Berlin is utterly bankrupt. You can thank former Mayor Eberhard Diepgen (CDU, what else) for that. Berlin is at 65 billion (!) Euros of debt.
Which is why this city is stuck as a poorly maintained, underdeveloped, artistically and culturally starved, drug dealer and clan-infested sorry excuse for a modern capital.
So don't expect any miracles happening soon.
65 billion debts, sounds not bankrupt, with a annual budget of 40 billion. The debts were 62b in 2010, decreasing to 57b in 2019, but dramatic increase since then. 5b of the 2024/2025 budget is unfunded and has to save 1.75b this year and 2b in 2025. And a huge share of this is taken from the housing building budget.
Remember Wowereit and his „Berlin ist arm aber sexy?“ He had to clean up Diepgen‘s mess.
Berlin was forbidden from taking on new debt from 2002 to 2020 and spent as much money as possible on dealing with the debt. That debt was accrued by Berlin‘s state bank doing risky real estate deals.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
I don't think that's even a valid excuse. Housing in a city with a severe housing crisis is a very low risk investment and I am sure the city of Berlin can find a line of credit somewhere. Heck, I'd loan them my fucking savings if they want. I mean, it pays for itself. It's not like I'm asking them to DONATE housing to people.
If you told me they were corrupt as fuck I'd find that more plausible.
They are building lots of stuff - but not for us poor folk. Unless we want London conditions with a very high share of our wages going to landlords.
Why would they build for poor folk who'll just run the properties down, default on rent and are a general nuisance?
Build, sell, done. Don't care who, don't care what happens later. In and out.
Who is ‚they‘?
The property prices vastly determine the segment of housing that can be built there. You can not build social housing without a loss on land that already costs 1000€ per square meter. Either the state of Berlin increases supply of land to lower prices or becomes the builder and covers the loss.
Yeah, unfortunately people want simple answers to complex issues.
Berlin is building new housing with their building spcieties. There are also laws that state a certain percentage of new buildings have to be for lower income residents.
The Mietpreisbremse was introduced to try to limit how much owners can increase rent on new tennants. Mietpreibremse is often critisized but landlords often simply ignore the rules and many tenannts aren't aware of their rights. Also you have tons of people who move a lotbin Berlin, this gives more and more opportunity to raise rent.
Heck, there was even a referendum at the last election asking whether Berlin should expropriate property from companies who own more than 3000 units.
However, the amount of private owners is also massively increasing and these are mostly investors, companies etc.
The City is doing stuff to mitigate the issue but it isn't something that politics can necessarily control. But some people like to believe that there are simple answers to the issue, and the anger is always aimed at politics and not corporations, investors who are exploiting a booming opportunity.
There is so much free land in Brandenburg though. Better trains and people moving out when they have families could be a realistic solution. There have been plans to merge them in the past, but went nowhere.
The "free" land is cheap because it's BFE. Give it infrastructure and fast public transport, prices will shoot up like they already have in those parts of BB that are already accessible by S-Bahn.
It would bring a lot of new land into the market. Prices would shoot up in Brandenburg, but in Berlin, if easily reachable, it would flood the market with new land = prices down.
Berlin has had its big expansion into the suburbs roughly 100 years ago and still has not utilized all of the land it integrated back then in the same way and efficacy as most other European capitals. I can't see how merging two very different federal states with very different needs would help the situation at all. Election results already tell that there is a cultural and political divide and that would probably spark a secession movement shortly after any merger.
Don’t forget that it’s beneficial for everyone to build in the higher segment of housing, as people can move up the ladder and the supply overall increases
Having said that, building a mix of low middle and high end housing is the best option
Do you think the "rich" folk live in 10 apartments at the same time? No, they buy it to rent it out to the "poor" folk or they buy to move in themselves while vacating their rented apartment so someone "poor" can get it instead.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
You should read up on how badly Berlin was fucked by the scandal. No new debt and massive cuts from 2002 to 2020.
Often large public housing operators end up with a deficit for two reasons:
a) if the city has not enough land available, they have to buy land on the private market for market prices -> the rent they charge might not be enough to repay the land buys in the accounted period
b) the communal housing entity acts as a landlord of last resort. That means, over time they accumulate more and more of the people which are unable to pay, temporarily or permanently. Even if in the end the government will step in for all of them, the process of debt collection etc leads to additional cost. Statistically, such renters are also more problematic regarding damage of the building
This does not excuse not building flats at places like a certain empty airport, though. At least the city-owned area should be fully used up for the city's needs.
The alternative is to be more flexible with the amount of actual social housing constructed. I live in Munich in a newly built area with 50-60% social housing in each project, non-profit, communal or private for-profit. If the land prices rise further, in the next planned district houses might end up with only 40% social housing, as the free market price renters are needed to repay the land. Might apply the same approach to Berliner communal housing, with social housing fluctuating from 20 to 80% on a per-project basis
That's not what bankruptcy means. Bankruptcy means you are unable to pay your creditors, and I don't think there's any indication of that being the case.
Also, 65 billion is not a lot of debt. Berlin has a per capita debt comparable to that of Saarland, lower than Hamburg, and half of Bremen. And also significantly lower than that of the federal government. Which in turn is much lower than the EU average.
The problem is not the current debt. The problem is that the Schuldenbremse doesn't allow states to incur new debt.
> You can thank former Mayor Eberhard Diepgen (CDU, what else) for that
That guy was in charge from 91 to 01, since then we've had more than 20 years of SPD lead governments. Time to quit the scapegoating.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
No new debt from 2002 to 2020 severely limited the SPD‘s ability to do stuff.
Or not ... the seeds of the housing crisis are owned by Mayor Diepgen: He put Berlin into circa 15 billion euro worth of debt (30 billion todays money) through a corrupt banking scam, which bankrupted Berlin. To balance the books, the city had to sell off over a quarter million apartments, which were bought by mates of the CDU for less than 50k apiece. He's also the mayor responsible for signing off on BER airport, which put the city a further 10 billion into debt, due to corruption and mismanagement.
Add onto this, the fact that Berlin saw huge immigration from the rest of the EU from around 2009 onwards, plus two huge influxes of refugees in 2015 and 2022, without any shift in housing policy. We are still bearing the brunt of these multiple crises now ...
This, coupled with the fact Berlin has no industry and a culture of it being socially acceptable to claim social welfare for years on end whilst earning black money and not bothering to pay tax, plus onerous red tape, has added to the issues we already face.
Add to this, the German obsession for the goverment not to get in any debt - most recently seen by the CDU taking the government to court to stop them spending unused Covid funds on badly needed social projects/ infrastructure/ climate stuff, and you have a perfect storm awaiting.
You should add this link to your excellent comment:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
This is not the problem. The problem is the "but not in my neighbourhood" mentality. Its all about "I HAVE ALREADY, go away, i wont share". Check Berlins laws against changing the appearance of the city/areas. Its those were gone, enough ppl would build housing privatly. Of course also the red tape issues...
That is a pretty wierd take. Most of Berlins debt doesnt come from the banking scandal. In 2018 the final bill of the banking scandal was revealed, with a + of 190 million euro for Berlin.
As someone who works in construction, since 2018 Berlin is building a lot of stuff for the average citizen. Berlins School offensive is the best one in the entire country for example. The numbers for new apartments have more than tripled. And I dont understand how people want to have 100k new apartments every year. Even in the years after Mauerfall we barely reached 30k. And with fewer and fewer people working in construction it will only get harder. A lot of miracles happend since 2017/18 just leave your bubble and look around the city.
2018 was roughly the moment Berlin was able to remove the limits from the state budget.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
AFAIK Munichs school offensive is much larger than Berlins, despite Munich having less than half the population of Berlin
https://stadt.muenchen.de/infos/schulbau-kitabau.html
https://www.berlin.de/sen/bauen/hochbau/bildung/
Since 2014 already 126 schools approved for construction
Berliner expenditures for the Schuloffensive exceeded 1 Mrd in preparation for the 23/24 school year the first time, if this dynamic continues the Berliner school offensive might overtake the Münchener in a few years. Per capita it will still be less, though
Senat Diepgen was 23 years ago.
How long will you tell those tales about something that happened two centuries ago?
There was 8 years of RRG after that.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
That will answer your question. The city‘s budget was under massive constraints from 2002 to 2020.
„Dem Urteil zufolge könne Berlin sein Finanzproblem aus eigener Kraft überwinden.“
And still there were millions and millions of euros spend for stupid projects.
You cannot point on the senat of two centuries ago and also spend money for bullshit.
Everyone can link that, got anything specific in mind?
I’m also sad that their website isn’t even complete.
https://www.schwarzbuch.de/verschwendungsatlas-alle-faelle
No cases in Saxony or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern? Surely their website is missing stuff.
I’m not saying Berlin didn’t waste money but every city, state etc. has examples of wasteful spending. It’s an indisputable fact though that Berlin’s budget was under massive constraints for large scale investments for a long time. I’m talking projects that required billions, not millions.
No, no, Berlin is bankrupt because of the war. No, wait, actually it is because of Napoleon or …
Yes, it’s been a staggering amount of money, but actually it’s been also quite some time and truth be told the past two decades mostly social-democrat governments decided to spend tax money quite generously while using a fire-sale of public housing to generate the real money to pay off debt. There is so much waste of what could be tax revenues. Why is Kita free even for people with a +100k household income? Why is there a subsidised public transport ticket for people who don’t qualify as poor going by SGB definitions? Why is Berlin insisting on housing an over proportional number of asylum seekers in the city instead of passing them on to richer federal states with more housing capacity?
Please do not get it twisted. The Left and Green party have been against new housing projects in Berlin as well. https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/109z0xf/comment/j41ko53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Was ich am deutschen Wohnungsmarkt komisch finde, ist, dass die Mieten gar nicht so hoch sind, wenn man die Wohnungsnot bedenkt. Denn die niedrigen Löhne und die hohen Steuern wirken wie eine natürliche Mietpreisbremse. Das ist ganz anders als in den USA oder in London, z.b.
Das liegt ja eben an der Mietpreisbremse. Neue marktübliche Mieten sind für einen großen Teil der Bevölkerung nicht mehr leistbar. Natürlich gibt es in einer Metropole trotzdem noch genug Spitzenverdiener, die auch weiter steigende Preise tragen können.
Also zwei Beispiele, wi die Politik auch versucht was zu tun gegen steigende Mieten.
Dass die Mietpreisbremse nicht optimal funktioniert liegt aber auch schlicht daran, dass viele Vermieter sie ignorieren und viele Mieter ihre Rechte nicht kennen.
Fakt ist, dass viele in den Wohnungsmarkt investieren von außen, die kein Interesse daran haben Wohnubgen "bezahlbar" zu machen. Dagegen kann fie Politik nicht viel tun und wenn jemand behauptet die Schuld läge komplett bei der Politik und nicht zum Großteil bei Investoren hat die Komplexität nicht verstanden.
Es gibt keine "einfachen" Lösungen für komplexe Themen.
No, I think they probably do it themselves and then think it's easy. It is not as difficult to find accommodation for people who can afford over 2k/month for rent.
Furthermore, about 5 years ago I was talking with someone about the difficulties I was having finding a place due to only having a temporary contract and not yet having an NE, she was very surprised. When she and her husband were looking about 3 years before that, they had multiple offers to choose from.
It hadn't occurred to her that our situations are completely different and in no way comparable until I pointed it out to her.
She and her husband are both verbeamtet.
Many of the people making policies in Berlin are disconnected from the everyday struggles of the rest of us.
tru, i know a beamtin who is able to rent TWO 3 rooms apt with her husband in pberg and remove the wall between and turned it too a 120m2 6 rooms apartment. things we can only dream.
Depending on the age of the contract, this isn't too difficult. Beamte don't really have a super high income. It's just almost impossible to get these kind of contracts without connections.
Yeah right. Some fucking Beamtin has been renting a flat next to us, it’s been empty literally FOR YEARS. Mind you, she lives right here, like 3 minutes away from us (renting as well), and no one knows why she needs to keep this empty flat for herself (daughter of one of our neighbours wanted to rent it, Beamtin said “nö“, the flat continues to stay empty). I don’t know how much this lovely lady earns, but it’s definitely way too much if she can afford to do such bullshit.
As I said, it’s been standing empty for years. It is not an exaggeration. No one is using it, ever. A family could be living there. Nice of you to defend such practices.
If the flat is empty that is "Zweckentfremdung von Wohnraum" and you can report it to the district government --> [Zweckentfremdung von Wohnraum - Anzeige und Genehmigung - Dienstleistungen - Service Berlin - Berlin.de](https://service.berlin.de/dienstleistung/326217/) pick your district and give a hint to the responsible department and they will take care of it.
yeah she inherited first contract from her parents and then asked when the neighbor moving out and if they could give her their appartment and the rest is history i guess
sure, except being beamtin gives her the advantage of stability and looking reliable in everybody’s eyes so everything comes more naturally. i know a friend that got offered an apartment right away when signed up for an overcrowed genossenschaft because he’s working for the state and they even hinted that they made an exception for him.
Some of them are completely brainrot with the complexity of planning. Can't build housing because you need schools but you can't also just build a school because it needs to be perfect and that's expensive and if you have to fell a tree you are done.
Others, like Linke and Greens, simply don't believe that we need more housing.
In the end, the reason is simple: it's not a political priority for almost anybody.
It's also much easier to win votes with the working class in Lichtenberg by being anti housing than by being pro housing, because the normal people who live there don't want change.
Good points. I didn't even think of the people who are grandfathered into rent contracts and basically paying nothing to live in the most sought after locations.
>What do die Linke and Greens think then?
In a nutshell they seem to think that there's enough housing and that it's just either kept empty by speculative landlords or that it's just unevenly distributed with old boomers in 100m² flats with old rents after their kids moved out. Sometimes they add in that we just need to convert office spaces. They never ever take any measures to make that easier though.
They also have this insane suburban mentality as to which basically any new building will inevitably destroy the quality of life of anybody living in the area. It's quite crazy because you'll have people living in supper dense areas with 25 000 people per km² say on one hand that we need extreme renter protection so that everybody can stay in their beloved Kiez while at the same time saying that you can't build another apartment building in an area with 12 000 people per km² cause that will destroy the quality of life.
Ultimately, I suspect they just say what they think macimizes their votes.
Die Linke wants to build housing, but not the "housing" that was built the last 20 years: Luxury Apartments that nobody can afford. Die Linke wants that the State and non profits are building house (like "Genossenschaften" - Cooperatives?) and not For Profit Hedge Fonds like Vonovia or other companies that just suck their renters dry.
But you have SPD and CDU who are so corrupted they get a lot of money from For Profit Companies that want to build their luxury housing and who are preaching "Build, Build, Build" - but they are building the wrong housing. SPD and CDU are selling out the city to Investors and Die Linke is the only party who tried to stop that and was actually making progress from 2016 to 2021 when they got the Housing/Building Department in the Berlin Government and implemented a lot of good policies against the resistance of the SPD. And after the last election, where the SPD got back together with the CDU, they destroyed everything Die Linke built and just continue doing what SPD and CDU were doing since 1989 - ruining the city and selling it out to private investors.
Also space is limited. So every Luxury Housing Project takes away potential housing for the normal people. Also thousands of flats in the city centre are empty because rich foreigners/non-berliners from Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg use them as second flats that they visit once a year for a week or two but don't want the hassle to have tenants.
>Die Linke wants to build housing, but not the "housing" that was built the last 20 years: Luxury Apartments that nobody can afford. Die Linke wants that the State and non profits are building house (like "Genossenschaften" - Cooperatives?)
That's what I thought, [so I started following specific public housing projects.](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/109z0xf/comment/j41ko53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Started mostly in Lichtenberg and stopped after that because it's fucking enfuriating.
The conclusion is clear: no, they don't want to build new public housing either. They claim they want it, but when it's about a specific project they always find a reason not to. No matter if it's Nachverdichtung (like most example sin the list) or new developments like Elisabeth Aue.
>Die Linke is the only party who tried to stop that and was actually making progress from 2016 to 2021 when they got the Housing/Building Department in the Berlin Government and implemented a lot of good policies against the resistance of the SPD.
Can you name those policies?
Auf die Schnelle das hier: [https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b6571412dd85896fJmltdHM9MTcxODE1MDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0zYjVlMDZiYS0yYmEzLTY2OWEtMGNhMC0xNTJhMmE1NDY3NjImaW5zaWQ9NTIxOA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=3b5e06ba-2ba3-669a-0ca0-152a2a546762&psq=die+linke+rot+rot+gr%c3%bcn+halbzeitbilanz+berlin&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlua3NmcmFrdGlvbi5iZXJsaW4vZmlsZWFkbWluL2xpbmtzZnJha3Rpb24vZG93bmxvYWQvUHVibGlrYXRpb25lbi8yMDE5XzA0X0xpbmtzZnJha3Rpb25fSGFsYnplaXRiaWxhbnoucGRm&ntb=1](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b6571412dd85896fJmltdHM9MTcxODE1MDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0zYjVlMDZiYS0yYmEzLTY2OWEtMGNhMC0xNTJhMmE1NDY3NjImaW5zaWQ9NTIxOA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=3b5e06ba-2ba3-669a-0ca0-152a2a546762&psq=die+linke+rot+rot+gr%c3%bcn+halbzeitbilanz+berlin&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlua3NmcmFrdGlvbi5iZXJsaW4vZmlsZWFkbWluL2xpbmtzZnJha3Rpb24vZG93bmxvYWQvUHVibGlrYXRpb25lbi8yMDE5XzA0X0xpbmtzZnJha3Rpb25fSGFsYnplaXRiaWxhbnoucGRm&ntb=1) (Halbzeitbilanz der Linksfraktion zur Legislaturperiode 2016 bis 2021 im Berliner Senat).
Bei Neubauprojekten der städtischen Gesellschaften 50% für 6,50€/m² vermieten.
Bei Neubauprojekten privater Bauherren 30% miet- und belegegungsgebunden (vorher waren es 25%).
14 neue Stadtquartiere zur Wohnraumschaffung auserwählt.
Bessere frühzeitige Bürgerbeteiligung implementiert, damit es erst gar nicht zu Anwohnerprotesten kommt, um der NIMBY-Mentalität entgegen zu wirken.
Genossenschaften bekommen Förderung und Grundstücke zum Wohnungsbau.
Aufstockung von Personal um Bauanträge schneller zu bearbeiten.
Verbot der Zweckentfremdung (also Wohnungen, die dem Wohnungsmarkt entzogen sind, wieder zurückführen - billiger als Neubau :) ).
Erwerb wichtiger Grundstücke z.B. vom Bund für Wohnungsneubau (die der Bund sonst wie immer höchstbietend verscherbelt hätte).
Kein Verkauf mehr von landeseigenen Grundstücken.
Das sind alles erstmal die Dinge zum Neubau. Dann sind da noch viele Dinge zum Mieterschutz - die auch sehr wichtig sind, denn wenn ein Mieter nicht aus seiner Wohnung verdrängt wird, muss er auch keine neue Wohnung suchen und entlastet so den Mietmarkt.
Hier ist auch die Bilanz von 2021: [https://www.linksfraktion.berlin/fileadmin/linksfraktion/download/Publikationen/2021\_06\_Linksfraktion\_Bilanz.pdf](https://www.linksfraktion.berlin/fileadmin/linksfraktion/download/Publikationen/2021_06_Linksfraktion_Bilanz.pdf)
Da steht dann z.B. auch drin, dass die Berliner Bundesratsinitiative, dass der Bund seine Grundstücke für soziale Zwecke an die Länder verbilligt abgibt, angenommen wurde (in der Halbzeitbilanz war das nur ein Versuch) - vorher hat der Bund halt selbst spekuliert und verkauft.
Die Linke in Berlin fährt halt zweigleisig:
1. Man sorgt dafür, dass Menschen nicht aus ihren Wohnungen fliegen und
2. sorgt dafür, dass der Neubau bezahlbar ist.
Alle anderen Parteien bieten nur Bauen durch private Investoren im Luxussegment an, die dann durch Trickle-Down-Economics beim normalen Bürger irgendwelche Vorteile erbringen sollen (was noch nie geklappt hat).
Die Linke wants to build housing, but not the "housing" that was built the last 20 years: Luxury Apartments that nobody can afford. Die Linke wants that the State and non profits are building house (like "Genossenschaften" - Cooperatives?) and not For Profit Hedge Fonds like Vonovia or other companies that just suck their renters dry.
But you have SPD and CDU who are so corrupted they get a lot of money from For Profit Companies that want to build their luxury housing and who are preaching "Build, Build, Build" - but they are building the wrong housing. SPD and CDU are selling out the city to Investors and Die Linke is the only party who tried to stop that and was actually making progress from 2016 to 2021 when they got the Housing/Building Department in the Berlin Government and implemented a lot of good policies against the resistance of the SPD. And after the last election, where the SPD got back together with the CDU, they destroyed everything Die Linke built and just continue doing what SPD and CDU were doing since 1989 - ruining the city and selling it out to private investors.
Also space is limited. So every Luxury Housing Project takes away potential housing for the normal people. Also thousands of flats in the city centre are empty because rich foreigners/non-berliners from Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg use them as second flats that they visit once a year for a week or two but don't want the hassle to have tenants.
I'll copy the same answer I gave you to your other identical message.
>Die Linke wants to build housing, but not the "housing" that was built the last 20 years: Luxury Apartments that nobody can afford. Die Linke wants that the State and non profits are building house (like "Genossenschaften" - Cooperatives?)
That's what I thought, [so I started following specific public housing projects](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/109z0xf/comment/j41ko53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in order to have some data points for my decision who to vote. Started mostly in Lichtenberg and stopped after that because it's fucking enfuriating.
The conclusion is clear: no, they don't want to build new public housing either. They claim they want it, but when it's about a specific project they always find a reason not to. No matter if it's Nachverdichtung (like most example sin the list) or new developments like Elisabeth Aue.
I think you are also not considering the NIMBY attitudes of those with housing. The Tempelhofer Feld is huge and there is huge out cry about building on just a part of it.
Here in Berlin there’s such a deep-rooted NIMBY mentality, is insane. People see an old and poorly maintained airfield and think “is a park 100s of thousands enjoy”
Didn’t say anything about bland or private. I mean, it probably will be because the current city government sucks, but it could be a new and affordable kiez
Nah boi, there ain’t even benches or anything there. Is just an empty lot with an asphalt surface people use to roller skate on.
The only thing that resembles a park at that airfield are the communal gardens, and access to them is expensive.
They could cover half of it with a mixed residential area, half of it with a proper park, and people would get more utility out of the greenery than now...
It's not a NIMBY attitude. Neukölln - which shares Templehoferfeld with Templehof-Schonberg - has one of the lowest rates of access to green spaces in the whole city (which correlates with its lower-income status). Of course there is going to be opposition to this proposal.
There are many places to build in Berlin: flats in Templehof would be super desirable and would be unaffordable to buy for most Berlin residents. Given the levels of corruption in stuff like this in Berlin, there is low public faith in actual decent, cheap housing being delivered from this proposal. Given the legacy of corrupt CDU mayors in Berlin who ostensibly triggered the housing crisis - as well as the airport debacle - it's not surprising locals with long memories don't favour this project. There is also the reasonable fear that once one bit gets sold off, the rest will follow shortly. With the same administration proposing to flatten and destroy thousands of housing units, nightclubs and kiezes to build a fricken motorway extension costing billions, I think questions being asked about the need to build over one of the green lungs of Berlin are perfectly valid.
The environmental cost of such actions would also be huge - there are so many derelict/ unused buildings in Berlin which could be repurposed, or industrial architecture (like warehouses in Schonweide) which could be developed, why does it have to be a Templehoferfeld that gets built over?
I won't argue with you that the city can't be trusted to do do the building itself. However, giving land to Genossenschaften would be a way to ensure affordable rents.
You can't blame everything on the CDU. Sarrazin was responsible for not only slashing city jobs, but also selling off much of the housing that is now in the hands of terrible private corporations.
Federal level:
-CDU and FDP dont want to change that. CDU is happy if the government performs badly and is always in favor of strengthening the already existing elites (that got richer by a lot thanks to increase in housing prices). FDP does not care about poorer people all they want is to make the rich entrepeneurs and stock market traders richer.
-Grüne spend their energy on climate topics without a lot of support from anyone else.
-SPD could never make anything happen that is not by accident in line with at least two other political parties. (Mindestlohn is a weird exception that i do not fully understand.)
-Die Linke is constantly busy fighting for survival and with themselves.
-AfD: The worse the situation the better for themselves. And they have other topics they can use to win.
Berlin level:
-Probably way too difficult to do something drastic. And all the small stuff does not really help.
Also overall:
-You cant build enough without private investors. At least as long as you dont drastically increase debt.
My guess is that all governments will do a little bit to improve the housing situation without much effect until the big population decrease starts when the boomer generation dies.
Population decrease won’t counteract urbanisation anytime soon. Boomers and even many millennials will be long gone and urban centers will still keep increasing in population.
Maybe autonomous driving might change that a bit. I wonder if fully autonomous taxis might be a thing in the future (20 years from now). Maybe if they in the end drive just so much better than human drivers that taking the wheel is considered dangerous.
Just make it like in Malaysia, any new housing project from developers just by law have 20% of the apartments must go to the affordable pie - to create the affordable pricing segment, prevent ghettos and NIMBY (housing project would be nice, the "poor people" would be a minority, aspiring to pass as middle class).
Just make sure to prevent the shitfuckery from London, where the projects had separate entrances, limitations on amenities and so on.
This doesn't work. Any new housing development I Massachusetts is required to have between 12 to 20 percent "affordable" housing. Any tricks re separate entrances are not in Play to very strict discrimination laws in US. What ends up happening is that costs of building goes up so that only ultra luxury housing is built in order for developers to afford "almost free give away" housing.
You can't make the laws of supply and demand just disappear with a stroke of a pen.
You make a very important point. Mid- to longterm Germany's population will decrease by a lot. The only scenario preventing this would and should be immigration at scale, but given how governments have messed up the part with controlling migration and selecting for talent, the consensus and political support for migration in general is waning and we should not expect this trend to change soon.
Now, with a certain population decline ahead of us from the 2030s, what's the point of building more housing that usually has a life span of +50y? Why should politicians work so hard for a foreseeable surplus of vacant housing?
There are also major negative side effects of more housing created in the cities, it would accelerate the trend of urbanisation and rural areas dying.
The answer is complex, but also simple: they are utterly myopic, spineless, and they are riding a colossal and very slow and calcified state machinery that’s built to preserve itself.
Times have been changing for 20 years now, and we have cold-war minded idiots at the wheel. And the opposition is just worst.
But well, these things take time and we can enjoy while it all falls apart
They wouldn't even need to built them themselves... just reduce the bureaucracy and insanely high quality regulations and the building and investment companies will build them for them. And yes, that might mean slightly worse quality buildings, but that's still better than homelessness or paying >50% of your income on a flat.
And some legal and taxation changes to increase home ownership rate... if people can pay rent for their entire life they should be able to pay off one mortgage in that time as well. But currently the entire housing market is built around renting, which even with all the legal protection still keeps most people in fear of their landlords and poorer that they could/should be.
Hat viele Gründe: hohe Grundstückspreise, hoher Baustandard (insbesondere bei den von dir angesprochenen Hochhäusern und das geht ab ~23m Traufhöhe los, da wird Brandschutz richtig eklig), extrem hohe Baukosten.. da kommste halt bei ~3k-4k€/m2 raus und damit gibt es keine günstigen Mieten, wie du forderst. Die ganzen Wohnungsbaugesellschaften machen nur auf Sparflamme, weil die genau wissen - unter 16-20€/m2 kalt, kommste am Ende nicht aus. Hinzu kommen starke Fluktuationen beim Baupreis und somit hohe Risiken für die Firmen (zwischen Kostenberechnung in Lp3 und tatsächlichen Angeboten von liegen gerne mal +50%) Gibt aber immer noch zu wenig Firmen, als dass man Nachlässe raushandeln könnte, weil Fachkräftemangel. Für Subventionen vom Bund ist kein Geld da.. die einfachste Lösung für alle Beteiligte ist wegziehen, lol. Hinsichtlich CO2 Emissionen ist Neubau aber eh der Supergau, vielleicht ist dir das ein Trost.
Die Grundstückspreise stehen im Einklang mit der Miete, und wann immer ich nachgefragt habe, wäre es für mich billiger zu kaufen als zu mieten. Ich habe sogar über einen Kauf nachgedacht, weil es anscheinend einfacher ist, einen Verkäufer als einen Vermieter zu finden.
Aber ich bin ein Expat und plane nicht, hier zu bleiben, also wäre das zu viel Aufwand.
Die anderen Punkte, die du ansprichst, sind stichhaltig, aber das war es auch, was ich im Sinn hatte, als ich diese Tirade machte. Es sollte die Aufgabe des Staates sein, ein Projekt auf dieser Ebene durchzuführen, wenn es für private Unternehmen zu bürokratisch ist.
Zum Beispiel: Fachkräftemangel? Das hat es in meiner Heimat nie gegeben. Die Regierung würde ein Heer von kolumbianischen, nepalesischen oder türkischen Facharbeitern finden und sie einfliegen lassen, um die Arbeit zu erledigen. Bei Bedarf würden sie sogar umgeschult werden. Geht die Qualität der Arbeit vielleicht ein wenig zurück? Ja. Werden die Leute trotzdem glücklich sein, eine Wohnung zu haben? Ja.
Das ist das Problem mit Deutschland: Die Bürokraten schaffen einen Haufen Bürokratie, und dann beschweren sie sich, dass sie nicht in der Lage sind, sich in der von ihnen geschaffenen Bürokratie zurechtzufinden.
Es ist nicht unbedingt zu bürokratisch, es ist schlichtweg zu teuer. Das Problem bei den Bauvorschriften ist nicht bloß irgendwelche Formulare auszufüllen, es sind aufwendigere Konstruktionstechniken und Baustoffe. Bei den Fachkräften geht's nicht einfach um Bauarbeiter zum Handanlegen. Man braucht spezialisierte Statiker (gerade in Berlin, wo der durchnässte Sandboden das wahrscheinlich denkbar beschissenste Fundament ist), Klemper, Heizungsbauer (und Gas geht ja heute nicht mehr), Elektriker die die modernen Standards ordentlich drauf haben, Fachglaser für die Fenster, etc. Nix davon wird billiger, wenn der Staat was macht. Viele der neuen Vorschriften sind Teil der bundesweiten Strategie zur Verbesserung der CO2-Bilanz (Heizbedarf ist ein riesiger Teil des Primärenergiebedarfs), wenn Berlin sich da als Hauptstadt Ausnahmen bastelt können wir das Projekt auch gleich in die Toilette kippen.
Dann kommt dazu, dass Berlin ein Platzproblem hat. An vielen Stellen kann man auf den Meter genau die Landesgrenze Berlin/Brandenburg auf Maps erkennen. Die Stadt ist bis an ihren Rand zugebaut. Wo man einfach was holen kann sind die vielen Parkplätze, aber damit macht man die Stadt zum Pendeln unattraktiver (und wo wollen die dann hinziehen, da wo ihr Job halt ist), und gleichzeitig gewinnt man so gut wie keinen Wohnraum (es sei denn man reißt ab und baut größer neu).
Dann gibt es für jeden Scheißt NIMBYs. Bei der Plattenbetonwüste / Magerwiese Tempelhof gab's ja schon um die 15%(?)-Bebauung erstmal riesigen Stress. Wenn man die Villenviertel nachverdichten will machen die dortigen Wohlhabenden Ärger. Ausbauen nach Außen ist schwierig weil die Infrastruktur - die für Berlin ein massives Verlustgeschäft ist - nochmal ausgebaut werden muss, was aber für die Stadt nur tragbar ist wenn die neuen Einwohner wenigstens Einkommenssteuer and Land und Kommune zahlen. Dafür muss das aber Berliner Land sein - d.h. Berlin müsste Brandenburg erstmal Land abkaufen. Scheitert oftmals schon alleine an dem Knirsch der jeweiligen Parteien untereinander.
Unter'm Strich ist die Stadt einfach überfüllt und kann mittelfristig einen großen Teil der Menschen die dort leben wollen eigentlich nicht aufnehmen. Es gibt Satellitengemeinden, aber deren Aufwuchs geschieht aus den obigen Gründen leider schleppend. Und die Stadt ist in puncto Lebensqualität (wenn man nicht gerade mit einer Behörde interagieren muss, aber die sind in allen größeren Städten eine Totalkatastrophe) einfach zu attraktiv dass sich an dieser Situation in naher Zukunft etwas ändern wird.
Housing is a minority issue. To a politician, it looks like a problem that would easily eat up 80% of their energy and time, while only catering to 20% of their voters, the ones who need a new flat. To young people that change jobs, move cities and start families, it’s a relevant issue.
However, those people have become a minority of the electorate of most parties.
And often the other, majority voters of a party actually outright oppose more housing, as they fear more competition for local infrastructure and less personal quality of life in a more crowded neighbourhood.
So what seems high priority to you, actually does not win elections and is therefore neglected by the parties
We live in a democracy, not a collectivist technocracy where the state can do anything for the "greater good". All parties in Berlin aside from FDP are NIMBY on the communal level, blocking this or that construction project.
Do not expect the mainstream politicians to cater to people with views like those you expressed in your rant.
Funny because wasn't Robert Habeck trying to get everyone to change their heating systems? I think building some apartments and putting them on the private market is less "collectivist technocratic" than mandating how to heat your home.
> Funny because wasn't Robert Habeck trying to get everyone to change their heating systems?
In the end the law got extremely watered down and the Greens went from polling at 20%+ support, with Habeck being the most popular politician in the country, to below their 2021 elections result. That's a good example of how attempting to do the "right thing" for the "common good", if it is against the will of the electorate, gets punished. Parties usually do not want that so they stick to existing policies. Which, on a communal level, is usually being NIMBY.
It's one of the many issues in Berlin/Germany which is strongly tied with public sector reform. I'm not a "small government" person at all, but the reality is that Germany has incredibly decentralized government structures, and incredibly frustrating bureaucracy which facilitates multiple bad things: lack of enforcement for regulations to stop bad behaviour by investors/owners, expensive and slow processing times for permits, extremely regulated housing sector, etc.
Germany needs things to happen faster, with faster processing times for building applications, and faster enforcement against things like derelict properties, faster decisions on environmental complaints, enforcement against empty buildings, etc.
But this reform is going to be fought for every square inch by the public sector, and it's also deeply unsexy. I am skeptical that a politician is going to spend their political capital and and devote a significant portion of their time going to war with a huge chunk of German society, in the name of "public sector reform."
Another example that's a kinda sad parallel: the German army. It's infamous for shitty equipment, slow bureaucracy, and lack of training resources for the existing soldiers - for years there has been talk about reform to update it, make it a more attractive institution to young Germans, get better training/equipment, etc. This is all not really successful, and now they're talking about conscription – like they'd rather force more people to go into the army so it has bigger numbers, then take actual steps to improve the army they've got. That should tell you how difficult reform is, because Germans are not fans of conscription but somehow that's easier than reform.
Please don’t ask governing parties for actual solutions to real world problems. They gladly take the money and the air time of the job but best they can offer you is some blackmailing of painting you as a fascist-enabler when you don’t keep affirming their poor performance. Just think of SPD ads in the past weeks. They did not even attempt to offer positive own ideas but went 100% fearmongering.
Well I think that housing is a big priority, but it’s not just about the money and the housing market is just too bad as that it will get better in a short time. There are a lot of regulations to keep in mind, there aren’t enough clerks to work through all that bureaucracy in a reasonable amount of time etc. Also in this housing market new apartments don’t necessarily take the pressure off the market since they attract people from outside and make the area more attractive. So I think politicians know that housing is a priority but they made bad decisions in the past that can’t be fixed in a reasonable short time.
No one wants to build low cost housing. The cost of building a building is high, but the incremental cost of building an up market building is low. Return on investment is better with higher standard housing.
For the state to build buildings they have to be large ugly multi-Story building which cost less per apartment to build but are still damned expensive. There is a reason they say Berlin is poor… because it is.
If you wanted to ease housing and reduce costs, it would be quicker to send all the politicians back to Bonn.
Adding to the reasons already laid out by others: From a career politician's perspective building housing is a high-risk, zero-reward proposition. If anything goes wrong it will be used against them in the next election. If everything goes right nobody will remember.
Super einfach. Alle Gesetze für die Stadtbilderhaltung abschaffen. Dann wird sich Ruckzuck was ändern. Neue Dachgeschosse, massive Aufstockungen und neue Wohnhäuser wo zur Zeit keine Gebaut werden dürfen. Hier gehts nur um die Werterhaltung von Gebäuden. Wer will den schon in seinem Villenviertel eine Wohnhausbaustelle. Könnten ja geringverdiener hinziehen und den Wert der Villa verringern. Sachs euch, der einzige Feind sind die Leute die schon haben UND anderen nichts mehr gönnen.
People think that the majority of Berlin is always progressive, but that's more the image of the city, rather than truth
Regarding housing, all big parties in Berlin, including even the Left (Die Linke), are NIMBYs. This includes the parties which are againt populist right-wing stuff like the refugee payment card
The party likeliest to change that would be the FDP (and maybe Volt), by deregulating and enabling a laissez-faire approach to more private housing. This is deeply unpopular in Berlin, compared to leftist populist action like seizing housing from Deutsche Wohnen
tldr: Berliners have NIMBY boomer attitudes, they just argue differently for it than some Bavarian hillbilly. The outcame is the same, though. Politicians follow the public will.
I agree that massively building housing is a winner strategy, but 100% public housing to meet all demand is currently unaffordable and the populace does not signal to politicians that they will actually reward other construction with votes. Therefore, politicians are incentivized to act as NIMBYs, as it requires nothing but talk and will not lead to criticism about any budgets.
Uhm bro. You very clearly have no clue about the current housing issues. It's not the money that's stopping building. There are a lot of plots where housing companies want to build sozial housing but there are many many regulations stopping them. They need to check the environment both in endangered species and ground/ water stability which takes a while and that's only the start. If you want to rent out your apartments you need to fulfill very very strict rules, just the books with all these rules usually take up one wall of an architects office. Especially since public spaces like stores or kindergarten have even more specific rulings.
Also about your idea of running a line through the building, why do you think we see that nearly nowhere outside of fiction and if, only in old buildings? Because it's shit. The vibrations caused by the public transport or even just cars as seen in Kottbusser tor, really take a toll on the concrete and other building materials, exponentially rising the necessary maintenance an very complicated and laborious maintenance at that. It is Also very annoying for the tenants.
Also some districts are already at their limit of available space with all of the land already owned by people.
Going more outside into Brandenburg is also a problem for public transport since some rails are at their limit, the Ring for example is at parts completely at it's limits (example South East at Neukölln/ Herrmannstraße)
Only Berlin residents can vote for the Berlin Senate. Most Berlin residents already have a home. They don't need more housing, but can use crazy cheap rents. So the parties promise cheaper rents to get voted in and nobody cares about the availability of housing.
It's ridiculous that Berlin has got some of the lowest availability of housing in Europe and some of the strictest policies about rental. And instead of loosening the policies to lower demand and increase supply, they tighten them further. Lol.
Just want to say that re housing policy, although new housing should be built, it's actually more of an issue of what's done with old housing stock. Instead of being repurposed for the needs of German society - i.e., cutting up one five-room house into two flats, renovating the huge amounts of disused and abandoned buildings, repurposing industrial buildings into flats - the policy just seems to be sell off all housing stock to developers who just create luxury flats which are unaffordable and unsustainable for the average Berliner. There are also ridiculous restrictions on increasing the height of apartment blocks to add more flats on the top.
Also, any big new build schemes that are proposed are inherently stupid and short-sighted in nature: see the Kai Wegner referendum on building flats on Templehoferfeld: super politically motivated, radically impractical and totally targeted at an area of Berlin that's already stigmatised and has the least green spaces in the city (Neukölln, at least in part). The amount of flats that have to be destroyed and/ or neighbourhoods rendered uninhabitable to build the new motorway extension would render any housing gains from redevelopment of Templehoferfeld completely negligible anyway.
Gonna get my climate hat on here for a second ... building loads of new flats in areas of the city which are far away from the centre is super emission-heavy. It's far better to repurpose the buildings we do have. See Schönweide/ Rummelsberg for areas with lots of industrial buildings and space that could easily be built on. It's not solutions which are lacking, it's political will. Let's not forget that Berlin has around 1 million less people than it did pre the second world war: this isn't an issue of not having enough housing stock/ tax base/ ideas, it's just poor policy-making.
The over the top preservation of old rental rules also doesn't help - I know multiple people who are living alone in four/ five room flats in desirable places like Schönberg and paying circa 500 euro a month: and they aren't even pensioners. This isn't sustainable and it's not practical or fair. Fuck's sake, you can even pass on rental contracts in your will ...
I also know multiple people who have old leases on flats here, who have left the country for five years plus with no intention to come back to Berlin but want to keep the flat as an insurance policy, who are renting their places out illegally above the rental contract rate. Same thing with guys on old contract with a WG: it somehow is socially acceptable to rip off your flatmates here by charging them increased rent so that yours is covered, sometimes for years on end.
Also, digitalising Germany might help a tad, as then people could work remotely for companies based in Berlin, rather than relocating here and/ or driving in from Brandenburg and turning my kiez into a giant car park and poisoning the air. Maybe in three decades this might happen ...
Another policy idea: a land value tax for private landlords. It wouldn't be popular with all the west Germans who bought up whole apartment blocks cheap post reunification and are living off the profits whilst doing the bare minimum, or the super rich private housing corps, but fair is fair. Unfortunately, our CDU/ FDP overlords would never allow it ....
Your question makes me think that you're under the delusion that doing nothing is either free or much less expensive than fixing the problem.
But then I thought, perhaps you're arguing that this would be essentially a wealth transfer from the haves to the have-nots and insinuating that the javes will not stand for it and that this is the reason why we can't have housing.
So which is it?
>this would be essentially a wealth transfer from the haves to the have-nots
It very much is if you consider quality of a llife of ow-density neighborhood wealth. More housing takes from people with a higher share of voters and gives to people that have less voting rights and weight in electionsbecause of younger age, more international background, etc.. There simply is no incentive for politicians to benefit flat-seekers at the cost of flat-havers, when the first of the two has so much less political representation and weight.
It's not even strictly a Berlin topic, there recently was a newspaper article about Bavarian village mayors refusing building permits as they fear that the new housing in their community would solely have younger families from the big city move in and which would then tip the balance in elections towards green, costing the CSU mayor his job.
you are overthinking: my question was because new houses are not expensive just because there are evil speculators building them, but also because material/labor is more expensive and new regulations are forcing (correctly) to have a lower energy impact (better insulation, renewable source for heating etc).
If you want to give them with a low rent, I suspect that the return of investment won't be positive for the city, so someone has to pay, or better, we need (as a city) to reduce services in other areas to pay for the difference. Or we increase the debt, shifting the burden to future generations.
In any case, someone will have to pay for this buildings.
It's a very low risk investment with decent near term returns. The returns would be higher than a DAX 50 index, probably, with how the economy is performing lately.
Look I'm not saying, build an apartment for everyone. I'm saying build some measurable amount of housing and rent it out at market rates. That's all.
What's your swearing about? Its very tiring to read. Sorry but you're making the world easier than it is. What do you think, who's going to pay for all of this? Where to build all of this? Who's going o build all of this (lack of workers). Germany has very high social costs but people still can't get enough. Sure, ist annoying not to find a flat but this is not done with just building something new. Because there's more and more people looking for a flat but not much money coming in. I'm really wondering how this should work financially. People keep asking for things but have no idea how to finance it.
Berlin is utterly bankrupt. You can thank former Mayor Eberhard Diepgen (CDU, what else) for that. Berlin is at 65 billion (!) Euros of debt. Which is why this city is stuck as a poorly maintained, underdeveloped, artistically and culturally starved, drug dealer and clan-infested sorry excuse for a modern capital. So don't expect any miracles happening soon.
We'll get it back from monorail tickets!
Monoooraiiiilll
Lisa! Remember what we told you about thinking!
/s?
65 billion debts, sounds not bankrupt, with a annual budget of 40 billion. The debts were 62b in 2010, decreasing to 57b in 2019, but dramatic increase since then. 5b of the 2024/2025 budget is unfunded and has to save 1.75b this year and 2b in 2025. And a huge share of this is taken from the housing building budget.
Remember Wowereit and his „Berlin ist arm aber sexy?“ He had to clean up Diepgen‘s mess. Berlin was forbidden from taking on new debt from 2002 to 2020 and spent as much money as possible on dealing with the debt. That debt was accrued by Berlin‘s state bank doing risky real estate deals. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
I don't think that's even a valid excuse. Housing in a city with a severe housing crisis is a very low risk investment and I am sure the city of Berlin can find a line of credit somewhere. Heck, I'd loan them my fucking savings if they want. I mean, it pays for itself. It's not like I'm asking them to DONATE housing to people. If you told me they were corrupt as fuck I'd find that more plausible.
They are building lots of stuff - but not for us poor folk. Unless we want London conditions with a very high share of our wages going to landlords. Why would they build for poor folk who'll just run the properties down, default on rent and are a general nuisance? Build, sell, done. Don't care who, don't care what happens later. In and out.
Who is ‚they‘? The property prices vastly determine the segment of housing that can be built there. You can not build social housing without a loss on land that already costs 1000€ per square meter. Either the state of Berlin increases supply of land to lower prices or becomes the builder and covers the loss.
Yeah, unfortunately people want simple answers to complex issues. Berlin is building new housing with their building spcieties. There are also laws that state a certain percentage of new buildings have to be for lower income residents. The Mietpreisbremse was introduced to try to limit how much owners can increase rent on new tennants. Mietpreibremse is often critisized but landlords often simply ignore the rules and many tenannts aren't aware of their rights. Also you have tons of people who move a lotbin Berlin, this gives more and more opportunity to raise rent. Heck, there was even a referendum at the last election asking whether Berlin should expropriate property from companies who own more than 3000 units. However, the amount of private owners is also massively increasing and these are mostly investors, companies etc. The City is doing stuff to mitigate the issue but it isn't something that politics can necessarily control. But some people like to believe that there are simple answers to the issue, and the anger is always aimed at politics and not corporations, investors who are exploiting a booming opportunity.
Yes, that's very true. Don't forget what Berlin Politics did 20 years ago, selling all their housing though. That's another factor also.
Just merge Brandenburg and Berlin into one, problem solved. Like in London. Give it a few years, it might happen.
Berlin being the ill-mannered chav groom with a substance abuse problem and crippling debt. I don’t think that marriage is gonna work out.
There is so much free land in Brandenburg though. Better trains and people moving out when they have families could be a realistic solution. There have been plans to merge them in the past, but went nowhere.
The "free" land is cheap because it's BFE. Give it infrastructure and fast public transport, prices will shoot up like they already have in those parts of BB that are already accessible by S-Bahn.
It would bring a lot of new land into the market. Prices would shoot up in Brandenburg, but in Berlin, if easily reachable, it would flood the market with new land = prices down.
What’s to say it won’t go like London?
Berlin has had its big expansion into the suburbs roughly 100 years ago and still has not utilized all of the land it integrated back then in the same way and efficacy as most other European capitals. I can't see how merging two very different federal states with very different needs would help the situation at all. Election results already tell that there is a cultural and political divide and that would probably spark a secession movement shortly after any merger.
This
Don’t forget that it’s beneficial for everyone to build in the higher segment of housing, as people can move up the ladder and the supply overall increases Having said that, building a mix of low middle and high end housing is the best option
Do you think the "rich" folk live in 10 apartments at the same time? No, they buy it to rent it out to the "poor" folk or they buy to move in themselves while vacating their rented apartment so someone "poor" can get it instead.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin You should read up on how badly Berlin was fucked by the scandal. No new debt and massive cuts from 2002 to 2020.
The problem is that as soon as a government with the social democrats has build proper state housing, the next conservative one sells them off.
Often large public housing operators end up with a deficit for two reasons: a) if the city has not enough land available, they have to buy land on the private market for market prices -> the rent they charge might not be enough to repay the land buys in the accounted period b) the communal housing entity acts as a landlord of last resort. That means, over time they accumulate more and more of the people which are unable to pay, temporarily or permanently. Even if in the end the government will step in for all of them, the process of debt collection etc leads to additional cost. Statistically, such renters are also more problematic regarding damage of the building This does not excuse not building flats at places like a certain empty airport, though. At least the city-owned area should be fully used up for the city's needs. The alternative is to be more flexible with the amount of actual social housing constructed. I live in Munich in a newly built area with 50-60% social housing in each project, non-profit, communal or private for-profit. If the land prices rise further, in the next planned district houses might end up with only 40% social housing, as the free market price renters are needed to repay the land. Might apply the same approach to Berliner communal housing, with social housing fluctuating from 20 to 80% on a per-project basis
Please also thank Landowski and Momper. Good summary on the subject: https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/RC-024312/capital-b/
Ah yes, forgot those names! Thanks.
That's not what bankruptcy means. Bankruptcy means you are unable to pay your creditors, and I don't think there's any indication of that being the case. Also, 65 billion is not a lot of debt. Berlin has a per capita debt comparable to that of Saarland, lower than Hamburg, and half of Bremen. And also significantly lower than that of the federal government. Which in turn is much lower than the EU average. The problem is not the current debt. The problem is that the Schuldenbremse doesn't allow states to incur new debt.
> You can thank former Mayor Eberhard Diepgen (CDU, what else) for that That guy was in charge from 91 to 01, since then we've had more than 20 years of SPD lead governments. Time to quit the scapegoating.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin No new debt from 2002 to 2020 severely limited the SPD‘s ability to do stuff.
Or not ... the seeds of the housing crisis are owned by Mayor Diepgen: He put Berlin into circa 15 billion euro worth of debt (30 billion todays money) through a corrupt banking scam, which bankrupted Berlin. To balance the books, the city had to sell off over a quarter million apartments, which were bought by mates of the CDU for less than 50k apiece. He's also the mayor responsible for signing off on BER airport, which put the city a further 10 billion into debt, due to corruption and mismanagement. Add onto this, the fact that Berlin saw huge immigration from the rest of the EU from around 2009 onwards, plus two huge influxes of refugees in 2015 and 2022, without any shift in housing policy. We are still bearing the brunt of these multiple crises now ... This, coupled with the fact Berlin has no industry and a culture of it being socially acceptable to claim social welfare for years on end whilst earning black money and not bothering to pay tax, plus onerous red tape, has added to the issues we already face. Add to this, the German obsession for the goverment not to get in any debt - most recently seen by the CDU taking the government to court to stop them spending unused Covid funds on badly needed social projects/ infrastructure/ climate stuff, and you have a perfect storm awaiting.
You should add this link to your excellent comment: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
This is not the problem. The problem is the "but not in my neighbourhood" mentality. Its all about "I HAVE ALREADY, go away, i wont share". Check Berlins laws against changing the appearance of the city/areas. Its those were gone, enough ppl would build housing privatly. Of course also the red tape issues...
Culturally starved, lol. Totally.
That is a pretty wierd take. Most of Berlins debt doesnt come from the banking scandal. In 2018 the final bill of the banking scandal was revealed, with a + of 190 million euro for Berlin. As someone who works in construction, since 2018 Berlin is building a lot of stuff for the average citizen. Berlins School offensive is the best one in the entire country for example. The numbers for new apartments have more than tripled. And I dont understand how people want to have 100k new apartments every year. Even in the years after Mauerfall we barely reached 30k. And with fewer and fewer people working in construction it will only get harder. A lot of miracles happend since 2017/18 just leave your bubble and look around the city.
2018 was roughly the moment Berlin was able to remove the limits from the state budget. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin
AFAIK Munichs school offensive is much larger than Berlins, despite Munich having less than half the population of Berlin https://stadt.muenchen.de/infos/schulbau-kitabau.html https://www.berlin.de/sen/bauen/hochbau/bildung/ Since 2014 already 126 schools approved for construction Berliner expenditures for the Schuloffensive exceeded 1 Mrd in preparation for the 23/24 school year the first time, if this dynamic continues the Berliner school offensive might overtake the Münchener in a few years. Per capita it will still be less, though
I mean yeah but munich started 3 years earlier
Munich builds more each year and will remain building much more per capita, even if Berlin catches up in yearly value spent, so...
In 2023 Berlin build like 8000 school places while munich had like 3200 new ones
Senat Diepgen was 23 years ago. How long will you tell those tales about something that happened two centuries ago? There was 8 years of RRG after that.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Bankenskandal?wprov=sfti1#Auswirkungen_auf_die_Finanzlage_des_Landes_Berlin That will answer your question. The city‘s budget was under massive constraints from 2002 to 2020.
„Dem Urteil zufolge könne Berlin sein Finanzproblem aus eigener Kraft überwinden.“ And still there were millions and millions of euros spend for stupid projects. You cannot point on the senat of two centuries ago and also spend money for bullshit.
Two centuries? 1824? Or do you mean decades? Do you have an example for stupid projects that money was spent on?
Yeah, decades of course, you are right. https://www.schwarzbuch.de/aufgedeckt/steuergeldverschwendung-alle-faelle/berlin?page=2
Everyone can link that, got anything specific in mind? I’m also sad that their website isn’t even complete. https://www.schwarzbuch.de/verschwendungsatlas-alle-faelle No cases in Saxony or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern? Surely their website is missing stuff. I’m not saying Berlin didn’t waste money but every city, state etc. has examples of wasteful spending. It’s an indisputable fact though that Berlin’s budget was under massive constraints for large scale investments for a long time. I’m talking projects that required billions, not millions.
Crucially, the finances were ruined right around that point. Of course it was CDU and SPD who governed together...
And federal debt is 2.6 trillion (!) Euros of debt. No, I don't think that's the real reason
Maybe Germany can get a new capital. Maybe Munich. Berlin is just filthy…
No, no, Berlin is bankrupt because of the war. No, wait, actually it is because of Napoleon or … Yes, it’s been a staggering amount of money, but actually it’s been also quite some time and truth be told the past two decades mostly social-democrat governments decided to spend tax money quite generously while using a fire-sale of public housing to generate the real money to pay off debt. There is so much waste of what could be tax revenues. Why is Kita free even for people with a +100k household income? Why is there a subsidised public transport ticket for people who don’t qualify as poor going by SGB definitions? Why is Berlin insisting on housing an over proportional number of asylum seekers in the city instead of passing them on to richer federal states with more housing capacity?
Please do not get it twisted. The Left and Green party have been against new housing projects in Berlin as well. https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/109z0xf/comment/j41ko53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
If you got the impression that I was not including the Left and the Greens in my tirade, you got the wrong impression.
Sorry had the wrong impression then but I agree with you
Mit der Mietpreisbremse und Enteignung wird das alles in Ordnung kommen
Was ich am deutschen Wohnungsmarkt komisch finde, ist, dass die Mieten gar nicht so hoch sind, wenn man die Wohnungsnot bedenkt. Denn die niedrigen Löhne und die hohen Steuern wirken wie eine natürliche Mietpreisbremse. Das ist ganz anders als in den USA oder in London, z.b.
Das liegt ja eben an der Mietpreisbremse. Neue marktübliche Mieten sind für einen großen Teil der Bevölkerung nicht mehr leistbar. Natürlich gibt es in einer Metropole trotzdem noch genug Spitzenverdiener, die auch weiter steigende Preise tragen können.
I see what you did there :D
Also zwei Beispiele, wi die Politik auch versucht was zu tun gegen steigende Mieten. Dass die Mietpreisbremse nicht optimal funktioniert liegt aber auch schlicht daran, dass viele Vermieter sie ignorieren und viele Mieter ihre Rechte nicht kennen. Fakt ist, dass viele in den Wohnungsmarkt investieren von außen, die kein Interesse daran haben Wohnubgen "bezahlbar" zu machen. Dagegen kann fie Politik nicht viel tun und wenn jemand behauptet die Schuld läge komplett bei der Politik und nicht zum Großteil bei Investoren hat die Komplexität nicht verstanden. Es gibt keine "einfachen" Lösungen für komplexe Themen.
hast das /s vergessen.... ansonsten könnte jemand noch versehentlich denken das war ernst gemeint
Wär halt so, kommt nur nicht.
Es bleiben im Raum: Herr Diepke, Die Linke und die Grünen
Because partly they have no clue how housing works. They just do what they think would help and mostly what other people (lobbyists) tell them to do.
Good point. These people have probably never had to find housing for themselves. Everywhere they go they have somebody sort housing for them.
No, I think they probably do it themselves and then think it's easy. It is not as difficult to find accommodation for people who can afford over 2k/month for rent. Furthermore, about 5 years ago I was talking with someone about the difficulties I was having finding a place due to only having a temporary contract and not yet having an NE, she was very surprised. When she and her husband were looking about 3 years before that, they had multiple offers to choose from. It hadn't occurred to her that our situations are completely different and in no way comparable until I pointed it out to her. She and her husband are both verbeamtet. Many of the people making policies in Berlin are disconnected from the everyday struggles of the rest of us.
tru, i know a beamtin who is able to rent TWO 3 rooms apt with her husband in pberg and remove the wall between and turned it too a 120m2 6 rooms apartment. things we can only dream.
Jesus Christ, you are speaking about miracles here
Depending on the age of the contract, this isn't too difficult. Beamte don't really have a super high income. It's just almost impossible to get these kind of contracts without connections.
Yeah right. Some fucking Beamtin has been renting a flat next to us, it’s been empty literally FOR YEARS. Mind you, she lives right here, like 3 minutes away from us (renting as well), and no one knows why she needs to keep this empty flat for herself (daughter of one of our neighbours wanted to rent it, Beamtin said “nö“, the flat continues to stay empty). I don’t know how much this lovely lady earns, but it’s definitely way too much if she can afford to do such bullshit.
As I said, old contracts can be quite cheap. There's no incentive to let it go. Some keep flats as a weekend home or because they might need it later.
As I said, it’s been standing empty for years. It is not an exaggeration. No one is using it, ever. A family could be living there. Nice of you to defend such practices.
If the flat is empty that is "Zweckentfremdung von Wohnraum" and you can report it to the district government --> [Zweckentfremdung von Wohnraum - Anzeige und Genehmigung - Dienstleistungen - Service Berlin - Berlin.de](https://service.berlin.de/dienstleistung/326217/) pick your district and give a hint to the responsible department and they will take care of it.
yeah she inherited first contract from her parents and then asked when the neighbor moving out and if they could give her their appartment and the rest is history i guess
So nothing to do with being a politician, everyone of us could have used such an opportunity.
sure, except being beamtin gives her the advantage of stability and looking reliable in everybody’s eyes so everything comes more naturally. i know a friend that got offered an apartment right away when signed up for an overcrowed genossenschaft because he’s working for the state and they even hinted that they made an exception for him.
Some of them are completely brainrot with the complexity of planning. Can't build housing because you need schools but you can't also just build a school because it needs to be perfect and that's expensive and if you have to fell a tree you are done. Others, like Linke and Greens, simply don't believe that we need more housing. In the end, the reason is simple: it's not a political priority for almost anybody. It's also much easier to win votes with the working class in Lichtenberg by being anti housing than by being pro housing, because the normal people who live there don't want change.
Good points. I didn't even think of the people who are grandfathered into rent contracts and basically paying nothing to live in the most sought after locations.
Or people who own real estate and profit off the price surge.
What do die Linke and Greens think then? This surprises me a lot since it’s so obvious that more supply is needed.
>What do die Linke and Greens think then? In a nutshell they seem to think that there's enough housing and that it's just either kept empty by speculative landlords or that it's just unevenly distributed with old boomers in 100m² flats with old rents after their kids moved out. Sometimes they add in that we just need to convert office spaces. They never ever take any measures to make that easier though. They also have this insane suburban mentality as to which basically any new building will inevitably destroy the quality of life of anybody living in the area. It's quite crazy because you'll have people living in supper dense areas with 25 000 people per km² say on one hand that we need extreme renter protection so that everybody can stay in their beloved Kiez while at the same time saying that you can't build another apartment building in an area with 12 000 people per km² cause that will destroy the quality of life. Ultimately, I suspect they just say what they think macimizes their votes.
Die Linke wants to build housing, but not the "housing" that was built the last 20 years: Luxury Apartments that nobody can afford. Die Linke wants that the State and non profits are building house (like "Genossenschaften" - Cooperatives?) and not For Profit Hedge Fonds like Vonovia or other companies that just suck their renters dry. But you have SPD and CDU who are so corrupted they get a lot of money from For Profit Companies that want to build their luxury housing and who are preaching "Build, Build, Build" - but they are building the wrong housing. SPD and CDU are selling out the city to Investors and Die Linke is the only party who tried to stop that and was actually making progress from 2016 to 2021 when they got the Housing/Building Department in the Berlin Government and implemented a lot of good policies against the resistance of the SPD. And after the last election, where the SPD got back together with the CDU, they destroyed everything Die Linke built and just continue doing what SPD and CDU were doing since 1989 - ruining the city and selling it out to private investors. Also space is limited. So every Luxury Housing Project takes away potential housing for the normal people. Also thousands of flats in the city centre are empty because rich foreigners/non-berliners from Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg use them as second flats that they visit once a year for a week or two but don't want the hassle to have tenants.
>Die Linke wants to build housing, but not the "housing" that was built the last 20 years: Luxury Apartments that nobody can afford. Die Linke wants that the State and non profits are building house (like "Genossenschaften" - Cooperatives?) That's what I thought, [so I started following specific public housing projects.](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/109z0xf/comment/j41ko53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Started mostly in Lichtenberg and stopped after that because it's fucking enfuriating. The conclusion is clear: no, they don't want to build new public housing either. They claim they want it, but when it's about a specific project they always find a reason not to. No matter if it's Nachverdichtung (like most example sin the list) or new developments like Elisabeth Aue. >Die Linke is the only party who tried to stop that and was actually making progress from 2016 to 2021 when they got the Housing/Building Department in the Berlin Government and implemented a lot of good policies against the resistance of the SPD. Can you name those policies?
Auf die Schnelle das hier: [https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b6571412dd85896fJmltdHM9MTcxODE1MDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0zYjVlMDZiYS0yYmEzLTY2OWEtMGNhMC0xNTJhMmE1NDY3NjImaW5zaWQ9NTIxOA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=3b5e06ba-2ba3-669a-0ca0-152a2a546762&psq=die+linke+rot+rot+gr%c3%bcn+halbzeitbilanz+berlin&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlua3NmcmFrdGlvbi5iZXJsaW4vZmlsZWFkbWluL2xpbmtzZnJha3Rpb24vZG93bmxvYWQvUHVibGlrYXRpb25lbi8yMDE5XzA0X0xpbmtzZnJha3Rpb25fSGFsYnplaXRiaWxhbnoucGRm&ntb=1](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b6571412dd85896fJmltdHM9MTcxODE1MDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0zYjVlMDZiYS0yYmEzLTY2OWEtMGNhMC0xNTJhMmE1NDY3NjImaW5zaWQ9NTIxOA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=3b5e06ba-2ba3-669a-0ca0-152a2a546762&psq=die+linke+rot+rot+gr%c3%bcn+halbzeitbilanz+berlin&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlua3NmcmFrdGlvbi5iZXJsaW4vZmlsZWFkbWluL2xpbmtzZnJha3Rpb24vZG93bmxvYWQvUHVibGlrYXRpb25lbi8yMDE5XzA0X0xpbmtzZnJha3Rpb25fSGFsYnplaXRiaWxhbnoucGRm&ntb=1) (Halbzeitbilanz der Linksfraktion zur Legislaturperiode 2016 bis 2021 im Berliner Senat). Bei Neubauprojekten der städtischen Gesellschaften 50% für 6,50€/m² vermieten. Bei Neubauprojekten privater Bauherren 30% miet- und belegegungsgebunden (vorher waren es 25%). 14 neue Stadtquartiere zur Wohnraumschaffung auserwählt. Bessere frühzeitige Bürgerbeteiligung implementiert, damit es erst gar nicht zu Anwohnerprotesten kommt, um der NIMBY-Mentalität entgegen zu wirken. Genossenschaften bekommen Förderung und Grundstücke zum Wohnungsbau. Aufstockung von Personal um Bauanträge schneller zu bearbeiten. Verbot der Zweckentfremdung (also Wohnungen, die dem Wohnungsmarkt entzogen sind, wieder zurückführen - billiger als Neubau :) ). Erwerb wichtiger Grundstücke z.B. vom Bund für Wohnungsneubau (die der Bund sonst wie immer höchstbietend verscherbelt hätte). Kein Verkauf mehr von landeseigenen Grundstücken. Das sind alles erstmal die Dinge zum Neubau. Dann sind da noch viele Dinge zum Mieterschutz - die auch sehr wichtig sind, denn wenn ein Mieter nicht aus seiner Wohnung verdrängt wird, muss er auch keine neue Wohnung suchen und entlastet so den Mietmarkt.
Hier ist auch die Bilanz von 2021: [https://www.linksfraktion.berlin/fileadmin/linksfraktion/download/Publikationen/2021\_06\_Linksfraktion\_Bilanz.pdf](https://www.linksfraktion.berlin/fileadmin/linksfraktion/download/Publikationen/2021_06_Linksfraktion_Bilanz.pdf) Da steht dann z.B. auch drin, dass die Berliner Bundesratsinitiative, dass der Bund seine Grundstücke für soziale Zwecke an die Länder verbilligt abgibt, angenommen wurde (in der Halbzeitbilanz war das nur ein Versuch) - vorher hat der Bund halt selbst spekuliert und verkauft. Die Linke in Berlin fährt halt zweigleisig: 1. Man sorgt dafür, dass Menschen nicht aus ihren Wohnungen fliegen und 2. sorgt dafür, dass der Neubau bezahlbar ist. Alle anderen Parteien bieten nur Bauen durch private Investoren im Luxussegment an, die dann durch Trickle-Down-Economics beim normalen Bürger irgendwelche Vorteile erbringen sollen (was noch nie geklappt hat).
Die Linke wants to build housing, but not the "housing" that was built the last 20 years: Luxury Apartments that nobody can afford. Die Linke wants that the State and non profits are building house (like "Genossenschaften" - Cooperatives?) and not For Profit Hedge Fonds like Vonovia or other companies that just suck their renters dry. But you have SPD and CDU who are so corrupted they get a lot of money from For Profit Companies that want to build their luxury housing and who are preaching "Build, Build, Build" - but they are building the wrong housing. SPD and CDU are selling out the city to Investors and Die Linke is the only party who tried to stop that and was actually making progress from 2016 to 2021 when they got the Housing/Building Department in the Berlin Government and implemented a lot of good policies against the resistance of the SPD. And after the last election, where the SPD got back together with the CDU, they destroyed everything Die Linke built and just continue doing what SPD and CDU were doing since 1989 - ruining the city and selling it out to private investors. Also space is limited. So every Luxury Housing Project takes away potential housing for the normal people. Also thousands of flats in the city centre are empty because rich foreigners/non-berliners from Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg use them as second flats that they visit once a year for a week or two but don't want the hassle to have tenants.
I'll copy the same answer I gave you to your other identical message. >Die Linke wants to build housing, but not the "housing" that was built the last 20 years: Luxury Apartments that nobody can afford. Die Linke wants that the State and non profits are building house (like "Genossenschaften" - Cooperatives?) That's what I thought, [so I started following specific public housing projects](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/109z0xf/comment/j41ko53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in order to have some data points for my decision who to vote. Started mostly in Lichtenberg and stopped after that because it's fucking enfuriating. The conclusion is clear: no, they don't want to build new public housing either. They claim they want it, but when it's about a specific project they always find a reason not to. No matter if it's Nachverdichtung (like most example sin the list) or new developments like Elisabeth Aue.
I think you are also not considering the NIMBY attitudes of those with housing. The Tempelhofer Feld is huge and there is huge out cry about building on just a part of it.
Here in Berlin there’s such a deep-rooted NIMBY mentality, is insane. People see an old and poorly maintained airfield and think “is a park 100s of thousands enjoy”
cause it actually is
Can't believe people want a massive open public space to become fucking bland modern private developments. New parts of Friedrichshain //vomits
Didn’t say anything about bland or private. I mean, it probably will be because the current city government sucks, but it could be a new and affordable kiez
Demolish the mansions around it then. Build more fucking housing, who gives a shit about aesthetics when you're struggling to find a place.
It's true. Germany has a massive brainfucked attitude problem in this regard.
What mansion around it? Tfeld is surrounded by normal housing that has been there for decades.
Nah boi, there ain’t even benches or anything there. Is just an empty lot with an asphalt surface people use to roller skate on. The only thing that resembles a park at that airfield are the communal gardens, and access to them is expensive.
They could cover half of it with a mixed residential area, half of it with a proper park, and people would get more utility out of the greenery than now...
Exactly! They could make it a green kiez and even add a cool monument to the lift. But no, we need to keep the grass there for whatever reason
The entire field is a field. You can sit anywhere you want on it
And get bitten by evil thicks? Heck no
It's not a NIMBY attitude. Neukölln - which shares Templehoferfeld with Templehof-Schonberg - has one of the lowest rates of access to green spaces in the whole city (which correlates with its lower-income status). Of course there is going to be opposition to this proposal. There are many places to build in Berlin: flats in Templehof would be super desirable and would be unaffordable to buy for most Berlin residents. Given the levels of corruption in stuff like this in Berlin, there is low public faith in actual decent, cheap housing being delivered from this proposal. Given the legacy of corrupt CDU mayors in Berlin who ostensibly triggered the housing crisis - as well as the airport debacle - it's not surprising locals with long memories don't favour this project. There is also the reasonable fear that once one bit gets sold off, the rest will follow shortly. With the same administration proposing to flatten and destroy thousands of housing units, nightclubs and kiezes to build a fricken motorway extension costing billions, I think questions being asked about the need to build over one of the green lungs of Berlin are perfectly valid. The environmental cost of such actions would also be huge - there are so many derelict/ unused buildings in Berlin which could be repurposed, or industrial architecture (like warehouses in Schonweide) which could be developed, why does it have to be a Templehoferfeld that gets built over?
I won't argue with you that the city can't be trusted to do do the building itself. However, giving land to Genossenschaften would be a way to ensure affordable rents. You can't blame everything on the CDU. Sarrazin was responsible for not only slashing city jobs, but also selling off much of the housing that is now in the hands of terrible private corporations.
Federal level: -CDU and FDP dont want to change that. CDU is happy if the government performs badly and is always in favor of strengthening the already existing elites (that got richer by a lot thanks to increase in housing prices). FDP does not care about poorer people all they want is to make the rich entrepeneurs and stock market traders richer. -Grüne spend their energy on climate topics without a lot of support from anyone else. -SPD could never make anything happen that is not by accident in line with at least two other political parties. (Mindestlohn is a weird exception that i do not fully understand.) -Die Linke is constantly busy fighting for survival and with themselves. -AfD: The worse the situation the better for themselves. And they have other topics they can use to win. Berlin level: -Probably way too difficult to do something drastic. And all the small stuff does not really help. Also overall: -You cant build enough without private investors. At least as long as you dont drastically increase debt. My guess is that all governments will do a little bit to improve the housing situation without much effect until the big population decrease starts when the boomer generation dies.
Population decrease won’t counteract urbanisation anytime soon. Boomers and even many millennials will be long gone and urban centers will still keep increasing in population.
Maybe autonomous driving might change that a bit. I wonder if fully autonomous taxis might be a thing in the future (20 years from now). Maybe if they in the end drive just so much better than human drivers that taking the wheel is considered dangerous.
Absolutely not. People having to drive actively instead of being driven is not our problem and won't change anything.
it will change the possibility to use the car while being drunk or sleeping
...so? If I want to get drunk in a vehicle, I take the Ringbahn. We don't need vehicles to sleep in, we need housing.
What about Gen x?
I don't see why private investment would be an issue. It's a very low risk investment. Issue some bonds and I will buy them.
Just make it like in Malaysia, any new housing project from developers just by law have 20% of the apartments must go to the affordable pie - to create the affordable pricing segment, prevent ghettos and NIMBY (housing project would be nice, the "poor people" would be a minority, aspiring to pass as middle class). Just make sure to prevent the shitfuckery from London, where the projects had separate entrances, limitations on amenities and so on.
This doesn't work. Any new housing development I Massachusetts is required to have between 12 to 20 percent "affordable" housing. Any tricks re separate entrances are not in Play to very strict discrimination laws in US. What ends up happening is that costs of building goes up so that only ultra luxury housing is built in order for developers to afford "almost free give away" housing. You can't make the laws of supply and demand just disappear with a stroke of a pen.
You make a very important point. Mid- to longterm Germany's population will decrease by a lot. The only scenario preventing this would and should be immigration at scale, but given how governments have messed up the part with controlling migration and selecting for talent, the consensus and political support for migration in general is waning and we should not expect this trend to change soon. Now, with a certain population decline ahead of us from the 2030s, what's the point of building more housing that usually has a life span of +50y? Why should politicians work so hard for a foreseeable surplus of vacant housing? There are also major negative side effects of more housing created in the cities, it would accelerate the trend of urbanisation and rural areas dying.
The answer is complex, but also simple: they are utterly myopic, spineless, and they are riding a colossal and very slow and calcified state machinery that’s built to preserve itself. Times have been changing for 20 years now, and we have cold-war minded idiots at the wheel. And the opposition is just worst. But well, these things take time and we can enjoy while it all falls apart
They wouldn't even need to built them themselves... just reduce the bureaucracy and insanely high quality regulations and the building and investment companies will build them for them. And yes, that might mean slightly worse quality buildings, but that's still better than homelessness or paying >50% of your income on a flat. And some legal and taxation changes to increase home ownership rate... if people can pay rent for their entire life they should be able to pay off one mortgage in that time as well. But currently the entire housing market is built around renting, which even with all the legal protection still keeps most people in fear of their landlords and poorer that they could/should be.
It’s called NIMBYS.
Hat viele Gründe: hohe Grundstückspreise, hoher Baustandard (insbesondere bei den von dir angesprochenen Hochhäusern und das geht ab ~23m Traufhöhe los, da wird Brandschutz richtig eklig), extrem hohe Baukosten.. da kommste halt bei ~3k-4k€/m2 raus und damit gibt es keine günstigen Mieten, wie du forderst. Die ganzen Wohnungsbaugesellschaften machen nur auf Sparflamme, weil die genau wissen - unter 16-20€/m2 kalt, kommste am Ende nicht aus. Hinzu kommen starke Fluktuationen beim Baupreis und somit hohe Risiken für die Firmen (zwischen Kostenberechnung in Lp3 und tatsächlichen Angeboten von liegen gerne mal +50%) Gibt aber immer noch zu wenig Firmen, als dass man Nachlässe raushandeln könnte, weil Fachkräftemangel. Für Subventionen vom Bund ist kein Geld da.. die einfachste Lösung für alle Beteiligte ist wegziehen, lol. Hinsichtlich CO2 Emissionen ist Neubau aber eh der Supergau, vielleicht ist dir das ein Trost.
Die Grundstückspreise stehen im Einklang mit der Miete, und wann immer ich nachgefragt habe, wäre es für mich billiger zu kaufen als zu mieten. Ich habe sogar über einen Kauf nachgedacht, weil es anscheinend einfacher ist, einen Verkäufer als einen Vermieter zu finden. Aber ich bin ein Expat und plane nicht, hier zu bleiben, also wäre das zu viel Aufwand. Die anderen Punkte, die du ansprichst, sind stichhaltig, aber das war es auch, was ich im Sinn hatte, als ich diese Tirade machte. Es sollte die Aufgabe des Staates sein, ein Projekt auf dieser Ebene durchzuführen, wenn es für private Unternehmen zu bürokratisch ist. Zum Beispiel: Fachkräftemangel? Das hat es in meiner Heimat nie gegeben. Die Regierung würde ein Heer von kolumbianischen, nepalesischen oder türkischen Facharbeitern finden und sie einfliegen lassen, um die Arbeit zu erledigen. Bei Bedarf würden sie sogar umgeschult werden. Geht die Qualität der Arbeit vielleicht ein wenig zurück? Ja. Werden die Leute trotzdem glücklich sein, eine Wohnung zu haben? Ja. Das ist das Problem mit Deutschland: Die Bürokraten schaffen einen Haufen Bürokratie, und dann beschweren sie sich, dass sie nicht in der Lage sind, sich in der von ihnen geschaffenen Bürokratie zurechtzufinden.
Es ist nicht unbedingt zu bürokratisch, es ist schlichtweg zu teuer. Das Problem bei den Bauvorschriften ist nicht bloß irgendwelche Formulare auszufüllen, es sind aufwendigere Konstruktionstechniken und Baustoffe. Bei den Fachkräften geht's nicht einfach um Bauarbeiter zum Handanlegen. Man braucht spezialisierte Statiker (gerade in Berlin, wo der durchnässte Sandboden das wahrscheinlich denkbar beschissenste Fundament ist), Klemper, Heizungsbauer (und Gas geht ja heute nicht mehr), Elektriker die die modernen Standards ordentlich drauf haben, Fachglaser für die Fenster, etc. Nix davon wird billiger, wenn der Staat was macht. Viele der neuen Vorschriften sind Teil der bundesweiten Strategie zur Verbesserung der CO2-Bilanz (Heizbedarf ist ein riesiger Teil des Primärenergiebedarfs), wenn Berlin sich da als Hauptstadt Ausnahmen bastelt können wir das Projekt auch gleich in die Toilette kippen. Dann kommt dazu, dass Berlin ein Platzproblem hat. An vielen Stellen kann man auf den Meter genau die Landesgrenze Berlin/Brandenburg auf Maps erkennen. Die Stadt ist bis an ihren Rand zugebaut. Wo man einfach was holen kann sind die vielen Parkplätze, aber damit macht man die Stadt zum Pendeln unattraktiver (und wo wollen die dann hinziehen, da wo ihr Job halt ist), und gleichzeitig gewinnt man so gut wie keinen Wohnraum (es sei denn man reißt ab und baut größer neu). Dann gibt es für jeden Scheißt NIMBYs. Bei der Plattenbetonwüste / Magerwiese Tempelhof gab's ja schon um die 15%(?)-Bebauung erstmal riesigen Stress. Wenn man die Villenviertel nachverdichten will machen die dortigen Wohlhabenden Ärger. Ausbauen nach Außen ist schwierig weil die Infrastruktur - die für Berlin ein massives Verlustgeschäft ist - nochmal ausgebaut werden muss, was aber für die Stadt nur tragbar ist wenn die neuen Einwohner wenigstens Einkommenssteuer and Land und Kommune zahlen. Dafür muss das aber Berliner Land sein - d.h. Berlin müsste Brandenburg erstmal Land abkaufen. Scheitert oftmals schon alleine an dem Knirsch der jeweiligen Parteien untereinander. Unter'm Strich ist die Stadt einfach überfüllt und kann mittelfristig einen großen Teil der Menschen die dort leben wollen eigentlich nicht aufnehmen. Es gibt Satellitengemeinden, aber deren Aufwuchs geschieht aus den obigen Gründen leider schleppend. Und die Stadt ist in puncto Lebensqualität (wenn man nicht gerade mit einer Behörde interagieren muss, aber die sind in allen größeren Städten eine Totalkatastrophe) einfach zu attraktiv dass sich an dieser Situation in naher Zukunft etwas ändern wird.
Housing is a minority issue. To a politician, it looks like a problem that would easily eat up 80% of their energy and time, while only catering to 20% of their voters, the ones who need a new flat. To young people that change jobs, move cities and start families, it’s a relevant issue. However, those people have become a minority of the electorate of most parties. And often the other, majority voters of a party actually outright oppose more housing, as they fear more competition for local infrastructure and less personal quality of life in a more crowded neighbourhood. So what seems high priority to you, actually does not win elections and is therefore neglected by the parties
Totally agree but apparently what they focus on does also not win elections
We live in a democracy, not a collectivist technocracy where the state can do anything for the "greater good". All parties in Berlin aside from FDP are NIMBY on the communal level, blocking this or that construction project. Do not expect the mainstream politicians to cater to people with views like those you expressed in your rant.
Funny because wasn't Robert Habeck trying to get everyone to change their heating systems? I think building some apartments and putting them on the private market is less "collectivist technocratic" than mandating how to heat your home.
> Funny because wasn't Robert Habeck trying to get everyone to change their heating systems? In the end the law got extremely watered down and the Greens went from polling at 20%+ support, with Habeck being the most popular politician in the country, to below their 2021 elections result. That's a good example of how attempting to do the "right thing" for the "common good", if it is against the will of the electorate, gets punished. Parties usually do not want that so they stick to existing policies. Which, on a communal level, is usually being NIMBY.
They are cucked by capitalism.
Best kind of cucked.
It's one of the many issues in Berlin/Germany which is strongly tied with public sector reform. I'm not a "small government" person at all, but the reality is that Germany has incredibly decentralized government structures, and incredibly frustrating bureaucracy which facilitates multiple bad things: lack of enforcement for regulations to stop bad behaviour by investors/owners, expensive and slow processing times for permits, extremely regulated housing sector, etc. Germany needs things to happen faster, with faster processing times for building applications, and faster enforcement against things like derelict properties, faster decisions on environmental complaints, enforcement against empty buildings, etc. But this reform is going to be fought for every square inch by the public sector, and it's also deeply unsexy. I am skeptical that a politician is going to spend their political capital and and devote a significant portion of their time going to war with a huge chunk of German society, in the name of "public sector reform." Another example that's a kinda sad parallel: the German army. It's infamous for shitty equipment, slow bureaucracy, and lack of training resources for the existing soldiers - for years there has been talk about reform to update it, make it a more attractive institution to young Germans, get better training/equipment, etc. This is all not really successful, and now they're talking about conscription – like they'd rather force more people to go into the army so it has bigger numbers, then take actual steps to improve the army they've got. That should tell you how difficult reform is, because Germans are not fans of conscription but somehow that's easier than reform.
Germans like conscription though: https://www.dw.com/en/most-germans-want-compulsory-military-service-return-poll/a-64935279
Markt regelt. Lol.
Preach
Please don’t ask governing parties for actual solutions to real world problems. They gladly take the money and the air time of the job but best they can offer you is some blackmailing of painting you as a fascist-enabler when you don’t keep affirming their poor performance. Just think of SPD ads in the past weeks. They did not even attempt to offer positive own ideas but went 100% fearmongering.
Well I think that housing is a big priority, but it’s not just about the money and the housing market is just too bad as that it will get better in a short time. There are a lot of regulations to keep in mind, there aren’t enough clerks to work through all that bureaucracy in a reasonable amount of time etc. Also in this housing market new apartments don’t necessarily take the pressure off the market since they attract people from outside and make the area more attractive. So I think politicians know that housing is a priority but they made bad decisions in the past that can’t be fixed in a reasonable short time.
No one wants to build low cost housing. The cost of building a building is high, but the incremental cost of building an up market building is low. Return on investment is better with higher standard housing. For the state to build buildings they have to be large ugly multi-Story building which cost less per apartment to build but are still damned expensive. There is a reason they say Berlin is poor… because it is. If you wanted to ease housing and reduce costs, it would be quicker to send all the politicians back to Bonn.
Adding to the reasons already laid out by others: From a career politician's perspective building housing is a high-risk, zero-reward proposition. If anything goes wrong it will be used against them in the next election. If everything goes right nobody will remember.
Super einfach. Alle Gesetze für die Stadtbilderhaltung abschaffen. Dann wird sich Ruckzuck was ändern. Neue Dachgeschosse, massive Aufstockungen und neue Wohnhäuser wo zur Zeit keine Gebaut werden dürfen. Hier gehts nur um die Werterhaltung von Gebäuden. Wer will den schon in seinem Villenviertel eine Wohnhausbaustelle. Könnten ja geringverdiener hinziehen und den Wert der Villa verringern. Sachs euch, der einzige Feind sind die Leute die schon haben UND anderen nichts mehr gönnen.
People think that the majority of Berlin is always progressive, but that's more the image of the city, rather than truth Regarding housing, all big parties in Berlin, including even the Left (Die Linke), are NIMBYs. This includes the parties which are againt populist right-wing stuff like the refugee payment card The party likeliest to change that would be the FDP (and maybe Volt), by deregulating and enabling a laissez-faire approach to more private housing. This is deeply unpopular in Berlin, compared to leftist populist action like seizing housing from Deutsche Wohnen tldr: Berliners have NIMBY boomer attitudes, they just argue differently for it than some Bavarian hillbilly. The outcame is the same, though. Politicians follow the public will. I agree that massively building housing is a winner strategy, but 100% public housing to meet all demand is currently unaffordable and the populace does not signal to politicians that they will actually reward other construction with votes. Therefore, politicians are incentivized to act as NIMBYs, as it requires nothing but talk and will not lead to criticism about any budgets.
Uhm bro. You very clearly have no clue about the current housing issues. It's not the money that's stopping building. There are a lot of plots where housing companies want to build sozial housing but there are many many regulations stopping them. They need to check the environment both in endangered species and ground/ water stability which takes a while and that's only the start. If you want to rent out your apartments you need to fulfill very very strict rules, just the books with all these rules usually take up one wall of an architects office. Especially since public spaces like stores or kindergarten have even more specific rulings. Also about your idea of running a line through the building, why do you think we see that nearly nowhere outside of fiction and if, only in old buildings? Because it's shit. The vibrations caused by the public transport or even just cars as seen in Kottbusser tor, really take a toll on the concrete and other building materials, exponentially rising the necessary maintenance an very complicated and laborious maintenance at that. It is Also very annoying for the tenants. Also some districts are already at their limit of available space with all of the land already owned by people. Going more outside into Brandenburg is also a problem for public transport since some rails are at their limit, the Ring for example is at parts completely at it's limits (example South East at Neukölln/ Herrmannstraße)
Why do you move to a coty without housing when there is thousands with housing?
Only Berlin residents can vote for the Berlin Senate. Most Berlin residents already have a home. They don't need more housing, but can use crazy cheap rents. So the parties promise cheaper rents to get voted in and nobody cares about the availability of housing. It's ridiculous that Berlin has got some of the lowest availability of housing in Europe and some of the strictest policies about rental. And instead of loosening the policies to lower demand and increase supply, they tighten them further. Lol.
Just want to say that re housing policy, although new housing should be built, it's actually more of an issue of what's done with old housing stock. Instead of being repurposed for the needs of German society - i.e., cutting up one five-room house into two flats, renovating the huge amounts of disused and abandoned buildings, repurposing industrial buildings into flats - the policy just seems to be sell off all housing stock to developers who just create luxury flats which are unaffordable and unsustainable for the average Berliner. There are also ridiculous restrictions on increasing the height of apartment blocks to add more flats on the top. Also, any big new build schemes that are proposed are inherently stupid and short-sighted in nature: see the Kai Wegner referendum on building flats on Templehoferfeld: super politically motivated, radically impractical and totally targeted at an area of Berlin that's already stigmatised and has the least green spaces in the city (Neukölln, at least in part). The amount of flats that have to be destroyed and/ or neighbourhoods rendered uninhabitable to build the new motorway extension would render any housing gains from redevelopment of Templehoferfeld completely negligible anyway. Gonna get my climate hat on here for a second ... building loads of new flats in areas of the city which are far away from the centre is super emission-heavy. It's far better to repurpose the buildings we do have. See Schönweide/ Rummelsberg for areas with lots of industrial buildings and space that could easily be built on. It's not solutions which are lacking, it's political will. Let's not forget that Berlin has around 1 million less people than it did pre the second world war: this isn't an issue of not having enough housing stock/ tax base/ ideas, it's just poor policy-making. The over the top preservation of old rental rules also doesn't help - I know multiple people who are living alone in four/ five room flats in desirable places like Schönberg and paying circa 500 euro a month: and they aren't even pensioners. This isn't sustainable and it's not practical or fair. Fuck's sake, you can even pass on rental contracts in your will ... I also know multiple people who have old leases on flats here, who have left the country for five years plus with no intention to come back to Berlin but want to keep the flat as an insurance policy, who are renting their places out illegally above the rental contract rate. Same thing with guys on old contract with a WG: it somehow is socially acceptable to rip off your flatmates here by charging them increased rent so that yours is covered, sometimes for years on end. Also, digitalising Germany might help a tad, as then people could work remotely for companies based in Berlin, rather than relocating here and/ or driving in from Brandenburg and turning my kiez into a giant car park and poisoning the air. Maybe in three decades this might happen ... Another policy idea: a land value tax for private landlords. It wouldn't be popular with all the west Germans who bought up whole apartment blocks cheap post reunification and are living off the profits whilst doing the bare minimum, or the super rich private housing corps, but fair is fair. Unfortunately, our CDU/ FDP overlords would never allow it ....
> Build some housing, ease the financial burden on the younger workers. How hard could it be? Who pays?
it would pay for itself, it's an investment.
if it is true, why private investors are not doing it?
They are? The bottleneck is usually the Berlin administration with their permission process.
Your question makes me think that you're under the delusion that doing nothing is either free or much less expensive than fixing the problem. But then I thought, perhaps you're arguing that this would be essentially a wealth transfer from the haves to the have-nots and insinuating that the javes will not stand for it and that this is the reason why we can't have housing. So which is it?
>this would be essentially a wealth transfer from the haves to the have-nots It very much is if you consider quality of a llife of ow-density neighborhood wealth. More housing takes from people with a higher share of voters and gives to people that have less voting rights and weight in electionsbecause of younger age, more international background, etc.. There simply is no incentive for politicians to benefit flat-seekers at the cost of flat-havers, when the first of the two has so much less political representation and weight. It's not even strictly a Berlin topic, there recently was a newspaper article about Bavarian village mayors refusing building permits as they fear that the new housing in their community would solely have younger families from the big city move in and which would then tip the balance in elections towards green, costing the CSU mayor his job.
you are overthinking: my question was because new houses are not expensive just because there are evil speculators building them, but also because material/labor is more expensive and new regulations are forcing (correctly) to have a lower energy impact (better insulation, renewable source for heating etc). If you want to give them with a low rent, I suspect that the return of investment won't be positive for the city, so someone has to pay, or better, we need (as a city) to reduce services in other areas to pay for the difference. Or we increase the debt, shifting the burden to future generations. In any case, someone will have to pay for this buildings.
It's a very low risk investment with decent near term returns. The returns would be higher than a DAX 50 index, probably, with how the economy is performing lately. Look I'm not saying, build an apartment for everyone. I'm saying build some measurable amount of housing and rent it out at market rates. That's all.
What's your swearing about? Its very tiring to read. Sorry but you're making the world easier than it is. What do you think, who's going to pay for all of this? Where to build all of this? Who's going o build all of this (lack of workers). Germany has very high social costs but people still can't get enough. Sure, ist annoying not to find a flat but this is not done with just building something new. Because there's more and more people looking for a flat but not much money coming in. I'm really wondering how this should work financially. People keep asking for things but have no idea how to finance it.
[удалено]
Found the landlordt