
In Berlin, a Grass-Roots Fight Against Gentrification as Rents Soar - closeparen
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/world/europe/berlin-rent-fight-against-gentrification.html
======
allendoerfer
> After tenant outcry, the city also saved at least two apartment blocks in
> Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg from being sold, using a legal tool known as the
> “right of first refusal,” which lets officials intervene if they can find
> funding for the purchase. In another case, the city recently stepped in and
> purchased a large disused freight station in the eastern district of
> Köpenick, which it plans to convert into affordable housing.

People like me, living in cities like Munich, Frankfurt or Hamburg, whose
rents are much higher than Berlin's and whose taxes fund this, are always
happy to help you, Berlin. Just tell us, when your airport is finished, (maybe
in 10-20 years?) so we can take a look at what we paid for over there.

Berlin is complaining at very high level. If you want to talk about
gentrification in Germany, Munich and Frankfurt are the cities to talk about.
Berlin has a much easier situation, with much more open space. But when a
developer comes along and wants to build skyscrapers on abandoned land, they
also complain, because they want to keep their open spaces. The people over
there complain about the Swabians, who want to live in these apartments, all
that while being financed by the taxes of said people from Southern Germany.

I am all for liberal cities and unique culture, but Berlin does not seem to
realize, that this is made possible, because Frankfurt, the exact opposite of
Berlin, pays for it.

~~~
jojoo
I think the question is: How big of a difference in living standard is
acceptable in one Country.

Go to a public school in berlin, look at the toilets. Chances are very high
they might be defect, stink and malfunctioning. I worked as a special eds
teacher in Neukölln. We're supposed to train our students how to use the
toilet. Half of the time the toilets in the first floor were broken. That
means me had to stand in line for restrooms instead of doing some work. When
the toilets got repaired after half a year the toilets in the basement broke
down. Our students became very good at waiting in line.

Now i work in a school in the southwest of germany. If a toilet breaks down,
chances are it will be repaired on the same day. If they need an external
contractor in will take one day.

All of the students live in germany. Yet one get clean, functioning toilets,
the others not.

(Fun fact: Berlin paid for my education, now Baden-Württenberg gets a
university-trained teacher for free...)

~~~
allendoerfer
I think parts of it can be solved, by centralizing education. In my opinion
Berlin (as well as Hamburg and Bremen) really does not need its own
Kultusministerium, money saved there can directly be sent to schools. Maybe
also the funding for schools could come from federal sources to a higher
degree, but I do not know the exact situation.

Btw, the state you live in is called Baden-Württemberg.

------
aestetix
Berlin is a very large city. This article covers two districts, Friedrichshain
and Kreuzberg, which are experiencing a boom that is starting to raise the
rents from insanely dirt-cheap to something people outside Berlin would
consider "normal".

As it turns out, those two districts also happen to be the most trendy in
Berlin. There are many other districts in Berlin that are not affected. For
example, I haven't heard much about a rent crisis in Wedding, Alt-Moabit, or
any place outside of the Ring-bahn.

To put the "crisis" in Bay Area terms, it would be like if it were impossible
to find a place to live in the Mission, even though you could still get a
place in the Panhandle, and therefore there was an article about a rent crisis
in San Francisco, ignoring every other district in the city.

~~~
pantalaimon
Rents are rising across the city and Wedding is gentrifying heavily at the
moment, it has seen up to +78% increase in rent since 2009.

[http://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/berlinmieten/](http://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/berlinmieten/)

~~~
hocuspocus
I assume Wedding gets hit by the price hike pretty badly because it's next to
Mitte and the rents were particularly low despite the central location. As
long as people don't get displaced, I don't see it as a bad thing, Wedding
still looks kinda sketchy and will benefit from more affluent residents in the
long run.

~~~
tdj
Not sure how many do this, but you're basically describing my situation, 8 min
commute to Mitte, and relatively cheap. Due to the rent control, rents only
jump after tenants change. An identical flat to mine, below me, was just now
online available for rent for about 20% more than my rent is - and got rented
out within a month, so there's demand.

I don't think there's a fear for displacement yet, there's quite a few plots
to build up, or abandoned places that are torn down (e.g. Stattbad), and a
bunch of new modern apt buildings coming up. But for now, it looks like
Neukölln is the more desirable next-hip-thing.

------
kalleboo
From the article it sounds like Berlin has tried everything they can think of,
aside from actually creating supply to match the demand...

In Berlin's case, is it a question of "wanting to keep the cities character",
or is it more like the Swedish variant where it's "gotta keep the housing
bubble growing"?

~~~
usrusr
Berlin has supply, the limited resource are vintage buildings (pre-war or
rebuilt in the same layout) and no market force can create more of them. The
abundant 1970ies style developments will never see gentrification.

~~~
bogomipz
>"Berlin has supply, the limited resource are vintage buildings (pre-war or
rebuilt in the same layout)"

Is this the courtyard style apartment building you see in Berlin? Is there a
name for those? I'm guessing these are the desirable ones?

~~~
ciex
It's called Altbau and is usually combined with Blockrandbebauung, which the
other commenter mentioned. I don't understand why this style hasn't seen a
comeback yet.

Its most charming qualities are high ceilings (3-4 meters), historicist
ornamentals / stucco, natural ventilation (Fugenlüftung), wooden flooring and
boy-type windows. All of these increase quality of living substantially and I
wouldn't want to live in any other kind of building if given the choice.

~~~
bogomipz
Thanks! Indeed this is what I was asking about/referring to. I spent a few
months in one and the ventilation and the light due to the windows facing into
the courtyard made for a pleasant living experience.

------
blurrywh
Berlin goes through--I would say--a normal gentrification process. Before 2010
Berlin hadn't have any significant industry and just few jobs. Since then
companies, jobs, everything is sky-rocketing and rents get obviously much more
expensive. But Berlin is still far below London or Paris. I think we haven't
even reached the level of Eastern European capitals price-wise, such as
Warsaw.

But the actual problem is that the city is super slow in building skyscrapers
and rather tries to avoid them 'because they aren't Berlin's DNA'. Skyscrapers
offer a much higher density and now is the time to really plan for a couple of
them. They are just two new small skyscrapers planned for the next 5-10 years.
But it's a very tedious process: everybody is fighting with each other, the
city wants guarantees that the real estate funds build and operate schools and
other public facilities in those districts, the funds don't want of course.
Then there is the subway operator BVG which is kind of blackmailing the funds:
They say that the skyscrapers are so heavy and they need money to stabilize
the subway tunnels underneath. BTW, they do this with every bigger real estate
project (recently with a huge mall).

In general, the city's council has a very good feeling about how to plan and
build the city, they are really good compared to other cities. Infrastructure
is great and you have many small city centers while Berlin-Mitte where the
government resides is the busiest and most expensive one (no surprise). They
are just lacking one important skill and this is managing large scale
projects. Just an example: our new airport which was planned to open 2010
hasn't been opened yet. The new airport seems to be ready but doesn't get the
approvals and it seems that it will never get the approvals and has to be shut
down again (news from last week). Germany's general overregulation might also
play in here. The city currently operates just two small airports.

However, they really need to plan proper skyscraper districts which seamlessly
integrate with the rest of the city, complement Berlin's DNA and which should
have also a good mix of business, leisure and living. So you don't face dead
districts at night. The Potsdamer Platz which was created 20 years ago is an
ok place which pairs all of those + two tiny skyscrapers.

~~~
endymi0n
Sorry, but that makes no sense. Skyscrapers are a stopgap measure that shortly
lowers prices, which only serves to get more people into town if demand stays
the same (and creating more demand: everyone needs a hairdresser, a school, a
supermarket). In that way, it only increases people density, which is the main
fuel of gentrification.

Point in case: Look at the cities with the highest skyscraper density (New
York, Tokio, ...) - are they the cheapest cities or the most expensive? Heck,
even Frankfurt (nicknamed Mainhattan for its skyline) is more expensive than
Berlin.

On top, infrastructure can't keep up with the vertical stacking of people, so
you grind to a halt in public transport and on the streets.

Berlin gets it totally right. Prices will increase either way and lead to a
nash equilibrium. If I'd want to live in a concrete hellhole, I'd move
somewhere else.

~~~
archytech
Sorry, but that makes no sense.

You set up some weird strawman about skyscrapers, do you have anything to back
up your claims?

Housing units, population, jobs, and desirability of the area is what drives
housing unit prices. Increasing the supply will always ease affordability.

Restrictions on development, and NIMBYism is what destroys the cost of living
and development in cities.

    
    
      But these cities still aren't building to the pace of 
      their population growth. To achieve price reductions, 
      these cities would need to implement an open market, 
      deregulating land so that housing supply can meet demand. 
      Assuming that urbanites view this as some crackpot 
      right-wing solution--'Reaganomics', according to one San 
      Francisco politician--they should look at Tokyo, where 
      it's actually being tried.
    
    
        In Minato ward — a desirable 20 sq km slice of central 
      Tokyo — the population is up 66 per cent over the past 20 
      years, from 145,000 to 241,000, an increase of about 
      100,000 residents. In the 121 sq km of San Francisco, the 
      population grew by about the same number over 20 years, 
      from 746,000 to 865,000 — a rise of 16 per cent. Yet 
      whereas the price of a home in San Francisco and London   
      has increased 231 per cent and 441 per cent respectively, 
      Minato ward has absorbed its population boom with price 
      rises of just 45 per cent.
    

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-
af...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-affordable-
housing-strategy-build-build-build/#5064ef648d57)

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Housing units, population, jobs, and desirability of the area is what drives
> housing unit prices. Increasing the supply will always ease affordability.

Within that price range. Skyscraper flats in many European cities are at such
a high starting price that they might put a downwards pressure on really
expensive flats but do nothing for the average person. The cost of building a
flat in a Skyscraper are significantly higher than the cost of a flat in a 7
story building.

~~~
kjksf
I used to live in Seattle in 20-something story building, paying $1250/month
for 1 bedroom apt.

In San Francisco, a similar apt. is $3000+.

Clearly, the cost of building the skyscraper is such that the developer can
earn their money at $1250/month. Not cheap but most standards but also not
insanely expensive as SF.

The issue in SF is not that we're building 7 story buildings instead of 30
story buildings but that it's hard to get approval for 4 story building unless
you promise to sell 125% of capacity for below-market rates and even if you
do, there will be neighborhood organization bad mouthing every project at best
and suing you under any pretext they can at worst. Even if they eventually
loose the lawsuit, they'll successfully delay construction.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Clearly, the cost of building the skyscraper is such that the developer can
> earn their money at $1250/month.

I can't talk about your house obviously but the vast majority of Skyscraper in
Europe have economics where the bulk of the investment cost is carried by
expensive flats and not cheap ones. So yes, some people might have cheap flats
but that does not mean that you can take the unit count of the Skyscraper and
say "N cheap flats".

If you take the Triiiple in Vienna for instance the current quoted costs are
3500 euro per square meter purchasing price for the cheapest flats going up to
9000 euro per square meter for higher up floors. And the Triiiple is
considered one of the more affordable projects.

------
mschuster91
The only way left to fight gentrification is, I am afraid to say, something
between massive civil disobedience and outright violence.

The alternative to fighting - chilling in our sofas and doing nothing - is
waking up one day in a city without teachers, cleaning/water/sewer personnel,
supermarket staff and, funny enough, police. I just picked these examples as
these people are already living near or below poverty line after paying rent
and are vital to a healthy city.

And: it's not just Berlin that suffers from gentrification, e.g. Hamburg and
Munich are falling victim to it. We as people can no longer trust the state
(or the police) to serve our interest - both serve the interests of the ultra-
rich investors only. Just look at London what awaits societies which do not
fight with any means neccessary.

~~~
hungrygs
Fighting gentrification is stupid. Cities with growing populations need new
housing supply and the market will put resources (to build) where it meets
consumer demand. Unjustifiable barriers to new housing supply will only make
prices go up even faster, and for crappier quality housing, too.

~~~
mschuster91
LOL. The "free market" always goes for building ever more luxury apartments
for the rich.

Housing is a human right and needs to be regulated as hell, otherwise you end
up like London.

~~~
saint_fiasco
Not saying the market is infallible, but it's often smarter than you and I.

When the Invisible Hand builds luxury apartments, it is indeed for the rich,
because if the rich don't get the luxury apartments they want, they will
settle for middle-class apartments at good locations.

Since they are rich, they can outbid all the middle-class people, and only
rich people will be able to live at places that used to house middle-class
folk.

That's what gentrification means.

------
jstewartmobile
Have to wonder how much of this is occupant-driven vs how much is foreign
speculation (like Chinese investment in the Canadian property market). That
prices are getting so out-of-whack relative to local incomes in so many places
suggests some sort of international aspect...

~~~
sprafa
I keep wondering whether negative interest rates and QE have made real estate
a very attractive purchase for international investors. I'm trying to track
down evidence that asset managers have started moving "safe money" investment
in that direction to get higher returns than they do from Treasury etc. Which
is where that money used to park.

It's too widespread of a problem at this point. lisbon, porto, london and
Berlin and many other cities like Vancouver are seeing prices explode.

~~~
kjksf
Presumably those boogeyman foreign investors are rich enough to buy in cash so
interest rates have no bearing on their decisions, especially US interest
rates.

It's not like Chinese peasants get million dollar loans to buy a property in
London or that Russian walks into Wells Fargo and gets million dollar loan for
a house, even if he's rich in Russia.

------
erikb
When nearly a whole city fights against the investor kind of world view why do
people argue that scaring investors away is a bad thing? It's obviously what
the people want and DO achieve. You may not be one of them, but they seem to
be extremely successful and should be respected for that.

~~~
ptaipale
They want to scare the investors away, and instead they want to force others
to pay for new housing for them. That doesn't sound entirely reasonable.

~~~
erikb
The whole thing is a romantic endeavour more than a logic one. But if you've
spent some time in Berlin you can understand the desire to keep things as they
are.

------
norswap
Question: does there exist a place today that was like Berlin in the 1990s:
civilized but still a bit uncharted, with a lot of opportunities for living
thriftily?

~~~
pantalaimon
Leipzig comes to mind

~~~
flohrian
Also came to my mind. But Leipzig also attracts many young people because of
its affordability. Many things that are true for Berlin now are also true for
Leipzig; it is very hip, rents are rising and there's a lack of living space
[1][2].

[1]: [http://www.taz.de/!5368403/](http://www.taz.de/!5368403/) (german)

[2]:
[https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/535299/umfrag...](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/535299/umfrage/mietpreise-
auf-dem-wohnungsmarkt-in-leipzig/)

------
the_mitsuhiko
Berlin is a great example of what happens if you have bad laws and regulations
hit reality. The renter is king in his or her property. Friends wanted to buy
a flat but ypu can realistically only rent a flat that comes with an occupant
so you need to wait until they leave until you can move into your own
property.

Then this gets paired with attempts to regulate the increase of the rent and
people rent for a bloody long time in a city where there is more demand than
housing.

The effects this causes in reality then are bizarre. All you have to do is
build more stuff and none if this was necessary.

~~~
jonasvp
> so you need to wait until they leave until you can move into your own
> property.

That's simply false. You can cancel a lease with a renter because of
"Eigenbedarf" (personal need) if you want to move into your own property.
There's some limitations around it when you buy a property with a renter in it
but in general that's how it works.

In Germany, the "basic law" (rougly: constitution) says:

> (2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

The state protects your property but this obliges you to also use it for the
public good. It's not an absolute right.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> You can cancel a lease with a renter because of "Eigenbedarf"

Which has a 10 year "Sperrfrist" (freeze period) and you need to go to court
if the renter refuses to honor and make your claim. Even in that case you need
to prove your personal need and "living in your own property" does not satisfy
that requirement.

~~~
yorwba
On the flip side, this means that there is absolutely no need to buy the flat
you are living in, because your landlord can't easily throw you out anyway. If
you are after the savings in rent, you can still buy a flat and rent it out to
pay your own rent.

~~~
bogomipz
I am curious do people actually do this though in practice?

------
kafkaesq
_Housing prices have soared in fashionable Berlin neighborhoods like
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg._

Ah, the New York Times. Yes, there is a borough (or district) called
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, but no one would think of calling it a
"neighborhood" (it's split by a river; and not too long ago, the pieces that
comprise it were on different sides of The Wall).

------
notliketherest
Gentrification aka "supply and demand". Sounds like they haven't even
attempted increasing supply in these neighborhoods.

------
Kequc
Large areas of the city did the opposite of gentrify already. So what do you
want, of course people in those areas want to move to nicer ones.

Stop crapping the whole place up, the few pockets that are still nice are of
course going to see higher rent prices. If you don't like gentrification there
are plenty of cheap areas in the city for you to live.

This article smacks of an agenda. They want the whole city to be bad, it's not
enough yet.

------
Overtonwindow
I am hoping to move to Berlin someday. Hopefully housing will be affordable.

------
Pica_soO
Niemand hat die Absicht einen Flughafen zu bauen.

------
discardorama
s/Berlin/San Francisco/g

Same shit, different place.

From a US perspective: The world is changing. The (American) ideal of a
McMansion with a 2.5 kids and 3 cars is gone. People want to live in cities;
in particular, tolerant, safe, cultured cities. Old timers in San Francisco
(where I live) will blame the "tech boom" and "techies" for this phenomenon,
but it's not limited to tech, and is not caused by tech. It's just the cycle
we are in currently.

------
tannhaeuser
_If_ there's a housing crisis in Germany, it's entirely the fault of politics.

There should be lots of investors in German housing construction projects,
given Germany's comparatively low property quote, increasing urban population,
and low general interest rates. What turns investors away is the asymetric
legal situation unduely favouring the renter's over the owner's interests (I
hear in Sweden it's even worse). That, plus excessive laws for energy
efficiency that seem to be dictated by the construction industry to drive up
initial and ongoing cost.

The SPD party's answer is new laws limiting rents (without also attempting to
cut down on costs). They shure don't understand how to let the market work for
you.

~~~
izacus
On the other hand that keeps the quality of life higher for people living in
the cities. It's a balancing act between landlord profits and the promise of
stability to the citizens.

Cities aren't only optimizing for profits of the investors (realtively few
people), but also for making life in the city itself happy. And by responses
of people moving to Berlin, they're doing something right.

~~~
tannhaeuser
It's not about profits for investors so much as it is about a self-sustainable
housing economy. Comments like yours, and SPD policies always paint a juvenile
"bad investors vs the working class" picture. In reality, investment in
housing has always been attractive for smaller investors (eg. Grandma's rent).
Especially since the ECB has been keeping interest rates low for the debt-
ridden PIGS economies not to collapse. Look at the not-too-distant future, the
demographics being what they are. What sustainable investment is there if you
have a bit of money to spend for your old days? The problem the SPD is trying
to solve with rent-limiting laws will come back massively in ten years time
with the then-old generation not having enough to sustain themselves.

~~~
izacus
Noone is painting investors as bad, but it seems that like a lot of people in
this thread you're looking at apartments (living space of citizens of a city)
as an investment and not as a basic prerequirement for someone to actually
live in a city.

~~~
tannhaeuser
_Of course_ it's an investment; always has been.

Living space doesn't grow on trees (in Europe at least), and is _extremely_
expensive to create and maintain. The quarters seeing "gentrification" (with
their social status-indicating details such as stucko) were _always_
attracting a bourgoise elite (its why they exist in the first place).

It's all a question to make economy work for the people. Saying goodbye to
reality does no one good.

~~~
izacus
But noone is saying you should say goodbye to reality. But precisely BECAUSE
it doesn't grow on trees, the cities shouldn't optimize for maximum investment
value of real estate, but they should optimize for maximum living space and
quality of life potential for their citizens. Empty apartments in city center
used as a dumping ground for money are of no use to anyone but a select rich
few individuals.

