COST C10

LECTURES ON THE BERLIN REGION, SITE VISIT, LECTURES AND DISCUSSION.

The Berlin-Brandenburg area is characterized by large disparities. In its center is Berlin, the largest German city, which is surrounded by the Land Brandenburg, an area which is quite sparsely populated. Since 1990 these disparities have been exacerbated by increasing migration away from the periphery as well as from the core. The already small population of the outer development area has continued to decrease while Berlin itself was also threatened by the negative consequences of migration as people and firms moved into the surrounding areas. This trend of sub-urbanization has been particularly pronounced and rapid in the case of Berlin. This results from the removal of centralized state controls after the wall came down which had blocked the "normal" development of the city and the surrounding environment, combined with the pent-up demand which could suddenly be satisfied.

Site visit :
Starting from Potsdam the site visit allowed us to go through Babelsberg and to visit Kischsteigfeld, a new housing settlement developed by Groth Gruppe (which gave a lecture).
Then we went to Teltow were we could observe the renovation of the town centre, the general sprawling and the new business settlements; lecture from the department of urban planning of the city of Teltow and lecture done by Wilhelm Schulte who described the main lines of the planning policies at the regional level.
We then went through Berlin and listened to a particular point of view from Busch Petersen who explained the different commercial dynamics in Berlin and how they are managed.
Finally we visited Hellersdorf, a settlement of 80.000 inhabitants built in the '80s in the natural rural landscape. The Stadtverwaltung and the Kompetenzzentrum für Grosssiedlungen gave a lecture on the rehabilitation of the settlement and the day finished with a lecture by Mr. Michael Kuchenbecker from the Fraunhofer Institute of Dortmund: tele-shoping and new customer's behavior.

Main lines of the planning policies at the regional level and discussion about it
Wilhelm Schulte from the Joint State Planning Department described the main lines of the planning policies at the regional level.
In the early 1990's the Brandenburg Land produced its first land and regional planning laws while Berlin did it only in 1994. Private investors took advantage of the lack of strategic policies and also of the competition that existed between the mayors and between the economic actors : in the early '90s, the market ran faster than the policies and built in the most interesting places for them, without coordination. Now, the market is going down and the regulation becomes more effective.
In 1996 there was an agreement between the two Länder (Berlin and Brandenburg) to jointly plan the region thanks to a joint spatial planning department (JSPD). The general trend of the two Länder and of the JSPD is to accept that the sub-urbanization exists and to take all the decisions in order to control the expansions. The long term goals of this approach are to ensure that living conditions are similar in all parts of the region; to protect the natural working and living conditions; to exploit the area's natural potential; to concentrate the application of limited public resources. These key goals have been translated into a spatial planning framework based on : regional development centers (RDC) at a distance of between 60 to 100 kms from Berlin (decentralized- concentration process), a regional rail transport framework with rapid links (less than 35 mn between Berlin and the RDC), and a set of natural parks and green areas which are seen, if well protected, as "economic values" for housing and firms thanks to their high quality. This plan will be efficient only if there is coherence and co-operation between all the interested bodies : ministries, municipalities, Länder, companies (railway for example)… Four forums have been implemented in order to work out inter-communal common strategies.

To this lecture, Eckard Wolf added the following remarks: There was a very early planning institution of the greater region of Berlin-Brandenburg which was called Provisorischer Regionalausschuß, Planungsgruppe Potsdam ( Temporary Regional Committee, Planning Group of Potsdam ). They propagated a Siedlungsachsenmodel (Settlement-axes-model), which is a model of urban development, where the urban structures develop along the S-Bahn-lines outside in the surrounding country. This view of development of the region was based on very optimistic population growth's prognosis. In 1990, in the first report of this temporary committee a population increase of 70 000 inhabitants was expected, and they thought this to be cautious prognosis and that it could easily be even bigger. The model should be enough for about 5,4 Mill. inhabitants for the Berlin area.

What are the conditions for efficient public policies at the regional level ?
The delegates were very impressed by the tools set up by the local authorities in order to manage the region. Some pinpointed this strong planning system although the trend is the contrary in Europe. They were impressed by the multilevel coordination and the system set up in order to find coherence and cooperation at a higher level than the municipalities. Many countries have to learn about it. For others, the regional planning is a dream we had 30 years ago : but perhaps something new has to be invented ?
Most of the policies and rules have been thought in the '90s. They are mostly based on expectations, not on the real problems. Now, the urban planners and the local authorities at the different levels are more realistic, they learned a lot thanks to their work with the economic bodies.
But at the same time some observed many counter examples of strong planning during the site visit, for example near Hönow where commercial centers and vast housing districts are located just at the limit of Brandenburg although shopping facilities should be in Hellersdorf (Land of Berlin).

... about flexibility
Another question is related to the question of investment and investors. Of course investment plays a major role in urbanization and urban development : without it there is no town. In the beginning of the '90s, the investors were the major players. They found their rules and tools very quickly. At the end of the '90s, the market broke down while the public rules were ready. But with very weak investments, the rules become ineffective. How is it possible to make it that the investment dynamics and the policies both evolve in a coherent way with time. How to find rules that integrate the market logics (investors obligations and inhabitants needs : see Teltow)? Furthermore, the urban dynamics are always changing : immigration, market, local and regional governments, interests of some bodies (train companies for example). What are the different periodicities for each of these dynamics ?
For example what will happen with the new government of Berlin ? How to manage all these main changes with a strong plannification ? How to set up urban management systems which take into account uncertainty: how can they be flexible ? (see also the Helsinki meeting for example).

... many projects run only thanks to public supports,
During the site visit, one could observe brown fields, unoccupied buildings, new and old city structures, settlement and business in a chaotic mixture. If we consider the history of Berlin in its relationship to urban structure, West Berlin existed before the Wall fell down thanks to the extensive support from the Bundesrepublik. It couldn't exist without. After the fall of the wall, most of the new projects ran with public support of nearly 50% by tax reduction. So a lot of projects didn't need the market, they made money for the investors in any case. This may explain why there are a lot of investment-ruins.
Especially in Tetley we saw these projects based on wishful prognosis and not linked to real development. This is valid for settlement, business and industrial development. So the question is really how to manage the market logic, how to integrate the policy, how to influence development via public support for investors? This creates a dynamic between the interests of investors, who want to receive public support to make their business on one hand and on the other hand the interests of the authorities, which want to maximize the investment done in their planning area.
Even in Hellersdorf, where the situation seems to be more controlled, although this has something to do with cultural aspects of interpretation of law and rules through the planning authorities (how everybody deals with), the gap between prognosis and planning has to be noted.

... the role of the investors and of Public Private Partnerships
Furthermore, who will invest in and around the Regional Development centers ? In the early '90s, Brandenburg, which was very low dense and had major economical difficulties, lost 90% of its jobs. What is the reality of these new regional centers without economic forces behind them ? How can the public authorities boost the market, with what kind of incentives in order to stimulate private investment in the second ring of Brandenburg (it works better in the first ring)? Moreover, due to some political movements (Right Wing Movement for example), foreign investors hesitate to invest in the Berlin Region. How to make them confident ? How to feel exactly is the housing market (see in Teltow the gap between the expectation of the Canadian investors and the reality of the owners who were very few to buy such expansive houses).
Nevertheless, some of the delegates observed that the private companies have a determinant role in the changes in the town through the different actions they lead: either they build a new area (Kirchsteigfeld), or they refuse to invest, or they collapse in particular areas (Teltow, Mühlendorf). How do the public authorities manage the public private partnerships?
The conclusions of the lecturer on Mühlendorf are the followings : the problems in the '90s were the speculatively overheated soil market, the development pressure, oversized projects or projects not in line with market requirements and peoples' needs and not available or insufficient planning instruments at the early stage. And he proposed to clarify the ownership structure, to canalize the development by foresighted planning, to have conviction work with investors in order to avoid bad planning and to create manageable, simple planning rules which have to be easy to apply for the municipalities.

... about scale of areas to be built
Another aspect is the scale of the areas which can be planned by investors or local authorities. There is a big difference between the Eastern and the Western part. Without the historical development during the socialist period the development of Hellersdorf is not understandable. In West Berlin big scale developments were mainly built in two cases and both found a lot of criticism. This led to developments where IBA concepts were applied to strengthen the urban structure by redevelopment and so called "city repairing". So the Western institutions didn't deal with settlements in the scale as the Eastern ones now do.

... decision making process and democracy
Another question is related to the role of the different actors in the decision making process and in the day to day urban management. Concerning especially democracy and inhabitant's participation, perhaps due to a lack of information about it, it seemed to the delegates that it is very weak contrary to what they knew concerning for example the Stadt Forum. The feeling was that the "top down" management is preeminent and that people are only involved when they are directly concerned (Hellersdorf, for example, with the involvement of inhabitants in the process concerning the policies related to the improvement of the districts).

... an urban model centered on Berlin
The concentrated decentralization proposed by the public authorities has strong historical roots. It is set upon the ancient urban and rural structure of the whole region on which hubs and commercial centers are added as new urban poles. It can be very effective thanks to the transport network that exists (railways and motorways systems). It can be the backbone of the whole urban structure of the region; the main hubs can become focus points for economic activities,… But some delegates were surprised by the centered model proposed by the public authorities: all the lines converge to Berlin although it is well known that a grid is now more efficient and that outskirts to outskirts travels increase even more.

... strong border effects
Even if the two Länder work together in order to set up public policies and rules the goal of which is to manage the coherence in the large urban area of Berlin and its surroundings, one can observe very strong border effects. A spatial segregation exists that corresponds to the areas as they were before the wall was fallen. For example, except Alexander Platz, each commercial center is devoted to a very particular population. The immigrants continue to settle in West Berlin because the jobs are there. The Eastern part is less attractive.
This can be observed also on the urban shape: the densities are much more higher inside the Berlin Land than outside and the numerous "no man's land" between the two zones continue to imprint the landscape and the land use. As seen in Teltow for example, some investors rushed on these zones in the early '90s, but few of these projects were effective. The borders are marked by these collapsed projects.
Another border effect can be seen near Hellersdorf. Hellersdorf, located in the Land of Berlin is a "model" of socialist urban planning: 80.000 inhabitants, a very large district (8km X 4 km) with 5 stories buildings arranged in a very geometrical form along large avenues. It has its own services and equipments (shopping malls, multi-screen cinemas, sport facilities,). Just at the border of this housing district, which is also the border of the Land of Berlin, one can see a very large new commercial center and a lot of uni-familial housing district. The local authorities of Berlin couldn't fight against these new implementations which dis-equilibrate the whole area.

Berlin and its urban shapes

For its site visit, the group went from the outskirts located in the western part of the Berlin agglomeration, to the center of Berlin and visited then the outskirts located in the Eastern part. The general impression about the whole agglomeration is that it is sprawled, low dense, very green with a prominent role of nature, relatively chaotic for someone who doesn't know the town, with an extreme juxtaposition of different urban pieces such as built-up areas, brownfields even in the center, empty houses and factories, but also brand new offices, ancient and new very well drawn districts, cultural equipments designed by the most famous architects, and cut everywhere by a lot of infrastructures (train system built in the '30s, S Bahn, U Bahn, tramway, motorways,). The general lisibility of the agglomeration is relatively problematic even if the "Unter den Linden" avenue structures the territory.

Disparities exist also in Berlin between Western and Eastern outskirts. The outskirts located in the West have grown around old rural villages by densification. The old church, the old farm house, the green grassland still stand in the middle of the street and, since the XIXth century, housing districts, shops, factories were located around. But these structures are not very dense and are well integrated in the landscape which is composed by lakes, forests, and other green structures. Moreover, during the last decade, immigrant people tried to locate near their jobs and most of the jobs are located in the Western part. In the East, the unemployment rate is very high (about 20%) and furthermore the landscape is much more monotonous: new large public housing estates and individual houses districts were implemented there on very large areas. But, even if this main difference exists between West and East, some architectural modes have always been applied and especially alignments, big blocks, houses or semi-attached houses in a row, This leads to a very characteristic urban shape in Berlin.

The visits and the lectures done on Kirchsteigfeld, Teltow, and Hellersdorf helped the group to discuss the "urban-shape-at-different-scales" issue. In fact, the group focused on two very contrasted situations: Kirchsteigfeld and Hellersdorf.

Kirchsteigfeld is a new district the construction of which was decided in 1990. It is located in Potsdam and housing and workplaces are planned on a 60 ha area. Rob Krier managed the master-plan and a set of planners/architects worked with him. It is thought as a district of its own and a post modern compact-city concept was proposed, in which nature is very present. The background values of this district are : urban life in the public space, social and functional mixity, shops, leisure, sport facilities and schools in the neighborhoods, traditional urban shapes.

Hellersdorf, located in the Eastern part of Berlin, is a large housing estate (80.000 inhabitants, 8km X 4 km) approximately 15 km or 30 minutes by underground away from the center of Berlin. The objective was to solve the housing problem in the GDR. The estate, composed of "slab-block buildings" was erected in the GDR industrial apartment building technique of using prefabricated concrete elements. The five stores buildings are located near large avenues. An important transport network connects the area to Berlin and irrigates the whole district.
Even if Hellersdorf was built in the '80s, it was necessary to improve the whole settlement as early as 1990. Six complementary strategies were decided and implemented :

- renovation and modernization of flats in a sustainable way;
- differentiation of the apartments on offer to stabilize the mixed social structure;
- creation of an urban center, rounding off the large housing estate as a functional part of the city;
- improvement of the residential standards and quality of life;
- integration of the estate into the nature surroundings;
- making the planning process democratic.

These two very contrasted urban situations instigated a large and contradictory discussion

... urban life
For some delegates, urban life is certainly better in districts such as Kirchsteigfeld because the streets are pleasant and narrow and stimulate social life. Leisure areas, little shops, are the best way to implement animation in the district. Furthermore, the balance between individual and collective values is well balanced.
For other delegates, Hellersdorf on the contrary is very well irrigated by transport facilities, everyone can meet every where who he/she wants to meet, social life is connected to freedom to choose what to do with who you want. For them the question of neighborhoods as the only way to have social life, is questionable.

... urban shape
For some the urban shape and the architecture of Kirchsteigfeld is a pretty one, which gives an identity related to the roots of the region. The ancient model of town which has been adopted guarantees the success of the district (in an economic way also).
For others, such postmodern models can be found everywhere in the world and work against the emergence of local identities. It is a "market architecture". They are interested by the Hellersdorf architecture and urban shape: thanks to the size of the estate, to the particular architecture and urban shape which is very characteristic of the '60s-'80s they argue that this kind of districts has its own identity that has a real value: clear organization and hierarchy of the streets and public spaces.

... urban image
The urban image of the districts is also an important topic to be analyzed. It represents one part of the well being of the inhabitants in their estate: ipso facto it has an economic value.
For Kirchsteigfeld, it is clear that the majority of the population likes this kind of architecture and urban shape : nice, human scale, safety, are the terms used to qualify this type of area. And one of their successes lies in the fact that everyone who buys an apartment in this kind of estate is sure that he/she is doing a good investment and that it will be easy to sell it at a good price.
For Hellersdorf, the opinions are contrasted. Some find this type of urban shape horrible, inhuman, anonymous and say that all the district should be destroyed and built again with another architecture. For others, this urban shape is interesting, very coherent because of its size, well irrigated by a set of public transport facilities, well related to the large landscape, and allows freedom and less relation to the neighbors. One question is how to improve this district taking into account its identity and its original urban shape. The local teams have successfully reached this target with the reconstruction of the new center. How to continue and to avoid postmodern architecture in this estate which would disturb basically the existing quality.

... disintegration and connections
One of the qualities of Hellersdorf lies in the possibility, due to the large area covered by the estate, to have an efficient public transport system to connect all the parts of the district to each other.
More generally, all the delegates felt the urban fabric to be highly disintegrated: a set of pieces, at all the different scales. In functional terms, a set of connections exists thanks to the railway, tramway and motorway system. But this system is very centered towards Berlin and the outskirts-to-outskirts connections are difficult. Furthermore, the Berlin living area is so large, the density is so low, that it seems difficult to have a very effective public transport system without private car traffic.
But this feeling of disintegration is due to the great number of brown-fields, empty houses and fabrics and so on. Many delegates asked why the government doesn't renovate these empty spaces. The main explanation is first that this question is not a problem to be solved by the local authorities but much more by the economic actors. Second, the land prices are very high in Berlin and very much lower in the outskirts. Furthermore, the rehabilitation costs are also high and few enterprises or inhabitants can afford to do it.
One way to minimize this feeling of disintegration lies perhaps in building a very dense landscape, the role of which would be to integrate all the built elements in a stronger structure.

For further details E-Mail: COST_C10