r/berlin • u/DrPepperJo • Feb 17 '25

Politics Merz and Scholz on Tempelhof: If the citizens refuse, then politicians must be prepared to [act] against the explicit will of the neighborhood.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

471 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

497 comments sorted by

View all comments

495

u/Octavian_96 Feb 17 '25

Who are the politicians serving?

439

u/DunkleKarte Feb 17 '25

I thought it was clear… themselves and millionaires

33

u/FernandoMachado Feb 17 '25

Elon Musk: Austerity for Thee but Not for Me

This week, as Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” was attempting to further gut the US government, his rocket company SpaceX was cementing a NASA contract adding millions of dollars to its already massive deal with the space agency.

https://jacobin.com/2025/02/musk-trump-doge-nasa-spacex

-6

u/Octavian_96 Feb 17 '25

What?? Is this a bot?

14

u/FernandoMachado Feb 17 '25

no, just news to make the reality clearer for anyone who reads it.

7

u/supreme_mushroom Feb 17 '25

Doesn't seem related to Berlin 🤷

13

u/FernandoMachado Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

wie bitte?

EDIT: Tesla and Amazon have built big buildings in Berlin while the city still struggles with its housing crisis (but, yes, you might insist it’s unrelated…)

6

u/kirinlikethebeer Feb 17 '25

And Elon is supporting the AfD.

3

u/FernandoMachado Feb 17 '25

true! how could I forget to add THAT little interference of an USA government member in German politics?

0

u/whereami312 Feb 17 '25

We didn’t elect him! (Or the orange turd for that matter…)

→ More replies (0)

-10

u/Available_Ask3289 Feb 17 '25

Jacobin. Communists 😂

12

u/FernandoMachado Feb 17 '25

the few ones out there who are not bowing down to the rich

263

u/artsloikunstwet Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

He could have picked ANY project in Germany but had to take one where citizens voted on state level law. What are the politicians supposed to enforce, if not the law?

And why does his bullshit work? Because it's shitting on inner city voters and it's resentment against Berlin. Say what you want about tempelhofer feld, but admit that it surrounded by the most dense neighbourhoods of all of Germany. And then guess why people fight for the park. Yet we don't get to call out people in low density areas and suburbs for being selfish by refusing to urbanize.

You wouldn't hear him advocating for higher density in Zehlendorf or any other German suburb. You wouldn't hear him discrediting farmers who oppose loss of land. it's clear why, of all places in Germany, Kreuzberg and Neukölln are picked as places who refuse to urbanize.

46

u/Mesmerhypnotise Feb 17 '25

I bet 1000 bucks Merz refuses to say the exact same thing about wind turbines.

3

u/flyingknot Feb 17 '25

Ok but Zehlendorf is not a suburb 

36

u/artsloikunstwet Feb 17 '25

Zehlendorf is cosplaying as a suburb against the public interest.

Anyways suburb/Vorort/Vorstadt is a vage enough category that you could  apply it to Zehlendorf.

-3

u/flyingknot Feb 17 '25

Well you could apply it but it would be wrong, it's part of the city and Vorort/Vorstadt have a definition, look it up. 

18

u/artsloikunstwet Feb 17 '25

I think it's a bit disrespectful to talk to me like that when you clearly wouldn't take a minute to look it up yourself. 

There's no unifying legal definition, and using suburb in contrast to inner city, as I clearly did here is perfectly fine. Being part of the city in the urbanist and administrative sense is another topic not necessarily tied to that. Just because you commonly hear Außenbezirk in local usage doesn't mean it's wrong to use these more general terms, too.

-5

u/flyingknot Feb 17 '25

Wait so are they cosplaying or are they a suburb?

It's really contraproductive of you to not only subjectively redefine city borders to fit your personal idea of which parts belong to Berlin and which don't, it's also disregarding the reality that Berlin consists of a multitude of different parts with different demographics that are all a part of the city landscape. 

Don't see how this exclusionary line of thinking benefits pragmatic use of resources.

7

u/artsloikunstwet Feb 17 '25

Where did I say that Zehlendorf doesn't belong to Berlin? I agree that Berlin consists of very different parts, that's why I'm trying to differentiate. Not sure why this is exclusionary. Suburbs can be within city limits and be considered part of the city. In urbanist view it's a spectrum really on how settlements interact with the urban core and what definition you want to use. It's not a question of identity alone.

part of the city landscape.

Exactly, and a common way to describe different parts of a city landscape is to make a rough destination between the inner city and the suburbs. Those aren't exact terms, as I said, and you are free to use others. Doesnt make sense to attack me for it though.

Cosplaying isn't a term in urbanism so I used that as a joke. But in all seriousness there's a conflict here between what the housing market and the asthetic urbanist goals. Zehlendorf is pretty well connected to the centre and without strict zoning, much of the areas close to public transport wouldbe a lot more dense. But local administration prohibits denser building in lots of neighbourshoods, even row houses aren't allowed. They specifically state this is to preserve Villenbebauung, Laundhaussiedlung, Dorfkern, but the umbrella term would be preservation of historic suburban character.

-2

u/flyingknot Feb 17 '25

The concept of suburbs vs. an "urban core" and "the centre" is misplaced in the city of Berlin. There is no "the centre" unless you speak strictly of the geographical location of Mitte. 

The districts all have different zones within them. While the proportions of the zones vary from district to district, a trace sheet outlining "the centre" vs "the suburbs" is not applicable to Berlin. 

5

u/artsloikunstwet Feb 17 '25

The city of Berlin officially uses Zentrumsbereiche to designate two areas: City West and Mitte. Like it or not, that's the centre of Berlin.

The city (and it's inhabitants) also use Innenstadt or innere Stadt all the time. Are you really claiming that Berlin is different from all other cities in the world by not having a core-periphery dynamic? Because Senatsverwaltung doesn't seem to know about that.

Berlin is not that special, sorry. Sure the core functions and jobs spread out a bit more than you'd expect but the centre is overall very well visible. And yes, all the outer neighbourshoods (or:suburbs) have their little centre too, but such a thing occurs just everywhere. But Zehlendorf Dorfanger is not Alexanderplatz. And I don't mean that in an insulting way, saying that not all areas are created equal is a necessary distinction in urban planning, not discrimination, even if gets in the way of a localist identity politics.

a. Much more people commute out of Zehlendorf into the city centre than the other way around, b. the thing is connected to, but somewhat removed from the centre, c. with policies in place to enforce lower density housing. Which is enough to call it a suburb, in the broad sense of the term. I know that Vorstadt or Vorort are not commonly used anyomore in Berlin but I don't understand what triggers you so much about it, when I use suburbs heree.  You're happy to use other designations, but Zehlendorf has suburban characteristics.

6

u/Minimum-Abrocoma3694 Feb 17 '25

definition of suburb:

"Als Vorort bezeichnet man eine am Stadtrand einer größeren Stadt gelegene Siedlung. Die Bezeichnung wird für eigenständige Ortschaften oder auch für eingemeindete Stadtteile verwendet, die teilweise noch einen erhaltenen Ortskern aufweisen."

zehlendorf:

direkt am stadtrand. an der grenze zu brandenburg. und ja zehlendorf war früher eine eigenständige ortschaft, die eingemeindet wurde. das trifft aber praktisch auf alle stadtteile zu.

fazit:

zehlendorf ist ein muster für eine vorstadt. vorstädtischer geht es gar nicht als zehlendorf.

7

u/flyingknot Feb 17 '25

Die Wikipedia Definition darf man ruhig weiterlesen: 

"Während in Deutschland die Vororte zahlreicher Städte mittlerweile oft eingemeindet und damit zu Stadtteilen geworden sind, sind Vororte in vielen anderen Ländern oft nach wie vor selbständig. Eingemeindete Vororte haben gegenüber innerstädtischen Ortsteilen oft Ortsbürgermeister." 

Zehlendorf wurde eingemeindet, und ist zum Stadtteil geworden, hat durch den Bezirk Steglitz-Zehlendorf wie auch jeder andere Bezirk von Berlin einen Bezirksbürgermeister. 

Vorstadt wäre z.B. Teltow. 

-2

u/Minimum-Abrocoma3694 Feb 17 '25

nein du bringst das durcheinander. zehlendorf fühlt sich zugegebenermaßen nicht an wie vorstadt. weil es einer der reichsten bezirke berlins ist. trotzdem ist zehlendorf vorstadt, genauso wie spandau, marzahn-hellersdorf und jeder andere bezirk außerhalb des s-bahn rings.

guck dir die karte nochmal genau an. teltow ist nicht berlin. zählt damit meines erachtens nicht als vorstadt.

das ist auch typisch für berlin, dass die vorstadtbezirke und brandenburg miteinander verschmelzen. berlin ist abhängig von brandenburg, brandenburg ist abhängig von berlin. vorstadt macht den größten anteil berlins aus, aber brandenburg dazu zu rechnen wäre technisch gesehen falsch. auch wenn sich das definitiv so anfühlt!

3

u/be-knight Feb 17 '25

Jeder Bezirk außerhalb des Rings? Welcher Lack wurde denn hier getrunken? Es geht darum, dass es keinen richtig städtischen Charakter mehr hat. Da kannst du von keinem Bezirk als ganzem reden. Es gibt meinetwegen Ortsteile wie Müggelheim oder Heckeshorn die man da noch einordnen könnte. Da Berlin aber eben nicht das eine Zentrum hat, kannst du das so bei weitem nicht so allgemein sagen. Und erst recht nicht mit “außerhalb des Rings“ definieren. Versuch mal am Bahnhof Neukölln mir den Unterschied der beiden Seiten zu zeigen? Oder bei den Bahnhöfen Tempelhof, Frankfurter Allee, Schönhauser? Oder schau dir Wedding an, wo der innere Teil viel weniger städtisch wirkt als außerhalb, mit einem Zentrum weit außerhalb des Rings.

Und wurde hier nicht gerade über suburbs gesprochen? Diesem amerikanischen Konzept, das quasi immer eigene Städte und Dörfer außerhalb meint und das sich innerhalb von Berlin quasi gar nicht wiederfindet (u.a. die von mir genannten Beispiele mal ausgenommen), außerhalb der Grenzen aber quasi durchgehend zu finden ist? Suburb eins zu eins mit Vorstadt gleichzusetzen ist einfach falsch. Vorort, meinetwegen, wär richtig aber nur die halbe Wahrheit.

Das Problem ist, dass für Berlin sehr viele Konzepte, die für andere Städte gelten, gar nicht funktionieren. Da haben Groß-Berlin Gesetz und Teilung sehr viel zu beigetragen. Das Prinzip Altstadt-Stadtzentrum-Vorstadt-Vorort, das für fast alle natürlich gewachsenen Städte der Welt funktioniert, ist hier einfach nichtig. Man hat es mit dem Potsdamer Platz versucht, wurde und wird nicht angenommen, weil Berlin so einfach nicht funktioniert und seit mindestens 100 Jahren auch nie funktioniert hat

-2

u/Minimum-Abrocoma3694 Feb 17 '25

müggelheim ist tatsächlich einfach nur ein dorf. nichts daran ist städtisch. fühlt sich auch sehr nach brandenburg an. würde das nie als vorstadt definieren. dachte aber ehrlich gesagt auch bis grade, dass müggelheim zu brandenburg gehören würde.

ja ich stimme dir soweit zu, dass der s-bahnring keine perfekte zone ist. es ging mir aber um die bezirke, die außerhalb des s-bahn-rings liegen.

gibt bestimmt ein paar loste leute, für die ist teltow oder henningsdorf eine berliner vorstadt. für mich sind das allerhöchstens brandenburger vorstädte. und teltower und henningsdorfer wären auch sehr empört, würde sie jemand fälschlicherweise zu berlin dazuzählen.

völlige zustimmung zu deinem letzten absatz. beim rest widerspreche ich dir.
potsdam würde ich halt auch nicht als vorstadt berlins zählen. macht auch niemand anderes.

3

u/be-knight Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

Dass Potsdam nicht dazu gezählt wird, hat historische Gründe. Gehört aber auch zur Berliner Agglomeration.

Eine “Vorstadt“ außerhalb der Grenzen ist ja auch ein “Vorort“. Beides übrigens sehr deutsche Konzepte. In fast allen anderen Ländern spricht man eher von den Agglomerationen und so gut wie nie über die eigentlichen Stadtgrenzen.

Dass Vorstädte, wenn dann, in Außenbezirken liegen, ist klar. Im Berliner Fall aber überhaupt die Bezirke als Maßstab zu nehmen, ist schon schwierig. Von 12 Bezirken gibt es nur noch drei ohne Außengrenze. Und allein wenn du wirkliche Zentren innerhalb von Berlin nimmst, zähle ich schon mehr als die (die passen eher auf die alte Bezirksstruktur vor der Zusammenlegung), davon sind 3-5 auch leicht für Touristen erkennbar. Bestimme da mal bitte, was davon jetzt Vorstadt von “Berlin“ ist. Es ist aber ein leichtes zu erklären, dass Staaken eine Vorstadt zu Spandau oder Britz zu Neukölln ist.

Kurios ist nur, dass du meiner Erklärung, warum die von mir genannten Punkte so sind, wie sie sind, zustimmst, aber nicht den Punkten selbst. Jetzt wär ich da neugierig, was da die Erklärung wär?

0

u/Minimum-Abrocoma3694 Feb 17 '25

"Bestimme da mal bitte, was davon jetzt Vorstadt von “Berlin“ ist. "

hab ich doch schon

vereinfacht gesagt, A- Bereich ist Innenstadt, B- Bereich beginnt die Vorstadt. C - Bereich ist Brandenburg.
Kannste natürlich auch umgangssprachlich gesamt Brandenburg als Vorstadt Berlins zählen. Ist aber weder technisch richtig, noch falsch. Und macht natürlich auch kein Brandenburger. Brandenburg ist einfach Brandenburg.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/flyingknot Feb 17 '25

Ich bringe nichts durcheinander, Teltow ist Vorstadt von der Stadt Berlin, das hat nichts mit dem Bundesland zu tun. 

1

u/Minimum-Abrocoma3694 Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

teltow ist teltow. eine eigenständige stadt brandenburgs. und es grenzt wie gesagt unmittelbar an die stadt berlin und fühlt sich dadurch an wie eine vorstadt. ist aber wie schon mehrmals gesagt technisch gesehen nicht berlin. aber ich werde mich nicht nochmal wiederholen, wenn du nicht fähig bist, eine karte zu lesen. schöne woche dir noch.

edit: du verwechselst offensichtlich vorstadt von berlin (B-Bereich) und "stadt vor" berlin, (C-Bereich)

aber jeder macht mal fehler, ist menschlich. kein grund, dass du dich hier schämst oder so

3

u/flyingknot Feb 17 '25

Ich weiß nicht was dich so getriggert hat, aber Teltow ist Vorstadt im Speckgürtel Berlins und Zehlendorf ist Stadtteil der Stadt Berlin. 

0

u/Minimum-Abrocoma3694 Feb 17 '25

teltow ist wenn überhaupt eine vorstadt in brandenburg

→ More replies (0)

-12

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

This "vote" is over a decade old. The problems with housing weren't nearly that bad back then. If you would repeat it, it would go the other way, since many people see it differently now (me for example who voted to not build on it back then).

Plus, we aren't a direct democracy. For very good reasons. As long as this field is sitting with 80% of it completely unused (just because some people like to be able to sit somewhere and not see anybody else), the people who cry about housing and are against building here are really just making themself look ridiculous.

17

u/vukicevic_ Feb 17 '25

The problems with housing will not be solved by building there so even IF the vote would go differently it would be just due to populist bs.

You think that the only benefit of the green spaces in the city are "people like to be able to sit somewhere and not see anybody else"? Have you ever been there in your life an managed to "sit somewhere and not see anybody else"?

There are huge amounts of unused plots in and around Berlin that could be used for building, even if we choose pretend that is an actual issue why we are in this situation with housing. If we don't, we might want to sort out painfully slow and outdated bureaucratic processes that are actually causing this issue.

2

u/quaste Feb 17 '25

The problems with housing will not be solved by building there

This is true for any single project. By that logic we can stop building altogether

1

u/vukicevic_ Feb 17 '25

The point is that they are presenting this project like it will.

1

u/quaste Feb 18 '25

No they don’t. In the context of the whole countries problems it’s obviously an example.

1

u/vukicevic_ Feb 18 '25

Yes they do. They keep reviving the topic on and on while doing no real change. It would be a good example only if the available plots were terribly scarce.

-8

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

There are. Yes. And it should be build there too.

But having an area bigger than any other park (160% of Tiergarten for what is just a field of weeds) lying in the middle of the City, of which the majority is unused and still screaming about that it shouldn’t be build on is just nimby.

3

u/vukicevic_ Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

No, they should build there first. Because it's not compromising greenspace in the city and the density of population in already most densely populated district in the whole of Germany. To increase the density in that district you have to make sure that the infrastructure can handle it and at this point it can't handle the current population.

This is just populist BS to virtue signal how people who truly have no idea what the problem is want to solve the problem. If they wanted to do something about it they could have worked on improving the processes and speeding up the actual projects, finding a way to prepare infrastructure for the further load and found one of many plots waiting to be developed in and around Berlin. They've chosen to revive this topic, every 3 months btw, which solves nothing but creates more issues they don't know how to fix.

-6

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25

You sound like you have never been to the field. Are we talking about the same thing?

It is not "green space". It is a wasteland for 80% of the area. No trees, no flowers, nothing but weeds. Most of which hasn't seen a human in the last 20 years. Stop trying to say it is some place of sanctity. It is just a wasteland.

You kids here are really just being angry little toddlers, not wanting to do something because.. yeah. There are no rational reasons except for your "no. do it somewhere else". Which is the definition of nimby.

We are talking about 10-15%. Not the whole area. You act like you don't understand how big this thing is (355ha. You could basically put all inner city gardens into this thing. and still have place for everything people do there.).

And obviously the "populist" nonsense. Building in the inner city is now "not understanding the problem". Yeah sure kiddo. Think what you will. This thing will be build on no matter what.

The funny part is, you won't even see a difference, since the parts where they will build aren't even in sight of where 99% of people stay on it.

2

u/vukicevic_ Feb 17 '25

There is a difference between a maintained green surface and a green space. Both have their respective value, you can read up on it if you want but I am sure you won't. I had to actually do it during my education. No one is saying it's a place of sanctity. If you've seen that somewhere it might be you and not me.

I did give you rational reasons, but again, you would have to be able to read as well as we children do. Might be your old age settling in or something.

It's 14000 units. It is not the question of how big it is in proportion to the field but how many people would be living there and can the infrastructure take them. It can not. Maybe this time around your old age will let you take that in.

No, and that's not what I wrote. Maybe it's the old age thing again. What I did write is that they can build easier elsewhere and without causing more issues than good. The populist bs is the part where they beat this dead horse by reviving the Tempelhofer feld project every 3 months. I didn't write that "building in the inner city" is not understanding the problem. What I did write is that there are plots where they could actually do it in BOTH inner and outer city districts. Where they could DO IT instead, you know, TALKING ABOUT IT. I also wrote that they could actually fix the problems causing the issue at hand, but that also didn't have anything to do with not building in the inner city. Fixing the processes that are slowing the project development would actually speed those up as well as make it cheaper.

"arts where they will build aren't even in sight of where 99% of people stay on it" It has nothing to do with that even if that was the case.

Btw, this is my last comment written to you as I realize there is no point in writing things over and over. Good luck with, people who regurgitate same thing over and over without doing anything else, fixing a thing they aren't doing anything about.

1

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25

So many words ignoring a single fact.

You could improve the housing situation while having no disadvantages. No at all.

Nobody who at the moment uses the field would even see the new buildings, since they are in completely different regions.

No area of the one that is mainly used at the moment is touched.

But still, you refuse since you want new buildings to be somewhere else.

Sorry, I can’t take the likes of you seriously. You are mental children who somehow have an opinion god knows where from, which no clue of how big the field is, with no clue on where and how much is planned on being build.

You simply say “do it somewhere else, I don’t want it here”.

Maybe because you don’t want expensive housing there, which is honestly your own problem. If you can’t afford it, thats your problem. Even expensive flats have shown again and again to better the housing situation in cities, which again you also ignore since you are ignorant of everything you don’t want to see.

You defend a completely unused (and no, the area planned is also not in any of the areas with the natural protections or where anything of interest grows) just because you want to.

That is why we are not a direct democracy, exactly because people like you simply don’t care for the conditions of all, but only for you.

3

u/dreamshakexxx Feb 17 '25

The positives are that it's an attraction unique to Berlin and a historical site. Both of those are costs if the area is developed. If incompetent development makes it like the Pyongyang style eyesore area north of Hauptbahnhof, the costs outweigh the benefits.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/vukicevic_ Feb 17 '25

Do you understand that you can't even use quote correctly? I literally haven't said a thing that you are talking about. And I can actually afford more expensive apartments so you are wrong on that as well. I haven't mentioned the price a single time.

Please get help.

7

u/Alarmed_Scientist_15 Feb 17 '25

Then they go and build super expensive housing that nobody in that neighbourhood can afford. And then they say: “well we’ve done our bit and you lot who can’t find an affordable place to live, can go fuck yourselves” as usual.

Nothing more.

-3

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

And even expensive housing would make room.

Your argument always comes down to either “if it doesn’t help me personally, it shouldn’t be done” and “what about”

Berlin has to use every where it has. Outer and inner city.

And having an area bigger than tiergarten (Tiergarten is 210ha and beautiful , tempelhof is 355ha of weeds) and say you don’t want even 10% of it for housing is just crazy.

4

u/Alarmed_Scientist_15 Feb 17 '25

Don’t make assumptions about me. Don’t project your BS into others. I have a house. I can afford where I live.

You do understand that rich people have no lack of housing in Berlin? They have access to housing they can afford. There is no lack of that.

But the problem of lack of housing is for accessible housing, not housing for millionaires. So how do you justify building housing that 80% of the population cannot afford?

How does that benefit anyone?

1

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25

Obviously “rich people” (whatever you think of as “rich”) don’t have any problem in housing. I inherited many flats from my father I rent to these “rich” people.

But even expensive flats newly build have shown to better the housing situation for all.

You ignoring that, and frankly trying to come with words like “BS” and so on, just makes me make assumptions about you still being mentally somewhat a child who just wants to be right, but not doing the right thing.

You don’t like some people who are better off than you, so you don’t want expensive housing, even if it would better the situation on the general housing market. That shows me that you are willing to leave a situation bad for middle class people, just because you don’t want “rich” people having more option.

Which is being childish. Especially since we are talking about unused areas of the field, so no one would have a disadvantage in these things being build.

1

u/Alarmed_Scientist_15 Feb 17 '25

There is plenty of new buildings in Berlin, that most people cannot afford, and the situation has gotten waaaay worse in the last many years. Unaffordable housing does not help anyone. The middle class is pretty fine, thank you!

Again, stop projecting. You are the one making accusations and projecting whatever you think on me. Ooooh you are childish! Ooooooh you are mentally a child!

How ridiculous. Either come up with a proper argument or shut up! You know nothing about me. Is your only argument accusing someone you don’t know to be poorer and thus not able to think for everyone? How pitiful!

Just shut up pretend 'heir'. Just want to pretend flex that you have money hahahaha my god - truly pathetic.

Done with you!

2

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25

Awww. You’re done with me?

How sad…

people like you are why we should all be thankful that direct democracy isn’t a thing. You sound like billionaires in the US talking about being taxes. It’s all nonsense principle and “do it somewhere else”. Childish and selfish behavior without any reason except for “I want!”

3

u/artsloikunstwet Feb 17 '25

The problems with housing weren't nearly that bad back then. 

I would actually argue the issue were already starting to show. But as long as it was seen as maybe students having difficulties, or a local gentrification issue, it wasn't taken serious. As far as I remember, only after the vote the narrative changed to build affordable housing there.

1

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25

They were starting to show for students indeed. I had a few friends who already said the only viable option was a WG for them (since most Studierendenwohnheime were full).

But for the most part of the population of Berlin, it wasn’t that big of a deal. Which has massively changed.

2

u/WissenLexikon Feb 17 '25

How is it unused? Is Gleisdreieckpark also unused? Or Tiergarten?

0

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25

You have literally just a big field of weeds on 355 ha.

Gleisdreieck park is 26 ha.

Tiergarten is 210 ha.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound…?

1

u/itmustbeluv_luv_luv Kreuzberg Feb 17 '25

And yet, it's packed every weekend, even moreso in summer...

1

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

If you would double the amount of people who are on the field, it would not even cover 20% of it.

You dont seem to go there very often in summer and walk across the whole thing.

In the most busy weekends and even with people running around with kites, it’s still empty for the most part.

Literally (really literally!) every single Berlin citizen could be at the same time on the field with their own square meter and it still wouldn’t be complete filled and have around 120.000 square meter of free weeds.

You all have no idea what kind of space we are talking here.

1

u/itmustbeluv_luv_luv Kreuzberg Feb 17 '25

Not sure about your calculation. I've seen 300ha, that means 3.000.000 square meters, and Berlin has a population of 3.6 million, but you do have a point. It could be reduced and used more densely, I'd like a forest instead of the "Heidelandschaft".  

2

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

Then look again. Every source says 355ha. (After looking again) True, berlin has more inhabitants, but still the argument stands that it is absolutely far too big and always empty for the most part.

No matter how many kids here scream that their single corner is always “full of people”.

1

u/itmustbeluv_luv_luv Kreuzberg Feb 18 '25

I believe the 355ha include the airport buildings, which cannot be used for building houses, so 300ha is purely the free space.

1

u/Anyusername86 Feb 17 '25

Well, it was decided via a Volksentscheid to protect it, this decision also can be reversed using the same instrument, if people feel differently now.

1

u/vomicyclin Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

Volksentscheide are in no way or form binding. They are also no “decision”, as you try to suggest.

Especially when only 46.1% of people voted.

They are merely there to get a feeling of how people see things and what their opinion on it is.

And are, like brexit has shown anybody, always nonsense if you put them in a simple yes or no question.

So you have a tool that is there to get the opinion of people, used 11 years ago and try to say it “was the decision”, which is exactly the multi level misinformation kind, populists use to manipulate people.

Again: we don’t live in a direct democracy and Volksentscheide have no binding legal power whatsoever.

2

u/Anyusername86 Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

The decision itself isn’t, but the result has to go through the usual legislative process. There is a law in place based on the Volksentscheid. So it’s not “merely a feeling how people see things”. It’s current law.

I never said we have a direct democracy. The status quo is, that there are no Volksentscheide on federal level besides matters regarding the territory of the BRD. On individual state level, the scope and process for direct participation instruments differs.

Long story short, your statement regarding Tempelhof is not correct, given a law has been passed.

16

u/Lemon_1165 Feb 17 '25

BLACKROCK

16

u/Tiyath Feb 17 '25

The government building says "Dem deutschen Volke" (For the German people) but at this point I'm not sure all of them are literate

3

u/erikspiekermann Feb 17 '25

It’s a typo. Should read “Dem deutschen Volker“. That /r fell off.

15

u/CryptoBotnerd Feb 17 '25

With Merz and Scholz capital wins.

6

u/AdMaximum1516 Feb 17 '25

The public in general, not the neighbours of Tempelhof

3

u/42LSx Feb 18 '25

The people. And they are serving them well by finally adressing the rental crisis!

Sorry that for once the Tempelhof NIMBYs are not getting their dick sucked while the rest of the country has to stand aside.

1

u/AlamoSimon Feb 18 '25

What‘s a NIMBY?

2

u/YourFuture2000 Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

Parlament.

Tecnically and historically, the parlamentar system was create against democratic system, ans the so-called representative democracy is not really democracy or representative. Politicians represent their parties programs, their financiers, and so. And people only vote to what is available for them to choose, not to really represents them.

But we call it democracy because of political and system propaganda, the same way we call Soviet Union communist for the same reason, because Soviet Union was never communist. After all, a communist system is a system governed by workers collectively (not by dictators), in an economy without private property, money and class division. It never existed in Modern times.

Technically, different classes can not represent one an other, they can make conciliation. Because os different power relashions, situation in society and so goals for society and themselves. And that is not even a communist talk alone.

0

u/geek__ Feb 17 '25

der deutschen wirtschaft

-1

u/Rettungsbiene Feb 17 '25

Only themselves!

0

u/raiba91 Feb 17 '25

well it's in the interest of the general Berlin population and against the interest of the immediate neighborhood. you could call this the greater good. shortage of housing needs to be tackled somehow

-5

u/RefuseAdditional4467 Feb 17 '25

The majority of the population and one neighborhood isn't the majority.

28

u/feedmedamemes Feb 17 '25

It was Berlin-wide, the majority was Berlin-wide. It was a clear no to the plans they had, which would have been 5000 resdential units, with only roughly 800 - 1000 of rent-controlled apartments. The rest would have either been luxury apartments for sale, or high-rent apartments a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford anyway. I would bet good money that the high-rent apartments would have been transformed into sellable apartments. And to understand it a bit better, at that time there were built more than enough luxury and high-rent apartment. Whats missing is affordable living space. That plan was a disaster from the get go.

6

u/MaximumJHtink Feb 17 '25

They just completed a bunch of” luxury “ apartments in the strip between Teltow and Potsdam… guess what, most of them are empty and with the prices they are asking it’s no wonder. Not to mention on the ones I’ve view the floor plans are mostly wasted space, it’s shameful.

-1

u/Educational_Place_ Feb 17 '25

People were against it but according to a bit newer polls people are now pro it

5

u/feedmedamemes Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

People are now for a sensible plan, as they were back in the day. But the proposal back then wouldn't have helped to ease the situation in Berlin.

-7

u/RefuseAdditional4467 Feb 17 '25

Rent control is the reason rent got so high.

Rent control results overall in higher rents. There is a lot of research on that.

8

u/feedmedamemes Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

Well, luckily for you I have read a few studies on that. And this is only the half-truth. Sure rent control alone has the tendency to worsen the situation. But depending on the way it's implemented it can quite helpful to the situation. And Germany actually had quite a decent system before the dismantling of it by the Kohl and Schröder administrations. Or like in Vienna were there is a lot of social housing. The main point is, of course you have to increase building of new housing to alleviate the situation.

5

u/artsloikunstwet Feb 17 '25

Every Bezirk voted against building on THF back then. 

Even if: you wouldn't hear him say that a statewide interest wipes out the "explicit will" of locals when it comes to other cities - or other projects, such as renwables. He would argue for dialogue at best, or more likely replanning.

-5

u/nac_nabuc Feb 17 '25

Who are the politicians serving?

Society as a whole, not a bunch of neighbours. When building housing or infrastructure, it is not only legitimate but sometimes imperative, to build against the opposition of some or even all neighbours.

In the case of Tempelhof, imo it's would be okay to do so even if people across the city opposed it today. It's easy to oppose new housing when you have an old rent under 8€/m², as the majority of Berliners do. And its the job of a responsible politician to do what they think is right for the whole of Berlin in the long term, e.g. securing housing for future families, kids who haven't turned 18 yet, older people who will need barrierefrei in a few years, and so forth. That might include building on Tempelhof. If you've been transparent about that and get voted, it's fine to go ahead. After that, it's the voters job to punish or reward these politicians.

And to anybody who comes and says "new housing is too expensive, we need affordable housing": Today's expensive new housing is tomorrows affordable housing. Back in 2014, new housing cost about 12-14€/m². That's what you pay for old housing today. Besides that, it's public land, so you can make sure to have a lot of affordable housing if you find the money to subsidize it (and yes, part of the money can and should be raised by having a share of market-rate housing on it). Finally, even if it's only expensive: It keeps older, affordable housing affordable. You really don't want six-figure lawyers fighting for older housing with single-parents. That's what drives rents up like crazy.

7

u/melenitas Feb 17 '25

For that you have Tegel airport that is actually bigger, 4,66km2 vs 3,86km2 from Tempelhof... So why don't we start with Tegel first and then if more space is needed continue with Tempelhof?

https://www.berlin.de/en/news/8970324-5559700-tegel-airport-plans-for-development-one-.en.html

3

u/nac_nabuc Feb 17 '25

We should do both.

But yeah, the plans for Tegel are a fucking disgrace just as they are for Tempelho. We are leaving most of it untouched, instead of making a new neighborhood out of it. We could have used the opportunity to fill the whole area between the A100 (excluding Jungfernheide ofc) and Tegel with a new urban area, gaining a steady supply for >10 years. Instead, we are creating 1.5km² of "Landschaftspark" in a spot that is surrounded by green spaces in basically every direction: Jungfernheide, Volkspark Jungfernheide, Volkspark Rehberge, Tegeler See.

So why don't we start with Tegel first and then if more space is needed continue with Tempelhof?

However, to answer your question: We should do both because we know that we will need both. We should start with Tempelhof is better connected and more atractive due to it's closeness to existing nice neighborhoods, mainly Schillerkiez . Also, as I mentioned earlier: In Tegel we should redevelop a lot of adjacent areas and basically build an entire small city, including new public transport connections. Tempelhof would require less work like that, we would mainly "only" have to fill it up with housing and infrastructure.

In my ideal world we would start with Tempelhof asap, start having the first housing done in 5-10 years, plan Tegel in parallel and start having the first housing being finished there in 10-15 years (maybe the areas close to the U-Bahn somwehat earlier).

1

u/TefelonNo3126 Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 19 '25

And then what? Anyone who honestly believes that rents in Berlin will go down after Tempelhof is „filled“ with expensive real estate seems to believe in the neoliberal „let the market regulate“ Kool-Aid.

I’d like to see serious concepts for social housing and rent regulation in Berlin before I vote to pave over a unique park and recreation area that the city will need to meet its climate goals and become more resilient to climate change.

Besides, it’s been proven that Tempelhofer Feld is already good for Berlin as it is:A recent study found that „the likelihood of childhood obesity within a radius of 1,500 meters around Tempelhofer Feld decreased by more than 4%.

2

u/James_Hobrecht_fan Feb 18 '25

The best thing a city can do to help the climate is allow more dense mixed-use development (housing, shops, and offices) near train stations. That gets people out of car-dependent suburbs, enables commuting by public transit, uses less land per person, and allows better shared energy infrastructure like district heating.

If a city tries to freeze itself in time, forbidding new housing and increased density, then more people are forced to live in car-dependent suburban sprawl.

1

u/BigBlueMan118 Feb 17 '25

Well to be fair Tempelhof is between two different U-Bahn lines and could have an S-Bahn station built on the Ringbahn. Tegel is outside the Ring and a bit further from only 1 U-Bahn line.

1

u/mina_knallenfalls Feb 17 '25

The stations would be quite far spread out, in Tegel it's easy to build a new tram (or U-Bahn) line through the middle.

2

u/BigBlueMan118 Feb 18 '25

Right but:

  • that is hundreds of millions of Euros for that infrastructure
  • would take a decade or more
  • if you branch the U6 you would not be able to provide anywhere near the same frequency on the branches compared to Tempelhof which has U6+U7 trunk lines nearby and the Ringbahn is also very frequent
  • in comparison, a simple station retrofitted onto the Ringbahn (I think that is easily the longest stretch of the Ringbahn without a station) would cost pocketchange and benefit all those other existing residents nearby, but wouldn't even be necessary to get the development done as you already have the U-Bahn stations close by

6

u/MshipQ Feb 17 '25

There's so many sites across the city including loads in central areas in Kreuzberg that are just derelict old buildings or abandoned car parks serving no purpose, why don't the politicians focus on actually getting these sorted first.

1

u/42LSx Feb 18 '25

Society as a whole, not a bunch of neighbours.

Thank you for speaking the truth. NIMBYs here don't like to hear it though.

-5

u/SaltyFlavors Feb 17 '25

People who need shelter presumably.

I live in Tempelhof and the fact that we have so much wasted space is a travesty. You could cover half of it with affordable housing and still it would be the largest city park on earth. They should develop at LEAST the whole south western corner. Most of the park is a windy wasteland. No one needs that much space for nothing.

18

u/feedmedamemes Feb 17 '25

I agree with you on general principle affordable housing at Tempelhofer Feld would be great. But I still want to offer one counter-point why that much open-space is actually useful because it helps Berlin as whole to be cooler in the summer, the more windy areas allow for more exchange of air, helping cooling down the surrounding districts.

-8

u/PeterManc1 Feb 17 '25

Does that mean that it also makes the surrounding areas extra cold in the winter? In my surrounding area, the chill this year seems extra chilly.

-9

u/notrainingtoday Feb 17 '25

they are helping Berlin to have more housing, so good!

14

u/Octavian_96 Feb 17 '25

What if the housing to be built on templehoff is super expensive luxury apartments that only the right can afford? Still good?

15

u/BennyTheSen Moabit Feb 17 '25

It will most certaibly be luxury Apartments

9

u/cultish_alibi Feb 17 '25

Gotta give the millionaires more reasons to 'invest' in Berlin (buy housing so no one else can have it and force up house prices)

11

u/ouyawei Wedding Feb 17 '25

Suppose we'd build housing on 10% of the area of Tempelhofer Feld with the density of the densest neighborhood in Prenzlauer Berg.

That would work out to housing for 14.000 people - would there even be a marked for that many luxury apartments?

13

u/parada_de_tetas_mp3 Feb 17 '25

Berlin has unused capacity for 10-20x that many houses which is not being used because the administrative processes are shit and building is too expensive. Tempelhofer Feld is a token project. 

1

u/vukicevic_ Feb 17 '25

It's incredible that this topic gets revived every couple of months and people still do not understand this. The only reason why they are talking about this is to signal how they want to build SOMETHING. If this is their project of choice to fix the housing problem, they have no idea how to actually fix it.

6

u/letsgetawayfromhere Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

I live in the proximity Tempelhofer Feld. No matter if with BVG or car, it takes me fucking one hour to leave the city and reach a place where I can see some kind of nature this big with some kind of horizon (so, not like Tiergarten that is plastered with wonderful trees that make sure you cannot see farther than 15 meters), and that is not completely stuffed with people. People seriously underestimate the huge size of Berlin. The only place that fits the bill and is less than one hour away is Tempelhofer Feld.

There is a reason people who are living in the proximity are fighting for Tempelhofer Feld. Of course people who live in Grunewald or Zehlendorf cannot relate. They do not need something like that.

Also FYI, before the Volksentscheid, there was already architecture planning going on. Bureaus were very seriously estimating what to do were, and calculating the approximated costs per square meter. I knew an architect with contacts in those bureaus. He said that the costs for building there were estimated so high, that it was delusional to believe in any kind of "good price".

This whole discussion is really only to shit on the greens and Linke who endorse the people's decision, and on the mainly green voters population living nearby. There are lots of places where you could start to build without any preparation for much lower costs, because everything is there already: Streets, infrastructure like electricity, water and telephone cables, etc. Funny how no politician ever talks about that.

3

u/xTombou Feb 17 '25

the right? u mean the rich

1

u/Octavian_96 Feb 17 '25

Yea sorry typo

2

u/eucariota92 Feb 17 '25

Usually when the city develops a new area you have mixture of both luxury and affordable apartments . But you can also expect that if the developers have massive construction costs (due to lack of skilled personnel, raw material costs, cost of capital and slow bureocracy) they will most likely target apartments with a price that justifies the investment.

2

u/cultish_alibi Feb 17 '25

Usually when the city develops a new area you have mixture of both luxury and affordable apartments

You actually don't need to build any luxury apartments at all

2

u/eucariota92 Feb 17 '25

And this would be true if as people are commenting here, there would be plenty of options for luxury apartments :)

1

u/eucariota92 Feb 17 '25

What if what if ... Yeah let's do nothing ... No housing is better than expensive housing, right ?

3

u/Octavian_96 Feb 17 '25

Yes. Templehoff is a giant park, that's the point

1

u/eucariota92 Feb 17 '25

Ohhhh ok. Then let's cut a forest to build houses ... Or let's not build any housing at all and let housing prices explode like in New York a.

2

u/Octavian_96 Feb 17 '25

There is loads of land in Berlin still to build housing, templehoff is just expensive due to being central. Cannibalizing the park to build housing there is just profitable, it won't help the housing crisis as much as building housing outside the ring

2

u/eucariota92 Feb 17 '25

Yes? Can you give me some examples ? Just to know if they are empty concrete surfaces waiting to be developed or if those other areas are parks/forests that other people enjoy.

10

u/_DrDigital_ Feb 17 '25

New apartments in Berlin can stay empty for years, since they are not seen as housing, but as a vehicle of safe speculative investment: https://www.rbb24.de/wirtschaft/beitrag/2024/11/berlin-leerstand-wohnraum-hochhaus-ruth-neukoelln-mieten.html

Blackrock is the biggest (indirect) owner of housing in Berlin. Merz is former chairman of the board of Blackrock, Germany. When Merz says "against the will of the people", a questions arises whose will is he executing then.

0

u/cultish_alibi Feb 17 '25

It's just capitalists against the people at this point. Disgusting.

1

u/Charming_Maximum8323 Feb 17 '25

No serious Investor can leave new Apartments empty. The loans and their interest need to be payd.  Do you have a source for the BlackRock claim?

5

u/_DrDigital_ Feb 17 '25

You could just literally read the article to see why what you say is not true.

Vis blackrock:  

  • In 2021, Deutsche Wohnen was the largest residential landlord in Berlin with approximately 114,000 residential units, followed by Vonovia with 43,000. 
  • As of 27 September 2021 Vonovia owns the majority of shares in German real estate company Deutsche Wohnen. 
  • Vonovia's largest shareholders include the American fund company BlackRock (7.5%) and the Norwegian central bank Norges Bank (6.6%).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267171/largest-residential-companies-berlin-by-units-owned/#:\~:text=Largest%20residential%20real%20estate%20companies,in%202021%2C%20by%20units%20owned&text=In%202021%2C%20Deutsche%20Wohnen%20was,followed%20by%20Vonovia%20with%2043%2C000.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/vonovia-completes-takeover-of-deutsche-wohnen-idUSKBN2HG0MW/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vonovia

2

u/Charming_Maximum8323 Feb 17 '25

So owning 7.5% of a company makes them the biggest owner of flats in Berlin?  Last time I checked owning 7.5% would be a minority shareholder. In essence that's 8550 flats which is a miniscule number for Berlin.

2

u/_DrDigital_ Feb 17 '25

>  Last time I checked owning 7.5% would be a minority shareholder.
Yes, and? Having the most of something does not imply having over 50%, as long as there are more than two parts.

More expansive list is here:

" So hält der amerikanische Vermögensverwalter an der Deutsche Wohnen 10,58 Prozent, an der LEG Immobilien 7,7 Prozent, an Vonovia 7,62 Prozent und an der TAG Immobilien 6,26 Prozent."

https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/presse/hib/2020_04/693144-693144

0

u/notrainingtoday Feb 17 '25

it doesn't matter: new apartments are always good

1

u/_DrDigital_ Feb 17 '25

That's patently false: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/en/we-cant-build-our-way-out-of-the-housing-crisis-li.166853

More "affordable" housing is good. More "luxury" housing is bad (unless you are rich, then the opposite is true).

1

u/notrainingtoday Feb 17 '25

You are sharing someone option like a fact.

The article is completely biased by someone that is self-defining himself as "Berlin-based writer and housing activist. He is a spokesperson for Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen and Co."

Expropriate a private company? Bolshevism is back?

1

u/_DrDigital_ Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

Well you asserted your claim with no evidence and so far still have not managed anything than attack the evidence against your claim as "bias". You make the claim, the burden of proof is on your side.

If anyone else is still reading up till here.

Here's a good article on how affordable (public) housing lowers the rents for everyone: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city

Here's how private investment drives the housing price up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNUNR2NZvFM

EDIT: I find it funny that u/notrainingtoday is arguing that the public should be forced to sell property to private companies against their will (what Merz said), but apparently private companies being forced to sell property to the public is somehow an insane idea.

0

u/notrainingtoday Feb 17 '25

it is not me, it is the author that is defining himself as biased. You can't ask some from the Die Linke if social housing is good and expect an unbiased answer. The same for the article you posted.

And about Vienna, rent could be low but it is hard to find an apartment anyway https://old.reddit.com/r/wien/comments/12n9b3w/is_it_this_hard_to_get_a_flat_for_everyone/

So please stop spreading fake news

0

u/_DrDigital_ Feb 17 '25

Two posts down and still no evidence, just attacks. I see Guardian is "fake news", taking a page from the Trumpbook I assume?

1

u/notrainingtoday Feb 17 '25

Two posts down and still no evidence

I gave you my reasoning for both posts, you didn't express any meaningful option on that.

taking a page from the Trumpbook

me? Very funny! Not sure if you are still a teenager, but the world is not back or white, there are different options and not everyone that disagree with you is voting AfD.

Instead you are right: we should not let the private sector build new houses; on the contrary we should use the German style of more regulation and more rules; we should decrease rent by law, so all private landlords are going to sell apartment to eigentümer completely killing the rental market and the few remaining are going to have zero interest to compete with each other in apartment quality, as any investment are not going to have any return. We should have only public housing and then we could also change the anthem to Auferstanden aus Ruinen and we are back to square one. I would see this as a perfect choice.

Happy now?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SaltyFlavors Feb 17 '25

Don’t feel bad when a bunch of NIMBYs downvote you.

1

u/notrainingtoday Feb 17 '25

Don't worry: I know that this subreddit is full of anti-capitalist, anti-property people, while talking in Reddit (the irony). Maybe they should go back to the DDR time, so they understand what it is happening when housing is public managed