"For moving into housing built before 1949 people will get a -one time based on the flat- bonus of 1.500 €. This is meant to encourage people from the outskirts of the cities into the closer city center areas." (article to be found here (in German))
In recent years just after the wall came down in 1989 there had been going on big discussions on how to renew the housing that had been sparsly renovated or kept intact during the GDR era. As there had been great need for housing in the early 90's most of the old housings in the city centers in Eastern Germany had been left alone in favor to renovate fairly newly built "Plattenbauten" (modern GDR-like flats) in the further out suburbs. As flat owner could earn money pretty fast in these renovated houses virtually nobody tended to move in the hold un-renovated houses in the traditional suburbs or the city centers.
To foster the building of new housing in the traditional suburbs there had been established a special program in the last couple of years that allowed the owners of old buildings (often in the ownership of large exGDR building societies) to tear down these unrenovated buildings. For tearing down -sometimes even complete perimeter block developments quite intact despite ugly looking facades- these building societies could get tear-down bonuses as well as cancellation of the debts on these old housing.
Especially in the cities of the Eastern part of Germany that still have quite intact and dense old housing areas this practice had become quite common over the last 5-6 years.
The result was that people had to move into newer housing (even though just renovated housing from the 60's to 80's) way outside the city with the effect that they needed connection to public transport, supermarkets, etc.
Now the "fathers" of the former regulations have realized that it would be much wiser to make old housing areas to be more attractive for new movers and "make" owners willing to renovate their property in order to foster the "dying" city centers (and keep cost for transportation, shopping also lower as time needed for that as you live just around the supermarket or your workplace is saved a lot - doesn't that sound sustainable?).
I wonder whether this 1.500€ bonus paid to movers into old housing is enough to make these areas attractive to people behind the time of spending the 1.500€?
Richard Florida, a professor for business and creativity at the University of Toronto, favors strongly to keep the heritage (=old housings, company buildings) as this is the history of our present day and from where the future emerges.
Anyway, it is a first step to rething the planning of how a grown city can be fostered in the present and future.
What are your findings?
2 comments:
Sustainable housing is also an issue for younger counties such as Australia. Over the 1960s to 1980s the masive immigration push to feed our factories, and along with the 'Australian dream' of owing a big house on a big block of land and 2-3 cars per family (usualy 6-cylander Fords and Holdens), had pushed our suburbs outwards. And all this was done with little planning for public transport, local services and amenities... or sustainability. Today we are paying a heavy price. These houses guzzle more coal-generated electricity and gas to keep them lit/cool/warm and use more scarce water resources in their 2 bathrooms and large gardens than the traditional, smaller inner suburban housing. High petrol pices are making it difficult to keep 2-3 cars on the road and high interest rates are making mortgage repayments difficult to maintain on an average family income. Twenty years too late, our city planners are trying to encourage sustainable, high density living in the inner suburban areas well serviced with public transport. But our outer suburban dwellers want more freeways and subsidised petrol to maintain their unsustainable lifestyle. What have we as a society created, and how do we undo the damage caused by the limited visions and unrealistic exectations of the past?
Hi Marigo,
thanks for commenting. Looks like the development pattern of housing is pretty similar everywhere around the globe.
What are people missing in the more densified areas of cities that they tend to search for in the outskirts? Couldn't "city fathers" respond to their needs (if they would know them) in order to make cities even more attractable to live in?
Probably everybody is looking for the "big change" and "the" solution for the present problems cities face nowadays.
Is there "the" solution? I don't think so. It will be a constantly growing process that starts pretty small in the beginning (not much to see) and will end in prosperous city regions (not just counted by the number of companies paying tax) in any means:-))
Cheers,
Ralf
Post a Comment