> After tenant outcry, the city also saved at least two apartment blocks in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg from being sold, using a legal tool known as the “right of first refusal,” which lets officials intervene if they can find funding for the purchase. In another case, the city recently stepped in and purchased a large disused freight station in the eastern district of Köpenick, which it plans to convert into affordable housing.
People like me, living in cities like Munich, Frankfurt or Hamburg, whose rents are much higher than Berlin's and whose taxes fund this, are always happy to help you, Berlin. Just tell us, when your airport is finished, (maybe in 10-20 years?) so we can take a look at what we paid for over there.
Berlin is complaining at very high level. If you want to talk about gentrification in Germany, Munich and Frankfurt are the cities to talk about. Berlin has a much easier situation, with much more open space. But when a developer comes along and wants to build skyscrapers on abandoned land, they also complain, because they want to keep their open spaces. The people over there complain about the Swabians, who want to live in these apartments, all that while being financed by the taxes of said people from Southern Germany.
I am all for liberal cities and unique culture, but Berlin does not seem to realize, that this is made possible, because Frankfurt, the exact opposite of Berlin, pays for it.
I think the question is: How big of a difference in living standard is acceptable in one Country.
Go to a public school in berlin, look at the toilets. Chances are very high they might be defect, stink and malfunctioning. I worked as a special eds teacher in Neukölln. We're supposed to train our students how to use the toilet. Half of the time the toilets in the first floor were broken. That means me had to stand in line for restrooms instead of doing some work. When the toilets got repaired after half a year the toilets in the basement broke down. Our students became very good at waiting in line.
Now i work in a school in the southwest of germany. If a toilet breaks down, chances are it will be repaired on the same day. If they need an external contractor in will take one day.
All of the students live in germany. Yet one get clean, functioning toilets, the others not.
(Fun fact: Berlin paid for my education, now Baden-Württenberg gets a university-trained teacher for free...)
Your taxes do not fund "this" exactly. It's not like Berlin govt will let people live in those places for free, just at an affordable price point. They can do this because they are not oriented towards maximum profit, unlike private investors. Bundesland Berlin being a landlord in all this might end up effectively slightly subsidizing some of the rents in some more expensive-to-acquire-and-maintain buildings but operate at a slight margin in other cheaper buildings. In the end, if they do it right (and I admit that's a big if) they should be operating close to break-even, probably with a small profit to build some reserves for unexpected future costs.
Instead of complaining that Berlin tries to do something (too much) against rent price hikes and gentrification, complain instead that "cities like Munich, Frankfurt or Hamburg" do not do enough to prevent rent price hikes.
I would love to see some actual numbers on this, but here is another perspective on this:
A) Students educated in Berlin are far more likely to move to other cities, since there are e.g. no jobs in production. How many engineers working at Daimler did study in Berlin (i.e. costing the city money, without contributing by paying taxes)?
B) A lot of large companies are currently opening offices in Berlin. They are gladly using the services of the city, as are their well-payed employees, effectively raising the rent. However, they will still pay taxes at their headquarters in a different city.
As I said, I have no numbers on this, but the situation is way to complex to just say that Berlin is wasting tax money. It certainly is - in a lot of areas - but so are others states.
Instead of being pissed that Berlin is trying to improve the situation and keep the city affordable for everybody, maybe we should start asking how we can achieve the same in other sought after locations as well.
Your last argument is exactly the same as Ive seen in other places in the world (rich areas pointing to the lazy bastards that dont want to work)
I understand it, but at the same time you cannot (and gladly) have all the cities shaped for maximizing profit in the capitalistic world.
Berlin is amazing (used to live there before) but its hard to have a decent job there...
Sometimes things cannot be quantified in numbers, and I think Berlin offers a lot to Germany, Europe and the World that goes beyond finance and cars.
And all the money and jobs you have there in Frankfurt and Munch is because rest of us in EU pay for it by buying cars and other crap. This kind of finger pointing is utterly counter-productive. Without Berlin and rest of europe "your" city is a poor dead starving wasteland and we don't go around debating whether Frankfurt can enact a policy because Polish farmers are feeding them are we?
What you're doing is essentially trying to move the conversation away from what Berliners think is important - keeping their quality of life.
I'm not sure why people always bring up the tax redistribution. We speak about small volumes. It's about 10 billion from the states plus 10 billion from the federal government. Berlin get's roughly a third of that. We are talking about a few percent of the states' budgets. The amount of money changing hands is by no means enough to pay for major developments let alone an airport. It's certainly less than the (hard to quantify) advantage of having the market of 12 out of 16 states receiving money in your nation.
I don't see a feasible way of changing Berlin's economic situation drastically, given it's a landlocked city state in a unique historical situation. Berlin will for the foreseeable future always be on the receiving end of redistribution.
You're forgetting that the avg income in most major German cities that are not Berlin is higher than there. Living costs in Berlin have gone up massively over the last few years, income however has not changed at all. Having worked as a freelancer for a time, there was a big difference in daily rates I could ask for. In Berlin, 300-350 Euros often were considered high already, where 400-450 was quite normal in the south.
I would greatly appreciate it, if the exporting of neo-liberal ideology and the resulting civil wars, could be limited to the capitalistic hellholes in other countrys.
One of the reasons there still exists some affordable housing in Munich is that the city builds housing itself and rents it out at affordable prices. While other cities sold their housing in the 90s/2000s - because privatization is king, free market loves you, and so on - Munich didn't do any of that, because we recognized that people which don't earn high wages are needed in a city, too. Housing market is still tough, but without any public housing it would be far worse.
Long story short: If Berlin acknowledges that a city cannot exist without affordable housing I'm all for it. There are far worse investments of tax money.
Berlin is a very large city. This article covers two districts, Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg, which are experiencing a boom that is starting to raise the rents from insanely dirt-cheap to something people outside Berlin would consider "normal".
As it turns out, those two districts also happen to be the most trendy in Berlin. There are many other districts in Berlin that are not affected. For example, I haven't heard much about a rent crisis in Wedding, Alt-Moabit, or any place outside of the Ring-bahn.
To put the "crisis" in Bay Area terms, it would be like if it were impossible to find a place to live in the Mission, even though you could still get a place in the Panhandle, and therefore there was an article about a rent crisis in San Francisco, ignoring every other district in the city.
From the article it sounds like Berlin has tried everything they can think of, aside from actually creating supply to match the demand...
In Berlin's case, is it a question of "wanting to keep the cities character", or is it more like the Swedish variant where it's "gotta keep the housing bubble growing"?
Berlin has supply, the limited resource are vintage buildings (pre-war or rebuilt in the same layout) and no market force can create more of them. The abundant 1970ies style developments will never see gentrification.
Berlin goes through--I would say--a normal gentrification process. Before 2010 Berlin hadn't have any significant industry and just few jobs. Since then companies, jobs, everything is sky-rocketing and rents get obviously much more expensive. But Berlin is still far below London or Paris. I think we haven't even reached the level of Eastern European capitals price-wise, such as Warsaw.
But the actual problem is that the city is super slow in building skyscrapers and rather tries to avoid them 'because they aren't Berlin's DNA'. Skyscrapers offer a much higher density and now is the time to really plan for a couple of them. They are just two new small skyscrapers planned for the next 5-10 years. But it's a very tedious process: everybody is fighting with each other, the city wants guarantees that the real estate funds build and operate schools and other public facilities in those districts, the funds don't want of course. Then there is the subway operator BVG which is kind of blackmailing the funds: They say that the skyscrapers are so heavy and they need money to stabilize the subway tunnels underneath. BTW, they do this with every bigger real estate project (recently with a huge mall).
In general, the city's council has a very good feeling about how to plan and build the city, they are really good compared to other cities. Infrastructure is great and you have many small city centers while Berlin-Mitte where the government resides is the busiest and most expensive one (no surprise). They are just lacking one important skill and this is managing large scale projects. Just an example: our new airport which was planned to open 2010 hasn't been opened yet. The new airport seems to be ready but doesn't get the approvals and it seems that it will never get the approvals and has to be shut down again (news from last week). Germany's general overregulation might also play in here. The city currently operates just two small airports.
However, they really need to plan proper skyscraper districts which seamlessly integrate with the rest of the city, complement Berlin's DNA and which should have also a good mix of business, leisure and living. So you don't face dead districts at night. The Potsdamer Platz which was created 20 years ago is an ok place which pairs all of those + two tiny skyscrapers.
Berlin is built on a swamp. It's the reason neighbourhoods with ongoing construction have streets lined with "large pink pipes" [1]. I would imagine this would make building skyscrapers difficult and was apparently one of the factors which condemned the famous Volkshalle to fiction[2].
The airport is a disaster. Are you sure it's fair to attribute the delays to regulation? The problems seems to stem from bad design with the effect of being unable to put out fires [3]. It might not be accurate to call it "ready".
Sorry, but that makes no sense. Skyscrapers are a stopgap measure that shortly lowers prices, which only serves to get more people into town if demand stays the same (and creating more demand: everyone needs a hairdresser, a school, a supermarket). In that way, it only increases people density, which is the main fuel of gentrification.
Point in case: Look at the cities with the highest skyscraper density (New York, Tokio, ...) - are they the cheapest cities or the most expensive? Heck, even Frankfurt (nicknamed Mainhattan for its skyline) is more expensive than Berlin.
On top, infrastructure can't keep up with the vertical stacking of people, so you grind to a halt in public transport and on the streets.
Berlin gets it totally right. Prices will increase either way and lead to a nash equilibrium. If I'd want to live in a concrete hellhole, I'd move somewhere else.
The only way left to fight gentrification is, I am afraid to say, something between massive civil disobedience and outright violence.
The alternative to fighting - chilling in our sofas and doing nothing - is waking up one day in a city without teachers, cleaning/water/sewer personnel, supermarket staff and, funny enough, police. I just picked these examples as these people are already living near or below poverty line after paying rent and are vital to a healthy city.
And: it's not just Berlin that suffers from gentrification, e.g. Hamburg and Munich are falling victim to it. We as people can no longer trust the state (or the police) to serve our interest - both serve the interests of the ultra-rich investors only. Just look at London what awaits societies which do not fight with any means neccessary.
>The only way left to fight gentrification is, I am afraid to say, something between massive civil disobedience and outright violence.
Or you could just move someplace cheaper instead of resorting to this stuff.
>The alternative to fighting - chilling in our sofas and doing nothing - is waking up one day in a city without teachers, cleaning/water/sewer personnel, supermarket staff and, funny enough, police
And why exactly is this a problem? Every time I ask it in a discussion like this, no one has an answer. So what if there's no retail workers, teachers, or police? Then the problem will naturally correct itself, no? A city will eventually collapse and fail without these services, and then the real estate prices will rapidly fall to affordable prices, allowing these people to return. Meanwhile, a bunch of rich landowners will lose their shirts, which is a good thing.
>We as people can no longer trust the state (or the police) to serve our interest - both serve the interests of the ultra-rich investors only.
You as people need to move out of these unaffordable places and go someplace more affordable. You're part of the problem. You demand space in this limited market, along with everyone else, and this drives up the prices. Supply and demand, economics 101. If all the middle and lower income people abandon one of these places, the prices will drop like a stone; who wants to live in a city with no police or firefighters or restaurants? Ultra-high prices work OK for small portions of a city, so that service workers can live within commutable distance, but if the ultra-high priced zone grows too large, commuting becomes impractical and something's gotta give. So if you're a line cook at a restaurant, you need to decide whether you want to work for $10/hour in some cheap CoL town, or work for $20/hour in some ultra-expensive place and commute for 3 hours each way. If the wages aren't high enough to entice people to commute, and businesses shut down, the problem will naturally correct itself.
Fighting gentrification is stupid. Cities with growing populations need new housing supply and the market will put resources (to build) where it meets consumer demand. Unjustifiable barriers to new housing supply will only make prices go up even faster, and for crappier quality housing, too.
When nearly a whole city fights against the investor kind of world view why do people argue that scaring investors away is a bad thing? It's obviously what the people want and DO achieve. You may not be one of them, but they seem to be extremely successful and should be respected for that.
Question: does there exist a place today that was like Berlin in the 1990s: civilized but still a bit uncharted, with a lot of opportunities for living thriftily?
I'd say Vilnius and Lithuania in general is a bit like that. Nobody seems to know much about the country other than basketball - as long as you don't mind smaller cities it's a nice place.
Although since the Euro was adopted two years ago prices have gone up, but wages have stayed the same. A basic flat somewhat close to the city centre would be at least €300/mo, and a good white collar wage maybe €1000/mo.
I suspect such places will always emerge? A while ago I saw a documentary about Bremen, where apparently large amounts of flats are empty and can be rented for 1€/month. Maybe cities like that could become new destinations for artists?
The situation of Berlin is of course quite unique because of the wall.
Also, maybe artists not only need cheap rents, but also wealthy patrons. I don't know.
Many people will say Leipzig, and it's true to a certain extent. Berlin is very unique in its tolerance. As you move eastward in Europe, that may not be the case.
Of course if you're white or really attractive, these are non-issues.
Berlin is a great example of what happens if you have bad laws and regulations hit reality. The renter is king in his or her property. Friends wanted to buy a flat but ypu can realistically only rent a flat that comes with an occupant so you need to wait until they leave until you can move into your own property.
Then this gets paired with attempts to regulate the increase of the rent and people rent for a bloody long time in a city where there is more demand than housing.
The effects this causes in reality then are bizarre. All you have to do is build more stuff and none if this was necessary.
Housing prices have soared in fashionable Berlin neighborhoods like Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg.
Ah, the New York Times. Yes, there is a borough (or district) called Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, but no one would think of calling it a "neighborhood" (it's split by a river; and not too long ago, the pieces that comprise it were on different sides of The Wall).
Large areas of the city did the opposite of gentrify already. So what do you want, of course people in those areas want to move to nicer ones.
Stop crapping the whole place up, the few pockets that are still nice are of course going to see higher rent prices. If you don't like gentrification there are plenty of cheap areas in the city for you to live.
This article smacks of an agenda. They want the whole city to be bad, it's not enough yet.
Have to wonder how much of this is occupant-driven vs how much is foreign speculation (like Chinese investment in the Canadian property market). That prices are getting so out-of-whack relative to local incomes in so many places suggests some sort of international aspect...
Would you please stop posting inflammatory political comments to HN? They're not what this site is for, and usually lead to flamewars. You evoked moderate responses from reasonable users in this case, but usually it's the opposite.
Are you under the impression that large-scale private housing developments are gentrification? In general we should expect that large-scale increases in housing supply would lower rents and prevent gentrification.
From a US perspective: The world is changing. The (American) ideal of a McMansion with a 2.5 kids and 3 cars is gone. People want to live in cities; in particular, tolerant, safe, cultured cities. Old timers in San Francisco (where I live) will blame the "tech boom" and "techies" for this phenomenon, but it's not limited to tech, and is not caused by tech. It's just the cycle we are in currently.
If there's a housing crisis in Germany, it's entirely the fault of politics.
There should be lots of investors in German housing construction projects, given Germany's comparatively low property quote, increasing urban population, and low general interest rates. What turns investors away is the asymetric legal situation unduely favouring the renter's over the owner's interests (I hear in Sweden it's even worse). That, plus excessive laws for energy efficiency that seem to be dictated by the construction industry to drive up initial and ongoing cost.
The SPD party's answer is new laws limiting rents (without also attempting to cut down on costs). They shure don't understand how to let the market work for you.
If I look around me, a significant percentage of people's income is already going into housing, healthcare and taxes.
The money that is left is used to buy some Ikea furniture, pacifiers^Wgadgets like phones and TVs and perhaps a vacation once a year.
In other words, just enough disposable income so that people don't revolt.
How can there be an efficient and actually free market for housing? At the very least, people should be allowed to build slums, otherwise they do not have any leverage to drive prices down by opting out of an overpriced market.
On the other hand that keeps the quality of life higher for people living in the cities. It's a balancing act between landlord profits and the promise of stability to the citizens.
Cities aren't only optimizing for profits of the investors (realtively few people), but also for making life in the city itself happy. And by responses of people moving to Berlin, they're doing something right.
[+] [-] allendoerfer|9 years ago|reply
People like me, living in cities like Munich, Frankfurt or Hamburg, whose rents are much higher than Berlin's and whose taxes fund this, are always happy to help you, Berlin. Just tell us, when your airport is finished, (maybe in 10-20 years?) so we can take a look at what we paid for over there.
Berlin is complaining at very high level. If you want to talk about gentrification in Germany, Munich and Frankfurt are the cities to talk about. Berlin has a much easier situation, with much more open space. But when a developer comes along and wants to build skyscrapers on abandoned land, they also complain, because they want to keep their open spaces. The people over there complain about the Swabians, who want to live in these apartments, all that while being financed by the taxes of said people from Southern Germany.
I am all for liberal cities and unique culture, but Berlin does not seem to realize, that this is made possible, because Frankfurt, the exact opposite of Berlin, pays for it.
[+] [-] jojoo|9 years ago|reply
Go to a public school in berlin, look at the toilets. Chances are very high they might be defect, stink and malfunctioning. I worked as a special eds teacher in Neukölln. We're supposed to train our students how to use the toilet. Half of the time the toilets in the first floor were broken. That means me had to stand in line for restrooms instead of doing some work. When the toilets got repaired after half a year the toilets in the basement broke down. Our students became very good at waiting in line.
Now i work in a school in the southwest of germany. If a toilet breaks down, chances are it will be repaired on the same day. If they need an external contractor in will take one day.
All of the students live in germany. Yet one get clean, functioning toilets, the others not.
(Fun fact: Berlin paid for my education, now Baden-Württenberg gets a university-trained teacher for free...)
[+] [-] rndgermandude|9 years ago|reply
Instead of complaining that Berlin tries to do something (too much) against rent price hikes and gentrification, complain instead that "cities like Munich, Frankfurt or Hamburg" do not do enough to prevent rent price hikes.
[+] [-] _gfrc|9 years ago|reply
A) Students educated in Berlin are far more likely to move to other cities, since there are e.g. no jobs in production. How many engineers working at Daimler did study in Berlin (i.e. costing the city money, without contributing by paying taxes)?
B) A lot of large companies are currently opening offices in Berlin. They are gladly using the services of the city, as are their well-payed employees, effectively raising the rent. However, they will still pay taxes at their headquarters in a different city.
As I said, I have no numbers on this, but the situation is way to complex to just say that Berlin is wasting tax money. It certainly is - in a lot of areas - but so are others states.
Instead of being pissed that Berlin is trying to improve the situation and keep the city affordable for everybody, maybe we should start asking how we can achieve the same in other sought after locations as well.
[+] [-] victornomad|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izacus|9 years ago|reply
What you're doing is essentially trying to move the conversation away from what Berliners think is important - keeping their quality of life.
[+] [-] germanier|9 years ago|reply
I don't see a feasible way of changing Berlin's economic situation drastically, given it's a landlocked city state in a unique historical situation. Berlin will for the foreseeable future always be on the receiving end of redistribution.
[+] [-] krautsourced|9 years ago|reply
See e.g. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/neue-studie-zu-einkommen-u... (German)
[+] [-] Pica_soO|9 years ago|reply
I gladly pay taxes here in bavaria for that.
[+] [-] sgift|9 years ago|reply
Long story short: If Berlin acknowledges that a city cannot exist without affordable housing I'm all for it. There are far worse investments of tax money.
[+] [-] eveningcoffee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aestetix|9 years ago|reply
As it turns out, those two districts also happen to be the most trendy in Berlin. There are many other districts in Berlin that are not affected. For example, I haven't heard much about a rent crisis in Wedding, Alt-Moabit, or any place outside of the Ring-bahn.
To put the "crisis" in Bay Area terms, it would be like if it were impossible to find a place to live in the Mission, even though you could still get a place in the Panhandle, and therefore there was an article about a rent crisis in San Francisco, ignoring every other district in the city.
[+] [-] pantalaimon|9 years ago|reply
http://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/berlinmieten/
[+] [-] kalleboo|9 years ago|reply
In Berlin's case, is it a question of "wanting to keep the cities character", or is it more like the Swedish variant where it's "gotta keep the housing bubble growing"?
[+] [-] usrusr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] igor_filippov|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blurrywh|9 years ago|reply
But the actual problem is that the city is super slow in building skyscrapers and rather tries to avoid them 'because they aren't Berlin's DNA'. Skyscrapers offer a much higher density and now is the time to really plan for a couple of them. They are just two new small skyscrapers planned for the next 5-10 years. But it's a very tedious process: everybody is fighting with each other, the city wants guarantees that the real estate funds build and operate schools and other public facilities in those districts, the funds don't want of course. Then there is the subway operator BVG which is kind of blackmailing the funds: They say that the skyscrapers are so heavy and they need money to stabilize the subway tunnels underneath. BTW, they do this with every bigger real estate project (recently with a huge mall).
In general, the city's council has a very good feeling about how to plan and build the city, they are really good compared to other cities. Infrastructure is great and you have many small city centers while Berlin-Mitte where the government resides is the busiest and most expensive one (no surprise). They are just lacking one important skill and this is managing large scale projects. Just an example: our new airport which was planned to open 2010 hasn't been opened yet. The new airport seems to be ready but doesn't get the approvals and it seems that it will never get the approvals and has to be shut down again (news from last week). Germany's general overregulation might also play in here. The city currently operates just two small airports.
However, they really need to plan proper skyscraper districts which seamlessly integrate with the rest of the city, complement Berlin's DNA and which should have also a good mix of business, leisure and living. So you don't face dead districts at night. The Potsdamer Platz which was created 20 years ago is an ok place which pairs all of those + two tiny skyscrapers.
[+] [-] brapse|9 years ago|reply
The airport is a disaster. Are you sure it's fair to attribute the delays to regulation? The problems seems to stem from bad design with the effect of being unable to put out fires [3]. It might not be accurate to call it "ready".
#1: https://viveberlin.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/011.jpg #2: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Volkshalle #3: https://www.thelocal.de/20160427/berlins-new-airport-may-nev...
[+] [-] smcl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endymi0n|9 years ago|reply
Point in case: Look at the cities with the highest skyscraper density (New York, Tokio, ...) - are they the cheapest cities or the most expensive? Heck, even Frankfurt (nicknamed Mainhattan for its skyline) is more expensive than Berlin.
On top, infrastructure can't keep up with the vertical stacking of people, so you grind to a halt in public transport and on the streets.
Berlin gets it totally right. Prices will increase either way and lead to a nash equilibrium. If I'd want to live in a concrete hellhole, I'd move somewhere else.
[+] [-] mschuster91|9 years ago|reply
The alternative to fighting - chilling in our sofas and doing nothing - is waking up one day in a city without teachers, cleaning/water/sewer personnel, supermarket staff and, funny enough, police. I just picked these examples as these people are already living near or below poverty line after paying rent and are vital to a healthy city.
And: it's not just Berlin that suffers from gentrification, e.g. Hamburg and Munich are falling victim to it. We as people can no longer trust the state (or the police) to serve our interest - both serve the interests of the ultra-rich investors only. Just look at London what awaits societies which do not fight with any means neccessary.
[+] [-] Arizhel|9 years ago|reply
Or you could just move someplace cheaper instead of resorting to this stuff.
>The alternative to fighting - chilling in our sofas and doing nothing - is waking up one day in a city without teachers, cleaning/water/sewer personnel, supermarket staff and, funny enough, police
And why exactly is this a problem? Every time I ask it in a discussion like this, no one has an answer. So what if there's no retail workers, teachers, or police? Then the problem will naturally correct itself, no? A city will eventually collapse and fail without these services, and then the real estate prices will rapidly fall to affordable prices, allowing these people to return. Meanwhile, a bunch of rich landowners will lose their shirts, which is a good thing.
>We as people can no longer trust the state (or the police) to serve our interest - both serve the interests of the ultra-rich investors only.
You as people need to move out of these unaffordable places and go someplace more affordable. You're part of the problem. You demand space in this limited market, along with everyone else, and this drives up the prices. Supply and demand, economics 101. If all the middle and lower income people abandon one of these places, the prices will drop like a stone; who wants to live in a city with no police or firefighters or restaurants? Ultra-high prices work OK for small portions of a city, so that service workers can live within commutable distance, but if the ultra-high priced zone grows too large, commuting becomes impractical and something's gotta give. So if you're a line cook at a restaurant, you need to decide whether you want to work for $10/hour in some cheap CoL town, or work for $20/hour in some ultra-expensive place and commute for 3 hours each way. If the wages aren't high enough to entice people to commute, and businesses shut down, the problem will naturally correct itself.
[+] [-] hungrygs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ptaipale|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] norswap|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snovv_crash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucaspiller|9 years ago|reply
Although since the Euro was adopted two years ago prices have gone up, but wages have stayed the same. A basic flat somewhat close to the city centre would be at least €300/mo, and a good white collar wage maybe €1000/mo.
[+] [-] anothercomment|9 years ago|reply
The situation of Berlin is of course quite unique because of the wall.
Also, maybe artists not only need cheap rents, but also wealthy patrons. I don't know.
[+] [-] ido|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] et-al|9 years ago|reply
Of course if you're white or really attractive, these are non-issues.
[+] [-] prodmerc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anothercomment|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pantalaimon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jvm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_mitsuhiko|9 years ago|reply
Then this gets paired with attempts to regulate the increase of the rent and people rent for a bloody long time in a city where there is more demand than housing.
The effects this causes in reality then are bizarre. All you have to do is build more stuff and none if this was necessary.
[+] [-] kafkaesq|9 years ago|reply
Ah, the New York Times. Yes, there is a borough (or district) called Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, but no one would think of calling it a "neighborhood" (it's split by a river; and not too long ago, the pieces that comprise it were on different sides of The Wall).
[+] [-] Kequc|9 years ago|reply
Stop crapping the whole place up, the few pockets that are still nice are of course going to see higher rent prices. If you don't like gentrification there are plenty of cheap areas in the city for you to live.
This article smacks of an agenda. They want the whole city to be bad, it's not enough yet.
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jstewartmobile|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notliketherest|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pica_soO|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timonoko|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clydethefrog|9 years ago|reply
Gentrification is an European issue as well. Amsterdam, Barcelona.. you can find many examples of locals getting priced out.
Kreuzberg is one of the most "multicultural" parts of Berlin and currently also one of the hippest.
[+] [-] closeparen|9 years ago|reply
What does this mean?
>most governments prevent large-scale private housing projects already
Are you under the impression that large-scale private housing developments are gentrification? In general we should expect that large-scale increases in housing supply would lower rents and prevent gentrification.
[+] [-] discardorama|9 years ago|reply
Same shit, different place.
From a US perspective: The world is changing. The (American) ideal of a McMansion with a 2.5 kids and 3 cars is gone. People want to live in cities; in particular, tolerant, safe, cultured cities. Old timers in San Francisco (where I live) will blame the "tech boom" and "techies" for this phenomenon, but it's not limited to tech, and is not caused by tech. It's just the cycle we are in currently.
[+] [-] tannhaeuser|9 years ago|reply
There should be lots of investors in German housing construction projects, given Germany's comparatively low property quote, increasing urban population, and low general interest rates. What turns investors away is the asymetric legal situation unduely favouring the renter's over the owner's interests (I hear in Sweden it's even worse). That, plus excessive laws for energy efficiency that seem to be dictated by the construction industry to drive up initial and ongoing cost.
The SPD party's answer is new laws limiting rents (without also attempting to cut down on costs). They shure don't understand how to let the market work for you.
[+] [-] 92138791|9 years ago|reply
The money that is left is used to buy some Ikea furniture, pacifiers^Wgadgets like phones and TVs and perhaps a vacation once a year.
In other words, just enough disposable income so that people don't revolt.
How can there be an efficient and actually free market for housing? At the very least, people should be allowed to build slums, otherwise they do not have any leverage to drive prices down by opting out of an overpriced market.
[+] [-] izacus|9 years ago|reply
Cities aren't only optimizing for profits of the investors (realtively few people), but also for making life in the city itself happy. And by responses of people moving to Berlin, they're doing something right.