1987 " - which was founded in 1979 by a resolution of the Berlin House of Representatives , was decisive for the breakthrough to a new renovation concept on the political level .

On the one hand, it “was supposed to rebuild urban areas that had been destroyed since the war or that were cleared afterwards. On the other hand, it was supposed to renew the old town quarter in the eastern Kreuzberg between the Spree , Landwehr Canal and the former Luisenstadt Canal - precisely the area in which the main focus of outrage against the previous renovation policy was. "

Urban planners, architects and experts from numerous (construction) sectors could gather at the IBA and they came to a table with those responsible in the offices - usually men and women on both sides who were aware of the need for a new policy. In the summer of 1979 Hardt-Waltherr Hämer was appointed planning director for the old town quarters. After a short time it became clear to those involved in the IBA “that the decision of the House of Representatives in terms of formulating the project itself was not suitable. Without a voice and participation of the residents, the problems could not be overcome. [...] According to the solution methods that were customary up to now [...] Kreuzberg could not be saved. "

Basically, so formulated in retrospect, it was clear in the IBA (and then in its successor organization STERN) that they would have "achieved nothing without the squatters and the squatters nothing without the IBA". Nevertheless - according to Hämer: “The maintenance staff probably had the greatest impact at the time. Your breach of law was morally justified for many Berliners. "

Reversal

As early as 1979/1980, the IBA employees helped practically (and organizationally) with the "winter festivities" and conceptual work was carried out at the same time: "Against the relentless resistance at the time, especially from some responsible offices and owners, we, together with those affected," 12 principles of cautious urban renewal "developed."

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, especially by the " Springer press ". At most, a distinction was made between those willing to negotiate and those who were criminals. But in essence, the plight of urban renewal could not continue to polemicize and the opposition to a continuation of the previous policy and a violent elimination of the resistance consolidated in all areas of society.

For the time being, however, “the situation was unbearable for the majority of Berliners [… the squatting]” and so they “brought about the overthrow of the government in the 1981 elections.” In Kreuzberg, however, the “ alternative list ” moved into the district assembly and she could with Werner Orlowsky also provide the building city council. Here it was possible to obtain the district approval for the “Twelve Principles” in the spring of 1982 and: “In March 1983, the House of Representatives finally accepted these principles as a guideline.” With this, the renovation of the area was finally abolished and the careful urban renewal implemented.

After the death of the demonstrator Klaus-Jürgen Rattay on September 22, 1981, prudence gradually gained the upper hand on both sides - the governing mayor of (West) Berlin , Richard von Weizsäcker , initiated a course of mutual understanding which, after a few vicissitudes, resulted in a " Calming ”led, in the context of which a third of the occupied houses could be legalized.

Bishop Martin Kruse and the Evangelical Church in Berlin with their negotiator Rainer Papenfuß played a decisive role in the peaceful solution ; The organization Netzwerk Selbsthilfe (Network Self-Help) operated by the late 1968 movement as an intermediary to the squatters, the Senator for Building Ulrich Rastemborski as a cautious supporter and finally the alternative redevelopment agency Stattbau founded in the process , which was able to renovate and legalize 13 squatted houses in Kreuzberg by 1990 on the basis of cautious urban renewal .

Row of houses not demolished in Oranienstrasse

The "counterculture" had thus retained its basis - especially in Kreuzberg - and the original motives of the squatter movement and the diverse active parts of the population were enforced: the existing building fabric of the old city quarters was "carefully renewed" and the associated "small-scale" Quality of life was largely preserved.

1990 balance sheet

In addition to these obvious, officially recorded successes, the IBA also tried to calculate the economic side of its commitment: Hardt-Waltherr Hämer set himself the task of proving "in spite of the prophecies of doom" that the involvement of those affected brought neither delays nor increases in costs. He did the math: Before that, “it took about seven years from the decision about letting, thorough renovation or demolition and new construction to the return of the residents. [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 order, 4,260 apartments were 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 2070 DM / 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."

Legalized houses

It is understandable that the information on the number of long-term occupied houses (approx. 170) and then also of the “legalized” houses (approx. 60) fluctuates in the literature - but the order of magnitude is recorded.

Former squatters' house on Heinrichplatz

life quality

“Self-organization and self-help have become key words for political change. The manageable complexity of the old quarters, the diversity of the urban planning-integrated uses, the human dimensions of the Wilhelminian-era urban space and the openness of their niches and nooks and crannies for new models of life are seen by many as the urban synonym of an 'alternative' social design. "

- Authors : Renewal in self-help , in: Urban renewal , p. 155.

This commitment of those involved, who were also often defined as “disadvantaged groups”, did not result from defensive motives - the “seemingly impossible”, the intense and sustainable action that surprised society as a whole, the extraordinary personal commitment of an entire generation of young people there were two age groups in succession - rooted in the suddenly appeared and recognized opportunity to take over and also to establish larger urban areas as a kind of 'own territory'. As a glance at these urban regions shows today, this has also been achieved - the generations of young people who followed in the decades that followed did not have to do anything other than simply carry on.

That was not yet to be overlooked in the mid-1980s, when the turbulent "squatter time" had subsided again. With the announcement of the dissolution of the East-West confrontation and finally the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, the West Berliners' internal self-discovery came to an end. Now a far more overarching political event began, which, however, also opened the next chapter “Urban renewal” in the now formerly divided city.

Volker Hassemer , under Richard von Weizsäcker from 1981 to 1983 Senator for Urban Development and Environmental Protection , drew a conclusion :
The IBA “manifested the final turning point in a long-lasting social and societal conflict about the desirability and acceptability of the old building substance. Up to this project, the demolition mentality was at work, which in the post-war period led to a second wave of destruction after the war - not only in Berlin. [...] The IBA under Hardt-Waltherr Hämer turned this tide in favor of a modernization of old buildings, which then became a model architecturally, socially and financially. The legendary disputes in Kreuzberg SO 36 , the tough conflicts between citizens, investors, politicians, administrations, architects and town planners were finally and irreversibly decided by the results of the IBA old buildings and the positive accompanying politics. "

Outlook for 1990

With the German reunification , a completely new - and also surprising - situation came to the city administrations. Hardt Walther Hämer was not the only one who feared that cautious urban renewal could only remain “an episode of the 1980s” if it were now 'overturned' by politics. Because with the "East Berlin reconstruction area (s) in the city ​​center , Prenzlauer Berg and Friedrichshain [...] a multiple of the rotten building fabric can be secured and saved from final decay, a huge number of empty or unusable apartments must be made habitable again . "

The tasks were big - the transport network in the east, almost the entire infrastructure, was in a similar condition - and it was not just about avoiding an organized relapse into the time of clear-cut restoration, but rather: “Procedures to secure against upgrading and unwanted Access and the protection of 'weak uses', which at the same time strive to consolidate these areas, must be developed. "

“Contradictions between capital city functions and district development” were to be expected, but it was now a matter of seeing “more than just a corrective” in cautious urban renewal and assigning it a “central role in Berlin urban development” as a “counterweight and supplement to metropolitan planning” .

Location East Berlin

Karl-Marx-Allee , 1967

Until well into the 1960s, the situation in the west and east of the city was similar: “Up until this point in time, the old building areas had to be repaired in order to ensure continued habitability. Until then, people in the East were of the opinion that the Berlin tenement development as the 'legacy of capitalist land speculation' was not worth preserving and would sooner or later give way to new buildings. "

Large-scale demolition plans failed "because of the economic conditions, the housing shortage and the difficult relocation of industry and commerce."

In the 1960s, it was politically desirable to concentrate on rebuilding the city center, which was inaugurated in 1969 on the 20th anniversary of the GDR . Everything else had to be neglected and “the dissatisfaction among the [...] population with the housing situation increased. [...] "

1970s

That is why in 1971 at the 8th party congress of the SED, the housing construction program was made the focus of the social policy program. In representative areas - "the 'complex' redesign areas [for the privileged]", careful modernizations were carried out, in the majority of the districts the measures were "improvements in the quality of living" and their imprecise definition left "contradictions between statistically calculated modernization and changes actually made [... ] in the apartments too. Ultimately, this then led to misjudgments in solving the problems in the old building areas ”, the sustainability of which was also put into perspective by the“ requirement of a 'remaining useful life of 30 years' ”.

Restored Arkonaplatz, 1984

The efforts at Arkonaplatz and Arnimplatz “were successful and were very popular with the population. Suddenly, modernized apartments in old buildings with stove heating had become more attractive than new apartments on the outskirts of the city. "

In politics, "the renewal of the old building areas from 1976 became an integral part of the solution to the housing issue" and in 1979 the change was initiated: "The existing old building areas of the Wilhelminian era were accepted as part of the city and released for final consolidation."

In 1979, the parallelism of the events in the east dictated what was being "fought for" in the west of the city. However, the consequences were ultimately very different.

1980s

In the east the “political explosive” was also high - the “ Palisade Triangle ” Friedrichshain is called - because “most urgent repair measures” had already been largely neglected.

Since the construction capacities were limited, the municipal housing administrations could only manage their building stock with the help of state subsidies , even "private owners [...] hardly had a chance to maintain and maintain their buildings." To accelerate the work, "other districts were to support the building projects in East Berlin used (of course at the expense of their own building projects). […] The Suhl district received the order to implement complete services in the palisade triangle. “Friedrichshain became a model example for inner-city urban renewal; In addition, however, there were soon “the major central projects in the inner city, which were to be completed for the 750th anniversary celebration [of Berlin in 1987]. [...] That is why districts from the GDR were increasingly used in 1985–86. "

Frankfurter Allee / Frankfurter Tor

Numerous 'parade objects' made an impression on the city's anniversary, but: “This 'optimistic' upswing was quickly forgotten after the celebrations. In 1987 it was disillusioned to find that in the city center, with the path of unity of new construction and modernization, as demonstrated in Frankfurter Allee , the problems cannot be solved until 1990. "

Now "the demolition of apartments with the tendency to demolish areas has increased drastically" and the differentiated prefabricated building for inner-city locations was canceled: "The large-panel construction, which was further developed for extensive new locations, was used again."

The drastic procedure required as a result - the large-scale demolition was supposed to begin on Rykestrasse in Prenzlauer Berg - now met with “fierce resistance from the residents of these areas. Citizens' initiatives emerged that resisted demolitions and prefabricated buildings. "

The political events of November 1989 put an end to all state planning.

Reunification in Berlin

It was to be assumed that after the fall of the Berlin Wall the urban development in the west of the city would have to continue in the same way as it used to be, but the real problem lay in the eastern part, where in comparison "decade-long neglected building fabric [will] require enormous public efforts, solely for removal the structural defects. "

In mid-1990, Hämer outlined his perspective:
“The future of Berlin as a whole will [...] depend on a planning policy that safeguards the existence and structure of the inner city areas, as well as further development of the process of cautious urban renewal. [...] The expected contradictions between the functions of the capital and the development of the district are foreseeable. ”He argued that the previous concept should not only be used as a“ corrective ”to“ metropolitan planning ”, but as a“ counterweight and supplement ”. He was realistic enough to see that the “capital city functions” in the city center would not conform to any “social concept”.

The most important decisions for the future of urban renewal in Berlin were made after the “political agreement on October 3, 1990 ” and after an inventory of the situation in both halves of the city (“Expert Group Urban Renewal of the Provisional Regional Committee”), on the one hand, through the vote in the Bundestag, Berlin to make the capital of Germany: Due to the parliamentary resolution of June 20, 1991, Berlin also became the seat of parliament and government in 1999.

On the other hand, with the decision of the House of Representatives in 1993 to apply cautious urban renewal in modifications to the eastern part of the city. With this, "the danger that after the committed criticism of the seventies, which led to the practice of cautious urban renewal in the eighties, the nineties would become the decade of uncritical 'doers' under the wrong label" was banned.

First consequences of the reunification

Reunification not only enabled a new perspective on the “new city of Berlin”, it also quickly raised the problem: the economic consequences, which were initially almost neglected in view of the political and emotional dimensions, came to light, “as the economic disaster of the GDR, step by step became clear. The terrifying balance was not limited to the production sector, but equally to the entire housing industry. "

initial situation

For Berlin and the region, an "urban renewal" expert group of the provisional regional committee "was formed, which had determined an overview for the area with 1.57 million apartments alone for around 178,000 apartments in the housing stock built up to 1918". For the years 1991/1992, the group of experts calculated “a (necessary) economic stimulus program in the amount of DM 2.8 billion for East Berlin and the region [because ...] a boost from the private sector could not yet take effect due to the income situation in the former GDR and therefore only a temporary state subsidy can prevent a slump in the construction industry. "

Berlin-West

For the western part of the city, after reunification, the “SEE - Expert Report on Urban Renewal and Development, AGS, 1988” was still valid. A need for action was determined here for approx. 40,000 apartments in the “until 1918” category; mainly for the inner city districts with regard to “blocks with a low standard of equipment.” In addition, “deficits in the residential area” were found for various assemblies.

East Berlin

Samariterviertel, Schreinerstrasse, 1991

For the eastern part of the city, "according to the same criteria, a need for renovation of around 70,000 apartments in the building group before 1918 in the inner-city districts of Mitte, Prenzlauer Berg and Friedrichshain" was determined.

The remaining 68,000 apartments concerned "building groups with 2-3-storey development as a closed quarter structure, mostly from the 18th and 19th centuries" in the periphery of Berlin and in old town areas of the surrounding cities as well as "suburban areas with individual buildings and villas from the Wilhelminian era" , thirdly, “Places with a settlement character” and “Village locations”.

In particular, the situation in the inner-city districts of old buildings in East Berlin was considered "alarming":

• “High vacancy rates, approx. 25,000 apartments in East Berlin, approx. 8,000 in Prenzlauer Berg alone. [...],
• Decades of neglected maintenance and advanced deterioration [...], lack of urgently needed building materials;
• no cost-covering management of the houses from the current rental income;
• Urban renewal without citizen participation [… and] without consideration of social structures and individual needs;
• Demolition of historically valuable buildings. "

Against this background and in view of the necessary urgency, "the Senate decided on February 6, 1990, the 'unscheduled provision of funds for the promotion of urgent urban renewal measures in the Berlin area' in the amount of 25 million DM for measures to be implemented in 1990 and 1991." The funds should be used especially in Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg and the award was "linked to the condition that complementary funds are made available from East Berlin for the renovation measures." Thus, a total of "a construction volume of approx. 60 million DM was activated."

25 million program

The Senate Department for Building and Housing has commissioned: DeGeWo, BSM, LIST, STERN, SPI, STATTBAU and ARGE MITTELSTRASSE for the state of Berlin with the financial processing and control of the measures.

A “project commission” was founded, made up of employees from the Ministry of Building and Housing, the Magistrate, the city districts of Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg, the advisory council of East Berlin citizens' initiatives, the Senate Department for Building and Housing and (from April 1, 1990) the Coordination offices ”existed.

On April 1, 1990, a working group was commissioned to take over the coordination of the implementation of the program in East Berlin, and on July 9, 1990 the coordination office was opened in Prenzlauer Berg.

In addition to the specialist tasks, the 25 million program also provided support for self-help groups and an “initiation of democratic planning and participation processes”. "The first meetings were still heavily marked by controversies between those responsible for the old power structures and members of the citizens' groups".

In June 1990 the list of projects to be funded was approved by mutual agreement.

The authors Borgelt, this and Keckstein as members of the coordination office summed up that bringing together “the partners in East and West in joint work” would have demanded a lot from both sides and “considerable friction losses and additional effort had to be managed compared to comparable projects in West Berlin. The actors were constantly confronted with new problems. […] The West Berlin programs must not be transferred to the situation in East Berlin without reflection. In this respect, the 25 million program does more than it was initially intended. "

First overall Berlin urban renewal program

The program was launched in 1993/95. It identified 22 redevelopment areas:

• In the middle:

Spandauer Vorstadt , Rosenthaler Vorstadt (Map No. XVI and XVII), Beusselstraße, Stephankiez , Soldiner Straße .

• In Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg:

Samariterviertel , Warschauer Strasse , Traveplatz- Ostkreuz .

• In Pankow:

Helmholtzplatz , Kollwitzplatz , Teutoburger Platz , Winsstrasse, Bötzowstrasse , Composers Quarter (Weissensee) , Wollankstrasse.

• In Neukölln:

Kottbusser Damm Ost, Weserstraße.

• Treptow-Köpenick:

Old town / Kietzer suburb , Oberschöneweide .

• In Lichtenberg:

Kaskelstrasse, Weitlingstrasse .

Interim balance 2005 (until the end of 2003)

After the city of Berlin had closed the outer ring of the old town around the center with careful urban renewal in the north, in the east (Pankow) to the south (Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg) after this employment-intensive first renewal program, the Senate drew an interim balance after ten years:

In this balance sheet from February 2005 it was found that the renovation of the housing substance in the 22 areas made up over half of the apartments in need of renovation.

However, the investment volume for the renewal of the public facilities (e.g. schools, day-care centers) and the investments for the public residential environment (streets, town squares, green spaces) only reached just over a third of the planning goals in the planned period (by the end of 2003).

In the interim report it was found that "the guiding principles (what is meant is 'cautious urban renewal') [...] in the past 11 years in the further specification of the redevelopment goals and the implementation of the redevelopment [have] in principle [have]", but that "in the current financial situation of Berlin (ongoing budget emergency) [...] the previous strategy of urban renewal cannot be continued unchanged ”. At the same time it was announced that “Berlin’s financial commitment to urban renewal […] was already realigned”, that public funds would be concentrated, and that “the standards and priorities […] had to be re-examined”.

As a result of this “ budget emergency” mentioned here at the beginning of 2005 , which had been looming for a long time and which became generally known at the beginning of 2002, the city of Berlin came under enormous pressure to save.

Budget emergency in Berlin

On Tuesday, February 5, 2002 , the Senator for Finance of the City of Berlin, Thilo Sarrazin , opened the Senate “how serious the budget situation in Berlin really is.” Sarrazin announced that “the capital is per capita of its population [...] more than any other city-state, even five times as much in housing construction. ”In addition, the Tagesspiegel reported on March 27, 2002:“ Even if Berlin is consistently saving, the state is heading for a budget emergency. ”November 2002:“ The Berlin Senate officially has an extreme The country's budgetary emergency was determined. "

24. Report on urban renewal by the end of 2003

The “budget emergency” declared in November 2002 inevitably led to deep cuts in the urban renewal program and forced the administration to undertake a - presumably - unplanned, extensive interim assessment:

The 24th report on urban renewal, reporting period 01.01.2002–31.12.2003 - Senate Department for Urban Development, printed matter no. 15/3790 , was presented in February 2005 at the earliest, as it still covered a process at the beginning of February 2005 (as “Communication from Presidents of the House of Representatives ”). In the foreword, the report describes the "realignment of the entire Berlin urban renewal program", which is now referred to as "social urban renewal": "The central principle from 2002 onwards was the political guideline to use funds primarily for public property."

The 24th report also contains a comprehensive balance sheet for the financial aspects (cost and financing overview), a renovation balance sheet from 1964 to 2004 and a description of the “ Urban Redevelopment East ” program adopted by the federal government in 2001 .

The current program (“22 redevelopment areas”) shows “already visible successes” and since there is “no more significant vacancy problem in the redevelopment areas”, “it shows that the strategy of first 'getting the living space in order', was successful."

Change of concept for urban renewal

Since now (from 1999) "the deficits in public space and the poor condition of the social and cultural infrastructure have increasingly moved into the focus of activities", "the guiding principles of urban renewal have been adapted to the changed framework conditions and the paradigm shifts introduced".

After the report tries to name factual reasons for the possible reduction of the costs for the "improvement of the living environment" from 1.7 billion euros to 805 million euros and to insure the "future viability of Berlin", the following text is addressed:

“In view of the tense financial situation in Berlin and the state of renewal of the residential substance that has now been achieved, the 2002 budget stopped funding the repair and modernization of residential buildings in the redevelopment areas. As part of the urban renewal programs, the principle of 'public money for public purposes, private money for private purposes' has been implemented. "

The city only uses its funding “to qualify the public infrastructure, to upgrade the residential area and to finance [...] regulatory measures [...], e. B. zoning, social plan tasks of the community, use of redevelopment officers and agencies to control the redevelopment process. "

Realignment of the restructuring policy

The "realignment" is attributed to the "success of the structural renewal" - but this "requires increased private commitment and makes the use of private capital in the residential and commercial substance indispensable."

The interim balance sheet was drawn up by the end of 2003 on the modernization and repair of living space. The 'careful urban renewal' (which is not mentioned by name) is praised: “In the past, the guiding principles have proven themselves in the further specification and implementation of the renovation goals. You have contributed to making the renovation socially acceptable and implementing it quickly. "With the now necessary" adaptation and reorientation "[of the ...] new guiding principles, renovation goals of fundamental importance for the city as a whole are changed.

The "social urban renewal"

Due to the budgetary emergency, the decision was made to finance only the public compulsory tasks in the infrastructure and to leave the housing construction to private capital. Against this background, nine new guidelines for urban renewal were adopted, which - in the continuation of cautious urban renewal - "were acknowledged and approved by the Berlin Senate on February 1, 2005 (Senate resolution no .: 2334/05): Senate Department for Urban Development - IVc -. “(Guidelines 2005).

Guiding principles of social urban renewal

These guiding principles, known as "urban development policy (s) priorities", are briefly outlined here:

• 1. Concentration on inner city areas in front of the periphery or surrounding area.
• 2. Upgrading the building structure there, including through demolition. The focus: social infrastructure and public living environment.
• 3. Orientation towards the concerns and interests of those affected, avoidance of displacement and orientation towards “stabilizing population groups (especially young families)” and “the needs of the older population as a future growing share of the population. [...] Maintaining affordable housing ”and thus“ counteracting the displacement of low-income population groups ”is named as an“ important task ”. In order to secure social goals, the “use of urban development funds” is also described as necessary for private building projects.
• 4. Establishment of representative bodies and strengthening of the initiative of residents, landowners and traders.
• 5. Development of the commercial stock, location marketing and exploitation of the potential of urban renewal for employment-creating measures.
• 6. Demand for a speedy implementation “within a shortened schedule” after formal determination. Limitation of the renewal "to the necessary measures with reduced standards".
• 7. "The organizational structure chosen in 1993 to support Berlin in controlling the redevelopment process by redevelopment officers - instead of corporate or fiduciary redevelopment agencies - has proven its worth and must be retained."
• 8. Berlin's financial commitment and financing arrangements.
• 9. The basis for the renovation of the old building are owner investments and private capital: "The financing of the building measures is solely a matter for private investors." Urban renewal supports through advice, rapid application of "redevelopment law instruments", promotion of a positive investment climate. Definition of the "contemporary and customary living standard".

The full wording of the nine guiding principles of social urban renewal from 2005 with explanations: (see web links )

Completion of the 'redevelopment of the 22 areas'

The focus of the “First Complete Berlin Urban Renewal Program” from 1993/1995 was mainly in East Berlin, in Mitte, Prenzlauer Berg (Pankow) and Friedrichshain. “A total of 1.96 billion euros in public funds had been invested in the 22 areas by the end of 2011.” Work has now been completed in 21 of the 22 areas (as of 2016).

Second overall Berlin urban renewal program

While the first overall Berlin urban renewal program was still running, the second was launched.

New redevelopment areas 2007/2011

After the Berlin Senate took note of the “Guidelines for Social Urban Renewal” in February 2005, there was a new basis for action for further resolutions that - in contrast to previous projects - related exclusively to inner city areas. Spandau was an exception.

On May 22, 2007, the Berlin Senate decided on “Preparatory Investigations” for Karl-Marx-Strasse in Neukölln. An “intensive coordination” was necessary so that the results were only available in 2011.

On March 3, 2009, preparatory studies were decided for a further six areas; In addition, in mid-2009 there was an “integrated development concept” for Northern Luisenstadt, which was finally followed by corresponding concepts for the other seven redevelopment areas by 2011.

This made it possible to formally define all eight areas on March 15, 2011 by resolution of the Senate. The two Neukölln areas were combined into one area.

Seven redevelopment areas

All redevelopment areas are assigned high deficits as "functional weaknesses", in use and design, in the need for renewal, in public development, in infrastructure, for example in the commercial sector, and / or a "high problem density". Particularly large “ fallow land ” occurs in Frankfurter Allee Nord - for example the MfS area. In general, “downward trends” were observed in all areas.

The list:

• Mitte - Turmstrasse (Moabit)
• Middle - Müllerstrasse (Wedding)
• Middle - Northern Luisenstadt
• Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg - Southern Friedrichstadt
• Spandau - Wilhelmstrasse
• Neukölln - Karl-Marx-Straße and Maybachufer / Elbestraße
• Lichtenberg - Frankfurter Allee North

In total, there are over 2500 plots of land on an area of ​​539  hectares with 74,668 inhabitants. 216 million euros are planned. A number of different "pots" were provided for funding.

With the exception of ten years in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg and Lichtenberg, the deadline for the renovation measures is 15 years.

Present: developments in urban planning

'Present' here means the last phase of urban renewal for the time being (in Berlin), which the Federal Government opened in 2016 with regard to the social infrastructure.

Funding: social urban renewal

In mid-June 2016, “the cabinet decided to invest an additional 200 million euros per year in the renovation of schools and the expansion of district centers from 2017 onwards. [...] The building ministry will invest another 100 million euros through urban redevelopment programs and the Socially Integrative City program. Federal Building Minister Barbara Hendricks (SPD) said: 'With these investments we can prevent tomorrow's social ghettos today.' "

Promotion of residential construction

Housing construction is only subsidized in Germany insofar as it is “a German specialty (according to the OECD report: Policies to promote access to good-quality affordable housing in OECD countires ) to encourage private housing construction companies to build social housing through temporary subsidies . "

Promotion of home ownership

The home ownership rate is low in Germany. In an international comparison, Germany is only ahead of Sweden at 42% at the bottom of the table. The state funding is correspondingly low.

“According to the Statistics Office, 10,722 apartments were completed in the capital [of Germany] in 2015, 4,477 of which were condominiums. Average price per square meter? Around 3,600 euros. And that although the political will currently favors rental housing. "

Home ownership market

Private housing construction, which is only influenced by the state through infrastructure projects, is increasingly characterized by large, independent new-build complexes for condominiums, so that the claim that "real estate [...] plays a decisive role in the economic development of cities" is gaining in importance. This analysis by the real estate consultancy Jones Lang Lasalle is also true in Berlin. The “Carré Voltaire” on Kurfürstenstraße , the “Palais Varnhagen” on Französische Straße or the “High Park” around the Mendelssohn-Bartholdy-Park underground station represent this concept.

“In the upscale, and certainly still young, luxury segment for more than 5,000 to 6,000 euros per square meter, primarily foreign investors are among the buyers.” Central locations are interesting and prices around 10,000 euros are also expected, although “the air is off 15,000 euros extremely thin ”. Berlin does not have the expansive, luxurious environment here - although it is “incredibly hip, it is the fulcrum of Europe” (project developer Pantera), “whether they are warming up for locations beyond the center in Wedding, Lichtenberg, Neukölln or Tegel remains to be seen. "" The luxury segment comprises only one percent of the housing market. "

literature

• Volker Hassemer : Why Berlin? A polemic. , B&S Siebenhaar Verlag, Berlin / Kassel 2011, ISBN 978-3-936962-87-1 .
• Walter Kiaulehn : Berlin. Fate of a cosmopolitan city , Biederstein Verlag, Munich Berlin 1958.
• Bernd Laurisch: No outline under this number , Werkbund-Archiv 7, Anabas Verlag, Giessen 1981, ISBN 3-87038-088-8 .
• Sven Reichardt: Authenticity and Community. Left alternative life in the seventies and early eighties. , Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-518-29675-2 .
• Various authors in: Urban renewal Berlin. Ed .: Senate Department for Building and Housing, Berlin 1990.
• Heinrich Suhr, Dieter Enke: The phase of the sixties .
• Urs Kohlbrenner: Change in the Seventies - Basis and Models of Sustainable Urban Renewal .
• Hardt-Waltherr Hämer: Careful urban renewal .
• Several authors: Renewal in self-help .
• Ernst Kristen: 20 years of modernization and reconstruction in East Berlin .
• Dieter Geffers: The nineties: tasks and perspectives. Introduction .
• Iris Spielmann: Focus on future urban renewal in Berlin and the region .
• Christiane Borgelt , Hartwig This, Veronika Keckstein: The 25 million program. Initial spark and prospects for urban renewal in East Berlin .
• Andrej Holm : The restructuring of space , transcript Verlag, Bielefeld 2006. ISBN 3-89942-521-9 .

Web links

• 24. Report on Urban Renewal (2002/03). Senate Department for Urban Development, printed matter No. 15/3790 (beginning of 2005).
• Guidelines for urban renewal for the redevelopment areas in Berlin from 2005 (PDF file; 45 kB).
• Berlin redevelopment areas by 2026.

Remarks

1. ↑ This expectation was related to the construction of the wall, which interrupted the influx of people from the east, with the emigration of many commercial enterprises from the "island city" to more attractive West German centers and a political situation that was increasingly viewed as uncertain. It was not expected that this situation in the city would become particularly interesting for a large number of young people from all over the Federal Republic - students, provincial refugees, conscientious objectors, new founders - in the spirit of optimism of the 1970s.
2. ↑ "The court protested against it in the strongest possible way, but never announced its decision." Laurisch, p. 24
3. ↑ In contrast to the 1968 movement, self-organization in the alternative movement went far beyond the formation of political groups. This new way of acting was triggered by the university strikes in Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany from 1976 to 1978. Here, thousands upon thousands of young people realized that they were a common 'generation' with the same thinking, feeling and thus ideas. After it was recognized that ultimately little could be changed at the universities and that isolation threatened to exist there, a 'collective' move towards the city districts followed. In Berlin's redevelopment chaos, not only was resistance quickly organized, but there was also a wave of “founders” in many areas of life and work, which then also formed a “logistical basis” for the squatting.
4. ↑ The (later so-called) 'alternatives' are not "class-specific" activities - for example by students - note the simultaneous "youth center movement" of the 1970s; the strength lay in 'approaching each other' and not in demarcation. The next age group - in the 1980s - were u. a. the punks ; here the demarcation (fashion, music) was more pronounced again, but the goal direction, one's own independence or 'autonomy', was still the same.
5. ↑ In February 1979 on the XIII. District delegate conference of the SED determined the minimization of demolition in the inner-city old building areas. Kirsten, pp. 76/77.
6. ↑ "With Senate resolution No. 3816/93 of August 31, 1993 on the ninth ordinance on the formal definition of redevelopment areas, the Senate at that time acknowledged and approved the 'Guidelines for Urban Renewal in Berlin'. With Senate resolutions No. 5237/94 of October 11, 1994 and No. 6328/95 of September 26, 1995 - 10th and 11th ordinances on the formal definition of redevelopment areas - the Senate expanded their validity and also for these new redevelopment areas confirmed. ”(24th report of the Senate Department for Urban Development, beginning of 2005, see web links). With “new redevelopment areas” we mean the “22 areas” of the First Complete Berlin Urban Renewal Program.
7. ↑ There were 11 project categories with a total of 49 projects. 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).
8. ↑ "Of the approx. 79,000 apartments [...] approx. 41,300 renovated, of which 28,000 were comprehensive and almost 60% of them with public funding. Berlin supported these renovation measures financially with 887 million euros. The considerable private investments as well as tax and public subsidies have advanced the renovation process in the old building stock to such an extent that an average of 52% of the housing stock in the area is renewed. ”Senate, February 1, 2005, information as of December 31, 2003
9. ↑ In order to assess the significance of this international “home ownership rate”, it must be taken into account that Latvia comes first with 95%, followed by Hungary and Estonia . The quota is not an analogue yardstick for the wealth of a society.

Individual evidence

1. ^ Walter Kiaulehn: Berlin. Fate of a cosmopolitan city , Biederstein Verlag, Munich Berlin 1958, p. 84.
2. ↑ Florian von Buttlar, Stefanie Endlich: Lenné in the backyard. The history of a Berlin city block , publisher: Deutscher Werkbund Berlin e. V. in cooperation with the STERN Society of careful urban renewal mbH, Transit Buchverlag, Berlin 1989, p. 11 f.
3. ↑ Kiaulehn, p. 86
4. ↑ Butlar / Endlich, p. 18
5. ↑ Suhr / Enke in: Urban renewal Berlin , ed .: Senate Department for Building and Housing, Berlin 1990, p. 35.
6. ↑ Bodenschatz, p. 20 ff
7. ↑ Bodenschatz, p. 19
8. ^ Heinrich Suhr, Dieter Enke: The phase of the sixties in: Urban renewal Berlin. Ed .: Senate Department for Building and Housing, Berlin 1990, p. 33.
9. ↑ Bodenschatz, p. 22
10. ↑ Bodenschatz, p. 22 f
11. ↑ Bernd Laurisch: No outline under this number , Werbund-Archiv 7, Anabas Verlag, Giessen 1981, p. 14.
12. ^ Gerhard Fehl: Eine Stadtbilduntersprüfung , Stadtbauwelt 18, 1968, cited in: Suhr / Enke, p. 35.
13. ↑ Suhr / Enke, p. 34
14. ^ Sven Reichardt: Authenticity and Community. Left alternative life in the seventies and early eighties. , Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin 2014, p. 499.
15. ↑ Urs Kohlbrenner: Upheaval in the Seventies - Basis and models of conservative urban renewal in: Stad renewal Berlin, p. 45.
16. ↑ Kohlbrenner, p. 46
17. ↑ Kohlbrenner, pp. 48–49
18. ↑ Kohlbrenner, pp. 52–54
19. ↑ Bodenschatz, p. 23
20. ↑ Bernd Laurisch: No outline under this number , p. 24.
21. ↑ Urs Kohlbrenner: Upheaval in the Seventies - Basis and Models of Preserving Urban Renewal , p. 54.
22. ↑ Laurisch, p. 27
23. ↑ Laurisch, p. 35. f.
24. ↑ Hämer, p. 61
25. ^ Reichardt: Authenticity and Community , Berlin 2014, p. 500 u. 570. Similar figures 1981 Marplan Institute Offenbach. The last statement from Infratest.
26. ↑ Hämer, p. 62
27. ↑ Hardt-Waltherr Hämer: Bewutsame Stadternerung , p. 63.
28. ↑ Hämer, p. 63
29. ↑ Hämer, p. 63 f.
30. ↑ Hämer, p. 64
31. ↑ Hämer, p. 68
32. ^ Authors, p. 158
33. ↑ A look at the magazines (e.g. squatter mail ) and leaflets from the 1980s immediately shows that it was not about 'protest' or accusations and demands, but about an active - also territorial - appropriation of "free spaces".
34. ↑ Volker Hassemer | Why Berlin? A polemic. , B&S Siebenhaar Verlag, Berlin / Kassel 2011, p. 34.
35. ↑ Hämer pp. 70-72
36. ↑ Ernst Kristen: 20 years of modernization and reconstruction in East Berlin in: Urban renewal Berlin , Ed .: Senate Department for Building and Housing, Berlin 1990, p. 73.
37. ↑ Kirsten, pp. 73-75
38. ↑ Kirsten, p. 79
39. ↑ Kirsten, pp. 80-82
40. ↑ Ernst Kristen: 20 Years of Modernization and Reconstruction in East Berlin in: Urban Renewal Berlin , 1990, p. 82.
41. ^ Dieter Geffers: The nineties: tasks and perspectives. Introduction in: Urban renewal Berlin, 1990, p. 85.
42. ↑ Hämer, p. 71 f
43. ↑ Kohlbrenner, p. 55
44. ^ Christiane Borgelt, Hartwig This, Veronika Keckstein: The 25 million program. The initial spark and perspectives for urban renewal in East Berlin in: Urban renewal Berlin, 1990, p. 101.
45. ↑ Iris Spielmann: Focal points of future urban renewal in Berlin and the region in: Urban renewal Berlin, 1990, pp. 86 and 88.
46. ↑ Spielmann, p. 86
47. ↑ Spielmann, p. 87 f
48. ^ Borgelt, This, Keckstein: The 25 Million Program in: Urban Renewal Berlin, 1990, p. 101.
49. ↑ Borgelt, Der, Keckstein, p. 102
50. ↑ Borgelt et al. a., p. 103 f
51. ↑ Borgelt et al. a., p. 104
52. ↑ Borgelt et al. a., p. 108
53. ↑ 24th Report on Urban Renewal (2002/03). Senate Department for Urban Development, printed matter No. 15/3790 (beginning of 2005). .
54. ↑ Here and up to the end of the chapter is the communication from the Senate Department for Urban Development of February 1, 2005: Guidelines for urban renewal for the redevelopment areas in Berlin . Available: Guidelines for Urban Renewal 2005 .
55. ^ Holger Kulik: Household Emergency in Berlin: South American Conditions . In: Spiegel Online , February 5, 2002.
56. ↑ Berlin is facing a budget emergency . In: Tagesspiegel Online , March 27, 2002.
57. ↑ Berlin declares budgetary emergency . In: tagesschau.de -archiv , November 5, 2002.
58. ↑ p. 2., foreword
59. ↑ p. 2 f.
60. ↑ p. 3
61. ↑ p. 5
62. ↑ p. 11 f.
63. ↑ p. 17
64. ↑ Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment: Urban renewal: Berlin redevelopment areas in: Berlin redevelopment areas (1st section) .
65. ↑ Senate Department for Urban Development and Environment: Urban renewal: Berlin redevelopment areas , in: Seven redevelopment areas (2nd section) .
66. ↑ One hectare is 10,000 m². The seven areas thus cover 5.39 km².
67. ^ Susanne Ehlerding: Red lantern in the promotion of home ownership. OECD study: Germany is strong in investing in the social environment . In: Der Tagesspiegel , June 18, 2016.
68. ↑ http://www.oecd-library.org
69. ↑ S. Ehlerding: OECD study . In: Der Tagesspiegel , June 18, 2016.
70. ↑ Tong-Jin Smith: The influx of the wealthy cannot be stopped . In: Der Tagesspiegel , June 18, 2016.
71. ↑ T.-J. Smith: Arrival of the wealthy . In: Der Tagesspiegel , June 18, 2016.
72. ↑ Tong-Jin Smith: It's the social mix that matters . In: Der Tagesspiegel , June 18, 2016.