7 ms·

Instead of buying what they sold two decades ago for practically nothing, they should have built more supply. Open Google Maps and check Kreuzberg, a district

Instead of buying what they sold two decades ago for practically nothing, they should have built more supply. Open Google Maps and check Kreuzberg, a district of Berlin. South of it is Tempelhofer Feld, 355 hectares (a third of Kreuzberg), a discontinued airport next to the city only used for people to bike and do barbecues. It's an old airport so it looks bland and there are smaller parks right next to it offering the space to do barbecues and play with your dog. It's been a decade that this airport is not being used yet it's still in that state. Paris' housing crisis is mostly due to the road surrounding it (le Périph') but Berlin doest not have that yet housing is getting more expensive extremely fast, faster than in Paris actually.

nicbou 5y ago
Tempelhofer Feld is a green space where people can meet, exercise, and enjoy their free time without being expected to spend money. Berlin's green spaces is one of its strongest assets. Don't let that city turn into a concrete hell. I'd much rather see Kleingarten disappear than public spaces.
- notanzaiiswear 5y ago
  They wanted to build just on a small stripe on the side of it, it is not as if they would have to fill the whole place with houses. But even that was shot down via "Volksentscheid".
  - probably_wrong 5y ago
    I think the referendum against building in Tempelhof saw right through the project and understood what its end goal would have been: it would have created apartments that those being priced out of Berlin wouldn't have been able to afford. The losses would be socialized (namely, the park) while the benefits would go to the wealthy. For those unfamiliar with the situation I found this article [1] which, biased as it is, I think accurately reflects the opinion of the common Berliner at the time. If the plan had proposed 100% social housing, I bet the story would have been different. [1] https://www.exberliner.com/features/opinion/everyone-is-lying-to-you-about-tempelhofer-feld/ https://www.exberliner.com/features/opinion/everyone-is-lyin...
    - skohan 5y ago
      Honestly one of the things I like most about living in Berlin is the fact that local politics manage to represent the public good effectively. I'm a well paid tech worker, so I would be fine either way, but I'm happy that my neighbours who are hairdressers or hand workers can also enjoy a good quality of life here. I would hate for it to become a playground for the rich like London or Manhattan.
    - notanzaiiswear 5y ago
      But that is nonsense - apartments are apartments, even if wealthy move into those apartments, it would free the apartments they previously lived in. Also, it would be money for the city. Also it is not just social cases who have problems with high rents in Berlin. You suggest the majority of people in Berlin want only more social housing, implying most of them are social cases themselves?
      - probably_wrong 5y ago
        I think most Berliners would read your comments as "it is a good thing that we give a part of our public park to the rich because they'll give us their less-desirable apartments in return. Like trickle-down economics, but for apartments". And if the current situation is any indication, those rich people will keep their old apartment and rent it, or sell it to foreign investors. Either way, say goodbye to ever owning a place in the city where you grew up. As for the second part: Berliners feel that the city should belong to those that lived there when no one wanted to, and recognize that those people are probably not rich. Kicking the hairdresser that lived there for 40 years to make room for the tech bro is not generally seen as a positive development. Social housing would ensure that the city remains in the hands of its citizens.
        notanzaiiswear 5y ago
        So most Berliners know nothing about economics? The park would not be "given to the rich", presumably the parts open for building would have been sold to "the rich", with the money benefitting every Berlin citizen (ideally - but we know our government her is composed of very good people, right?). Also what does it matter if the "rich" rent out their old apartment? What is needed is supply of apartments. Per supply and demand, more supply means lower prices. Do the people expect to live in luxury apartments for little money? And it is very touching that nobody wanted to live here 40 years ago and the people held on. But then they could have bought their living places for very little money. Also the whole place was subsidized by the USA as a stand against the Soviet Union. The people staying benefitted a lot. There already is a construct for the place where you live belonging to you: it is called "buying your own place to live". If you choose to rent instead, you signal that you don't necessarily want to stay forever.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  How is that anything other than NIMBYISM?
  - skohan 5y ago
    There's plenty of development which could happen in Berlin without touching Tempelhof. From my perspective, the worst use of land in berlin is the Schrebergarten[1]. These are little free standing "houses" with a garden which some families own and spend time in during the summer. I live close to a canal on the south-east side of Berlin, within the ring, and there are several patches of these within 10 minutes biking from my apartment. This is very well-located land, and from what I can tell it goes completely unused 6-9 months per year, and at best sporadically during the summer months. I understand that this is very traditional in Germany, but the idea that some of the most desirable land in Berlin is being used for some families to use a handful of weekends per year is just crazy. At least Tempelhof is public and serving hundreds or thousands of people every day. [1]: https://www.dw.com/en/a-brief-guide-to-german-garden-colonies/a-39133787 https://www.dw.com/en/a-brief-guide-to-german-garden-colonie...
  - nicbou 5y ago
    I'd rather they build in my backyard than on Tempelhof. I live far from it, close to a lot more green space. We should keep Tempelhof because I consider access to such green spaces a necessity, even for city dwellers.
- mmarq 5y ago
  Tempelhofer Feld is for the most part an abandoned field, if half of it were used to build housing a problem would be solved and no damage would be done. The issue there is the usual weird coalition between landlords that don’t want more residents (if they live there) or more competition (if they rent their flat) and the fringe of the green/left that is worried about urbanisation, gentrification economic activity.
  - ratww 5y ago
    It's not abandoned. I was there earlier and it was full of people having fun and exercising. People need the space. It's not fair to force a whole city to live their lives entirely in 25m2 apartments, if more apartments are built, there's a chance more will go to speculators. I, and a large portion of Berlin, would rather force speculators out.
    - mmarq 5y ago
      It doesn’t have to be speculators, whatever that’s supposed to mean, it could be social housing built and managed by the city council. And, of course, “half of it” was a hyperbole.
      - ratww 5y ago
        My issue with it is that it won't help with the problem at hand. Sure, it might help tip the scale of rent prices, but lack of units or even rents are not the issue in Berlin. Sure, it's way more expensive than before, but rents are still payable. The issue is that it's very difficult for individuals to acquire housing units. My apartment costs about 1500x its monthly rent to acquire (€400 vs €600k min). Which means it's now a lousy investment for people wanting to live in it (since they won't be saving any money unless live to be 150 years old), and for people wanting to buy a small number of properties to rent (same deal). Since real estate is traditionally kind of a "future insurance", for old people not to have to rely on pension to live, it also makes the future a lot grim and uncertain for people who'll have to rely on public pension for a place to live. Getting more units in the market will only make things worse for those people: rent prices will make it impossible for them to own, and won't make sense for them to own to rent. Individuals not being able to acquire apartments also has the side effects of things like crazy rental terms (not difficult to see the best apartments with limit of 6 months rental) or even empty units because they're used for commercial renting only. Across the street from me there's a 50-unit condo that's fully empty. I know that because I used to live there and for a while I was the only tenant. It costs about €2000 a month vs my €400. I don't know what's the endgame of speculators. Maybe they're waiting to own everything so that they can jack up the prices? Maybe they're merely taking opportunity of the low interest rates to pay for those things in 100 years? Is that investment companies buying it to force people into private pension? I don't know. I just know that the issue is a lot darker and I don't see "the market" solving it by itself without creating even more problems. I know this is a very sensitive matter to some people but I just don't see "the market" doing anything positive if left by itself. EDIT: As user probably_wrong put below, "the losses would be socialized (namely, the park) while the benefits would go to the wealthy."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
littlecranky67 5y ago
You could just as well argue NYC should start to use Central Park for new housing...
- ArmandGrillet 5y ago
  Manhattan's population density is already 17 times higher than the one in Berlin so no, I wouldn't suggest that.
  - biggerfisch 5y ago
    Berlin is also super unevenly populated and includes several forests. If you compare the density of the actually populated areas, like Mitte, you are still under Manhattan, sure, but only by a factor of 4 - which is extra impressive given the near complete lack of tall buildings in Berlin. Neukölln (which borders the area in question) is even more dense - about half as much as Manhattan [1]. Its unfair to compare Manhattan which apart from Central Park is nearly 100% urban to Berlin, which is significantly larger and includes many areas with widely distanced houses and forests. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitte_(locality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitte_(locality) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuk%C3%B6lln_(locality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuk%C3%B6lln_(locality)
  - aqme28 5y ago
    That doesn't make sense. If it's 17x less dense in Berlin, then it sounds like there's still a lot of room to build that doesn't involve taking away the parks.
    - luckylion 5y ago
      A lot of the available space is woodland and on the outskirts of Berlin. People want to live in the center, not further out (they already can do that, once you cross over into Brandenburg in the north, the competition for flats is much lower), that's why such a giant piece of land in a sought-after location would be a great idea for development, while some even larger piece of land out in the middle of nowhere where nobody wants to live isn't.
abliefern 5y ago
> Instead of buying what they sold two decades ago for practically nothing, they should have built more supply. "Instead"? It's not an either-or choice.
mejutoco 5y ago
Berlin is not a very dense city, maybe because of the backyards (almost every block has a backyard for trash containers and bikes, maybe an elevator) in most blocks and the green spaces. In the last years I have seen also a lot of floors being added (to the last floor) of buildings that allow it, to gain one more floor. Your comment about periphery made me think of something. Berlin is surrounded by Brandenburg, which is even less dense. So Berlin has space to expand, unlike other cities (like Barcelona, much denser). In my mind the solution would be to build affordable housing in Brandenburg (there is space there) and on the edge of Berlin.
- nicbou 5y ago
  Berlin does not have space to expand, precisely because it's surrounded by Brandenburg. It has been a problem for years.
  - mejutoco 5y ago
    Berlin and Brandenburg were not always separate and they might not stay separate (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Brandenburg https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Brandenburg), but that is semantics. Brandenburg is a very low density area (85/sqm) surrounding Berlin (4227/sqm). It might be a problem politically but the space is there. Other cities are surrounded by areas of similar density, and cannot expand. Brandenburg has a lot of space (enough for a gigafactory) :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Berlin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Berlin
ben_w 5y ago
While I’m sure there’s something better that can be done with the Tempelhofer Feld site than currently (even trees in the grass between the runways would make it better, IMO), the large number of green spaces — including Tempelhofer Feld itself — is one of the things I like about Berlin. Separately, given the large mostly empty expanse of Brandenburg surrounding Berlin (and the really low house prices I see there on immobilienscout24), I think improved transport connections are more critical: improving connections to the surrounding area makes the surrounding area more available for commuting. For example, there are routes from Eberswalde or Frankfurt an der Oder to parts of Berlin which are faster than reaching those parts of Berlin from elsewhere in Berlin, so improving existing routes would enable lots of the existing room outside the current city to become more city. I have no idea what the political issues with this might be, not just with “would people like this?” (I can’t even determine that effectively in my original country) but also with “can this even be done, given Berlin is a different state?” (I have yet to learn anything beyond the most superficial about German politics).

nicbou 5y ago

Tempelhofer Feld is a green space where people can meet, exercise, and enjoy their free time without being expected to spend money. Berlin's green spaces is one of its strongest assets. Don't let that city turn into a concrete hell. I'd much rather see Kleingarten disappear than public spaces.

notanzaiiswear 5y ago
They wanted to build just on a small stripe on the side of it, it is not as if they would have to fill the whole place with houses. But even that was shot down via "Volksentscheid".
- probably_wrong 5y ago
  I think the referendum against building in Tempelhof saw right through the project and understood what its end goal would have been: it would have created apartments that those being priced out of Berlin wouldn't have been able to afford. The losses would be socialized (namely, the park) while the benefits would go to the wealthy. For those unfamiliar with the situation I found this article [1] which, biased as it is, I think accurately reflects the opinion of the common Berliner at the time. If the plan had proposed 100% social housing, I bet the story would have been different. [1] https://www.exberliner.com/features/opinion/everyone-is-lying-to-you-about-tempelhofer-feld/ https://www.exberliner.com/features/opinion/everyone-is-lyin...
  - skohan 5y ago
    Honestly one of the things I like most about living in Berlin is the fact that local politics manage to represent the public good effectively. I'm a well paid tech worker, so I would be fine either way, but I'm happy that my neighbours who are hairdressers or hand workers can also enjoy a good quality of life here. I would hate for it to become a playground for the rich like London or Manhattan.
  - notanzaiiswear 5y ago
    But that is nonsense - apartments are apartments, even if wealthy move into those apartments, it would free the apartments they previously lived in. Also, it would be money for the city. Also it is not just social cases who have problems with high rents in Berlin. You suggest the majority of people in Berlin want only more social housing, implying most of them are social cases themselves?
    - probably_wrong 5y ago
      I think most Berliners would read your comments as "it is a good thing that we give a part of our public park to the rich because they'll give us their less-desirable apartments in return. Like trickle-down economics, but for apartments". And if the current situation is any indication, those rich people will keep their old apartment and rent it, or sell it to foreign investors. Either way, say goodbye to ever owning a place in the city where you grew up. As for the second part: Berliners feel that the city should belong to those that lived there when no one wanted to, and recognize that those people are probably not rich. Kicking the hairdresser that lived there for 40 years to make room for the tech bro is not generally seen as a positive development. Social housing would ensure that the city remains in the hands of its citizens.
      - notanzaiiswear 5y ago
        So most Berliners know nothing about economics? The park would not be "given to the rich", presumably the parts open for building would have been sold to "the rich", with the money benefitting every Berlin citizen (ideally - but we know our government her is composed of very good people, right?). Also what does it matter if the "rich" rent out their old apartment? What is needed is supply of apartments. Per supply and demand, more supply means lower prices. Do the people expect to live in luxury apartments for little money? And it is very touching that nobody wanted to live here 40 years ago and the people held on. But then they could have bought their living places for very little money. Also the whole place was subsidized by the USA as a stand against the Soviet Union. The people staying benefitted a lot. There already is a construct for the place where you live belonging to you: it is called "buying your own place to live". If you choose to rent instead, you signal that you don't necessarily want to stay forever.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
How is that anything other than NIMBYISM?
- skohan 5y ago
  There's plenty of development which could happen in Berlin without touching Tempelhof. From my perspective, the worst use of land in berlin is the Schrebergarten[1]. These are little free standing "houses" with a garden which some families own and spend time in during the summer. I live close to a canal on the south-east side of Berlin, within the ring, and there are several patches of these within 10 minutes biking from my apartment. This is very well-located land, and from what I can tell it goes completely unused 6-9 months per year, and at best sporadically during the summer months. I understand that this is very traditional in Germany, but the idea that some of the most desirable land in Berlin is being used for some families to use a handful of weekends per year is just crazy. At least Tempelhof is public and serving hundreds or thousands of people every day. [1]: https://www.dw.com/en/a-brief-guide-to-german-garden-colonies/a-39133787 https://www.dw.com/en/a-brief-guide-to-german-garden-colonie...
- nicbou 5y ago
  I'd rather they build in my backyard than on Tempelhof. I live far from it, close to a lot more green space. We should keep Tempelhof because I consider access to such green spaces a necessity, even for city dwellers.
mmarq 5y ago
Tempelhofer Feld is for the most part an abandoned field, if half of it were used to build housing a problem would be solved and no damage would be done. The issue there is the usual weird coalition between landlords that don’t want more residents (if they live there) or more competition (if they rent their flat) and the fringe of the green/left that is worried about urbanisation, gentrification economic activity.
- ratww 5y ago
  It's not abandoned. I was there earlier and it was full of people having fun and exercising. People need the space. It's not fair to force a whole city to live their lives entirely in 25m2 apartments, if more apartments are built, there's a chance more will go to speculators. I, and a large portion of Berlin, would rather force speculators out.
  - mmarq 5y ago
    It doesn’t have to be speculators, whatever that’s supposed to mean, it could be social housing built and managed by the city council. And, of course, “half of it” was a hyperbole.
    - ratww 5y ago
      My issue with it is that it won't help with the problem at hand. Sure, it might help tip the scale of rent prices, but lack of units or even rents are not the issue in Berlin. Sure, it's way more expensive than before, but rents are still payable. The issue is that it's very difficult for individuals to acquire housing units. My apartment costs about 1500x its monthly rent to acquire (€400 vs €600k min). Which means it's now a lousy investment for people wanting to live in it (since they won't be saving any money unless live to be 150 years old), and for people wanting to buy a small number of properties to rent (same deal). Since real estate is traditionally kind of a "future insurance", for old people not to have to rely on pension to live, it also makes the future a lot grim and uncertain for people who'll have to rely on public pension for a place to live. Getting more units in the market will only make things worse for those people: rent prices will make it impossible for them to own, and won't make sense for them to own to rent. Individuals not being able to acquire apartments also has the side effects of things like crazy rental terms (not difficult to see the best apartments with limit of 6 months rental) or even empty units because they're used for commercial renting only. Across the street from me there's a 50-unit condo that's fully empty. I know that because I used to live there and for a while I was the only tenant. It costs about €2000 a month vs my €400. I don't know what's the endgame of speculators. Maybe they're waiting to own everything so that they can jack up the prices? Maybe they're merely taking opportunity of the low interest rates to pay for those things in 100 years? Is that investment companies buying it to force people into private pension? I don't know. I just know that the issue is a lot darker and I don't see "the market" solving it by itself without creating even more problems. I know this is a very sensitive matter to some people but I just don't see "the market" doing anything positive if left by itself. EDIT: As user probably_wrong put below, "the losses would be socialized (namely, the park) while the benefits would go to the wealthy."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

littlecranky67 5y ago

You could just as well argue NYC should start to use Central Park for new housing...

ArmandGrillet 5y ago
Manhattan's population density is already 17 times higher than the one in Berlin so no, I wouldn't suggest that.
- biggerfisch 5y ago
  Berlin is also super unevenly populated and includes several forests. If you compare the density of the actually populated areas, like Mitte, you are still under Manhattan, sure, but only by a factor of 4 - which is extra impressive given the near complete lack of tall buildings in Berlin. Neukölln (which borders the area in question) is even more dense - about half as much as Manhattan [1]. Its unfair to compare Manhattan which apart from Central Park is nearly 100% urban to Berlin, which is significantly larger and includes many areas with widely distanced houses and forests. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitte_(locality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitte_(locality) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuk%C3%B6lln_(locality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuk%C3%B6lln_(locality)
- aqme28 5y ago
  That doesn't make sense. If it's 17x less dense in Berlin, then it sounds like there's still a lot of room to build that doesn't involve taking away the parks.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    A lot of the available space is woodland and on the outskirts of Berlin. People want to live in the center, not further out (they already can do that, once you cross over into Brandenburg in the north, the competition for flats is much lower), that's why such a giant piece of land in a sought-after location would be a great idea for development, while some even larger piece of land out in the middle of nowhere where nobody wants to live isn't.

abliefern 5y ago

> Instead of buying what they sold two decades ago for practically nothing, they should have built more supply. "Instead"? It's not an either-or choice.

mejutoco 5y ago

Berlin is not a very dense city, maybe because of the backyards (almost every block has a backyard for trash containers and bikes, maybe an elevator) in most blocks and the green spaces. In the last years I have seen also a lot of floors being added (to the last floor) of buildings that allow it, to gain one more floor. Your comment about periphery made me think of something. Berlin is surrounded by Brandenburg, which is even less dense. So Berlin has space to expand, unlike other cities (like Barcelona, much denser). In my mind the solution would be to build affordable housing in Brandenburg (there is space there) and on the edge of Berlin.

nicbou 5y ago
Berlin does not have space to expand, precisely because it's surrounded by Brandenburg. It has been a problem for years.
- mejutoco 5y ago
  Berlin and Brandenburg were not always separate and they might not stay separate (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Brandenburg https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Brandenburg), but that is semantics. Brandenburg is a very low density area (85/sqm) surrounding Berlin (4227/sqm). It might be a problem politically but the space is there. Other cities are surrounded by areas of similar density, and cannot expand. Brandenburg has a lot of space (enough for a gigafactory) :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Berlin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Berlin

ben_w 5y ago

While I’m sure there’s something better that can be done with the Tempelhofer Feld site than currently (even trees in the grass between the runways would make it better, IMO), the large number of green spaces — including Tempelhofer Feld itself — is one of the things I like about Berlin. Separately, given the large mostly empty expanse of Brandenburg surrounding Berlin (and the really low house prices I see there on immobilienscout24), I think improved transport connections are more critical: improving connections to the surrounding area makes the surrounding area more available for commuting. For example, there are routes from Eberswalde or Frankfurt an der Oder to parts of Berlin which are faster than reaching those parts of Berlin from elsewhere in Berlin, so improving existing routes would enable lots of the existing room outside the current city to become more city. I have no idea what the political issues with this might be, not just with “would people like this?” (I can’t even determine that effectively in my original country) but also with “can this even be done, given Berlin is a different state?” (I have yet to learn anything beyond the most superficial about German politics).