National Report Germany - Max-Planck

Transcription

Crime Prevention Carousel
Sharing Good Practice in Crime Prevention
Final National Report
Germany
Max Planck Institute for Foreign
and International Criminal Law
Guenterstalstr. 73 • 79100 Freiburg i. Br.
Germany
December 2006
Department of Criminology
Tim Lukas
Mark Enters
Matthias Abraham
Annika Melde
Christopher Murphy
Anne Wollenhaupt
2 / 111
Table of Content
0B
1 INTRODUCTION
5
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES
7
2.1 Marzahn North
2.1.1 Marzahn North as part of Marzahn-Hellersdorf
2.1.2 Physical structure of Marzahn North
2.1.3 Services in Marzahn North
7
7
10
12
2.2 Gropiusstadt
2.2.1 Gropiusstadt as part of Neukoelln
2.2.2 Physical structure of the research area in the Gropiusstadt
2.2.3 Services in the research area of the Gropiusstadt
14
14
15
19
2.3 Socio-Demographics of the research areas in
Marzahn North and the Gropiusstadt
2.3.1 Inhabitants
2.3.2 Ethnicity
2.3.3 Age composition
2.3.4 Unemployment and social situation
21
21
22
23
24
2.4 Crime rate trends for Marzahn North
and the Gropiusstadt
28
2.5 Crime maps for Marzahn North and the Gropiusstadt
2.5.1 Description of the relevant Police KOBs
2.5.2 Total crime
2.5.3 Theft
2.5.4 Burglary
2.5.5 Robbery
2.5.6 Street crime
30
30
31
34
37
37
42
2.6 Tackling social and physical problems in
Marzahn North and the Gropiusstadt
2.6.1 City Reconstruction East: ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ – Crime
Prevention through physical measures
2.6.2 ‘Socially Integrative City’: Neighbourhood management –
Crime prevention through social measures
2.6.3 Crime prevention representatives – A measure of
community policing
2.6.4 Concierge services – A rediscovered measure of crime
prevention
2.6.5 Noise Police (Laermpolizei) – A measure of neighbourhood
improvement
2.6.6 Physical refurbishment – Measures to prevent vandalism
45
45
47
51
52
53
54
3 / 111
3 REPORT ON QUANTITATIVE DATA
56
3.1 Drawing of the sample
56
3.2 Description of the sample
3.2.1 Gender ratio
3.2.1 Ethnicity
3.2.1 Composition of age
56
56
57
57
3.3 Living conditions in the two research areas
58
3.4 Level of Fear of Crime in the research areas
61
3.5 Summary
65
3.6 Social cohesion
66
3.7 Problems in the research areas
3.7.1 Incivilities
3.7.2 Crime
3.7.3 Deficits
3.7.4 Conclusions
67
67
68
69
69
3.8 Development of problems during the last five years
3.8.1 Incivilities
3.8.2 Crime
3.8.3 Deficits
70
70
71
71
3.9 Measures to improve the situation in the research areas
3.9.1 Prevention
3.9.1 Repression
3.9.2 Conclusions
72
72
72
73
4 REPORT ON QUALITATIVE DATA
74
4.1 Objectives
74
4.2 Crime and fear of crime
76
4.3 Solution approaches
80
4.4 Crime and built environment
84
4.5 Success
86
4.6 Acceptance
87
4.7 Social Cohesion
88
4.8 Future planning
90
4 / 111
5 SITE VISIT REPORTS
92
5.1 Objective description of the Gropiusstadt
92
5.2 Objective description of Marzahn North
93
5.2 Site visit report from Poland
5.2.1 Gropiusstadt
5.2.2 Marzahn North
95
95
97
5.3 Site visit report from the UK
5.3.1 Gropiusstadt
5.3.2 Marzahn North
99
99
100
5.4 Site visit report from Hungary
103
5.5 Site visit report from The Netherlands
104
6 LESSONS LEARNED
107
7 LITERATURE
110
5 / 111
1
Introduction
1B
Large housing estates in Germany usually suffer from a very negative image. Already
2B
confronted with vehement criticism shortly after their completion, these settlements
and their residents have habitually been exposed to a pattern of long term deprecia-
tion and discrimination. Regarded as “ghettos” (Strubelt 2006) or “breeding grounds for crime”
(Guratzsch 2002), outsiders traditionally associate these estates with drugs, crime, prostitution
and ignorance (cf. Willinger 2006). Although such statements are far from the truth, in recent
years large-scale housing estates have certainly been a talking point against the background of
massive population shrinkage caused by declining birth rates and outward migration due to
structural economic reasons. Moreover, the topicality of large housing estates in Germany results from the actual percentage of residential housing these settlements hold on the German
housing market. According to the “Report on large housing estates” (Deutscher Bundestag
1994) 1.6 million dwellings of this type have been erected across Germany –, meaning that five
per cent of the entire housing stock in Germany is constructed of post-WWII large housing estates. However, the share is significantly higher in eastern than in western Germany: Whereas
in western Germany only every sixtieth person lives in an estate with more than 2500 flats, this
is every fourth person in the new federal states. The difference is even more obvious when
comparing the settlements with more than 10,000 dwellings. In western Germany the share of
residents living in these estates amounts to 0.4 per cent, in eastern Germany this figure runs to
12 per cent. Thus, although negative growth has characterised these settlements in recent
years – particularly in the new federal states – they still form an important supply function on the
overall German housing market. Therefore special emphasis is placed on the further development of large-scale housing in Germany. Since crime is generally not an especially noteworthy
problem in these estates (albeit that they are often considered as a home for delinquents), several programmes were launched by the Federal Government and the states during the last
years which were not aimed at creating crime-free neighbourhoods but rather at the physical
revaluation and social stabilisation of these estates. Although a drawback of these programmes
was their contribution to the already negative image of the settlements and a further promotion
the spiral of stigmatisation, these programmes generally led to favourable developments in
many of these housing estates: High turn-over rates decreased, building services were modernised, the surrounding areas have been upgraded and the infrastructural supply has been improved. However, this should not belie the fact that the residents frequently still suffer from a
very poor social situation. Since crime rates are often highly related to poverty and unemployment, physical refurbishment remains inefficient if it is not possible to provide adequate perspectives for the residents. Thus, developing strategies for sustainable and safe neighbour-
6 / 111
hoods in large housing estates is a complex problem which can not be solved by using physical
means only.
7 / 111
2
Description of the sites
4B
Within the overall project “Crime Prevention Carousel (CPC)” which aims to investi-
3B
gate crime prevention measures in Western and Eastern European large housing
estates, the German section of the study serves as a focal point in comparing East
and West against the background of historically different origins. On this note it seemed to be
reasonable to conduct the examination in Berlin, a city providing a unique opportunity to examine East and West in one place. Correspondingly, it was one precondition for the study that the
proposed research areas cover both parts of the formerly divided city. Further requirements
concerned the high-rise construction of the sites as well as (crime preventive) measures that
have already been established. According to these preconditions two particularly typical postWWII estates have been chosen: The Gropiusstadt in West-Berlin and Marzahn North in EastBerlin. Although several urban problems are comparable between East and West (Herlyn/Hunger 1994, p. 295), both sites contrast with regard to design and construction of the housing estate as well as concerning the socio-demographic development of the neighbourhood in
particular.
2.1 Marzahn North
15B
2.1.1 Marzahn North as part of Marzahn-Hellersdorf
41B
The research area Marzahn North is part of the overall borough Marzahn-Hellersdorf which is
located on Berlin’s north-eastern border to the federal state of Brandenburg and which was
formed in 2001 by merging the two former administrative entities of Marzahn and Hellersdorf
(Figure 2.1). The entire borough consists of five former villages that were suburbanised in 1920
when ‘Greater Berlin’ was established (Figure 2.2): Biesdorf and Mahlsdorf are characterised by
small family houses, whereas Kaulsdorf, Marzahn and Hellersdorf, which are mainly composed
of prefabricated panel buildings, form the largest agglomeration of industrially produced housing
in central Europe. Marzahn-Hellersdorf encompasses an area of 61.74 km² and houses, as at
the end of 2005, about 250,400 inhabitants, of whom more than 70% are living in the large
housing estates on 50% of the total expanse of the borough (State Office for Statistics Berlin, in
the following: StaLa Berlin).
The new estates were originally founded as the major extension of the GDR’s capital. Given the
slow-going reconstruction process after WWII the creation of living space was the ultimate ambition of the political leadership of the GDR. At the same time, the creation of equal living conditions was the ideological doctrine. In this regard, large scale housing developments promised to
cover several aspects: The abolition of housing shortage on the one hand and the enforcement
8 / 111
of ideological ideals on the other. Thus, the establishment of large housing estates in the GDR
was primarily a “politically motivated step” (Hannemann 1998, p. 92).
Marzahn was built according to the modernist
urban concept of separated urban functions
from 1977 to 1989 and ultimately provided
58,500 dwellings. Embedded into large green
spaces it was envisaged that the open building structure would follow the idea of ‘vertical
garden cities’ as described by Le Corbusier.
However, in reality the architectural design of
the entire estate was rather uninspired and
monotonous. Since architects in the GDR
predominantly lost their power over design in
Figure 2.1: Map of Berlin with highlighted Marzahn-Hellersdorf
the mass-housing sector during the late
1950s, the responsibility for the realisation of
new housing estates mainly belonged to
East-Berlin’s state owned building combines.
Liberty, although limited, was conceded only
in terms of urban design.
By way of contrast, the Hellersdorf estate had
a “(relatively) differentiated settlement design
due to a differentiated selection of building
types” (Stadtbuero Hunger 2003). Begun in
1985, the district was erected following the
concept of a self contained new town, organised
to
produce
smaller
independent
neighbourhoods and aimed to promote identification with the area as well as to provide
‘classical’ urban structures in industrialised
building. The construction lasted until 1992,
Figure 2.2: Districts in Marzahn-Hellersdorf
thus until beyond reunification. Although
West-German perception categorised the
once acclaimed East-German housing areas as monofunctional dormitory-towns, putting both
their functionality as well as their technical quality into doubt, the Hellersdorf estate benefited
from post-unification funding while it was nearing completion. The further development was estimated to be necessary for the provision of housing and urban development in East-Berlin, and
9 / 111
because it provided an “important psychological and political factor within the process of unification” (Schuemer-Strucksberg 1994).
Since 1991, Marzahn-Hellersdorf has thus been a target-area for several urban renewal programmes aiming at the urbanisation and revitalisation of the large housing estates. The borough
was involved into ambitious projects, such as the ExWoSt-programme (‘Experimental Housing
and Urban Development-programme’), the ‘Healthy Cities’ association and the ‘Sustainable Cities Project’ of the EXPO 2000. In 1999, the research area Marzahn North-West was designated
as a target-area of the ‘Socially Integrative City’ programme and thus became a ‘neighbourhood
management’ 1 district (see chapter 2.6.2). The latest important attempt to further develop the
F
F
district’s urban and life quality was the project ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ which was realised by the
housing company WBG Marzahn within the framework of the ‘City Reconstruction East’ programme (see chapter 2.6.1).
Figure 2.3: Aerial picture of Marzahn NorthWest
Figure 2.4: Map of Marzahn North-West with
highlighted research area Marzahn North
Given its peripheral situation in the extreme north of Marzahn-Hellersdorf, the research area
Marzahn North looks rather isolated (Figures 2.3 and 2.4): In the north and east it borders onto
the federal state of Brandenburg with its small villages Ahrensfelde and Eiche, to the south the
site is physically separated from the rest of the estate by a green corridor along the Seelgrabenstream. In the west the urban rail track (S-Bahn) towards Ahrensfelde constitutes a physical
boundary against the western part of the overall area Marzahn North-West. The site stretches
over 1.2 km in length and 1.3 km in width, covering 119.94 ha in total. Its distance to the eastern
city centre (Alexander Square) constitutes approximately 12 km.
The area is structured by the thoroughfare named ‘Havemannstraße’, the tram-line along Borkheider and Schorfheider Straße and the in lying recreation area named ‘Clara-Zetkin-Park’. Via
Maerkische Allee (federal road 158), which serves as an access road for the entire quarter, the
1
Neighbourhood management is Berlin’s instrument to implement the “Districts with Special Development
Needs – the Socially Integrative City" programme which aims to counteract the widening socio-spatial rifts
in the cities (see chapter 2.6.2).
10 / 111
district is well linked to East-Berlin’s city centre as well as the surrounding areas. Whereas the
district is well developed with public transport in a north-south-direction (S-Bahn, Tram), eastwest-connections and the linkage to neighbouring boroughs are only provided by busses.
2.1.2 Physical structure of Marzahn North
42B
Marzahn North was built from 1984 to 1989
Source:
http://www.berlin.de
as the last phase of construction of the entire
Marzahn panel estate. In the past the area
had a very limited individual character. The
built environment predominantly consisted of
six to eleven storey blocks fabricated with precast concrete slabs. Due to the low quality of
the building material towards the end of the
GDR, Marzahn North was one of the first areas in Berlin that needed to benefit from the
urban rehabilitation programmes decreed for
the East-German large housing estates. ToFigure 2.5: Road map of Marzahn North
day, the buildings are for the most part completely or at least partially renovated. This
includes the modernisation of the technical infrastructure as well as the refurbishment of the
facades: e.g., balconies were added and lift systems have been installed (Pictures 2.1 and 2.2).
As a pilot scheme for further undertakings in other areas in Berlin, Marzahn North contains the
regeneration project ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ (Picture 2.3), where several old eleven storey
tower blocks have been demolished or down-sized by varying amounts in order to create a less
uniform profile of the entire neighbourhood (see chapter 2.4.1).
Picture 2.1: Later attached balconies
Picture 2.2: Later installed lift systems
Picture 2.3: View of ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’
11 / 111
However, apart from the ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ the area is predominantly composed of uniform
ten or eleven storey buildings, dominating the urban design of Marzahn North and offering
housing in a very limited number of standardised types of panel blocks. The residential areas,
which are arranged to the north and south of Havemann Straße were built up using the GDR’s
last generation of industrially pre-cast concrete panels, the so called WBS 70 (‘Wohnungsbauserie 70’), a residential building series which was spread across the whole country. Due to
the area’s rehabilitation most of these buildings are nowadays colourfully painted 2 ; however
F
F
others still lack optical attraction and appear to date in the typical colours of the GDR’s prefabricated panel buildings: light and dark grey.
The vast majority of the tower blocks in the area are owned by the housing company WBG Marzahn, which was founded as a legally independent entity after reunification and since 2002 exists in the broader context of the larger municipal housing company DEGEWO. Smaller parts of
the estate belong to the Berlin-Brandenburg housing co-operative or were bought up by single
owners as well as by private housing companies. Private individual flat-ownership had been
conceptualised by the large housing companies due to their legal obligation to sell off 15 per
cent of their stock. But apart from a few dwellings that were reconstructed within the context of
the ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’, there has been no real interest in private ownership of single flats.
The rents are not remarkably different from average eastern inner-city rents. However, for tenants who have lived in the estate since it was built, the rents have risen noticeably (KnorrSiedow/Droste 2003, p. 97).
Picture 2.4: View of old tower blocks at
Woerlitzer Street
Picture 2.5: Refurbished playground in the
area of the ‘Ahrensfelder terraces’
Due to the open building structure of the research area, extensive greenery surrounds the single tower blocks and constitutes spacious backyards including playgrounds and sporting areas.
2
The neighbourhood management therefore campaigns for the district using the slogan “Marzahn NorthWest – Der Stadtteil mit Farbe” (Marzahn NorthWest – The Colourful District)
12 / 111
Continuously up-graded under the co-ordination of the neighbourhood management these
sometimes constitute a strong contrast to the, as yet, non-redeveloped buildings. It is to be
feared that similar effects will arise from the planned refurbishment of the ‘Clara-Zetkin-Park’
and the hope remains that the surrounding tower blocks, which have hitherto been rather neglected, will be redeveloped in the near future. Thus, the overall re-designing of the public
space is still under way. Up to now, the neighbourhood management, with the participation of
the involved target-groups, has successfully redesigned the Ahrensfelder Square and several
schoolyards in the area. Environmental measures have been carried out at Havemann Square
as well as in Eiche- and Seelgrabenpark.
2.1.3 Services in Marzahn North
43B
Consistently regarded as a problem in recent years, the fields of health care and commercial
infrastructure in Marzahn North have, in the meantime, been significantly improved. Nowadays,
the area provides several dispersed facilities offering retail trade (district centre at Havemann
Straße, ‘Zu den Eichen’ at Borkheider Straße and shops run by Russian-migrants). However,
very large and new commercial centres, which were built in close quarters (i.e. East-Berlin’s
biggest shopping mall ‘Eastgate’), provide a huge variety of offerings, although at the same time
they also exert massive economic pressure on the smaller neighbourhood centres. The high
fluctuation of shops affecting the shopping centres in Havemann and Borkheider Straße could
be an effect of this development.
With regard to health care infrastructure, the situation has significantly improved over the last
years. While in 1999, social research about Marzahn North highlighted the insufficient medical
care supply compared to the inner-city standards, the circumstances have bettered themselves
remarkably in the ensuing years.. Above the Berlin average of 2.0, there were 2.2 medical practitioners for 1,000 inhabitants in 2004 in Marzahn North-West 3 ; a very high standard both in
F
F
Berlin as well as by way of European comparison.
Whereas the health care infrastructure was improved, the supply of childcare, primary and secondary schools has currently been scaled down due to the shrinkage of the population as a consequence of outward migration and declining birth-rates. So far, one schoolhouse and four daycare facilities for children have been already demolished. 4 Further demolitions in the future will
F
F
concern one schoolhouse, two day-care centres and one multi-purpose building (one of each
already vacant). These constructions have mainly been reused in recent years, that is, day-care
centres for example were oftentimes utilised as youth clubs or additional school buildings. Thus,
it is due to the development of a well differentiated system of municipal welfare agencies and
3
Not including dentists and psychotherapists (Source: Own calculations, Senate of Berlin 2006).
As of the end of 2005 there are still eight day-care centres and eight schools, but no grammar-school (all
data including the western part of Marzahn North-West).
4
13 / 111
NGOs that the youth infrastructure has been recently improved. Further threats however come
from the dramatic budgetary position of Berlin which endangers the existence of several leisure
facilities for children and juveniles.
Apart from the youth infrastructure additional problems also arise as a result of the aging population. Even though Marzahn North is still one of the youngest districts in Marzahn-Hellersdorf,
leisure facilities for elderly people are lacking. Taking into account this demographic perspective, the district has intensified its social planning with regard to the older generation.
14 / 111
2.2 Gropiusstadt
16B
2.2.1 Gropiusstadt as part of Neukoelln
44B
The research area in the Gropiusstadt is part of the overall borough Neukoelln which is located
in the south-east of Berlin, bordering the neighbouring boroughs of Tempelhof-Schoeneberg to
the west and Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg to the north as well as the East Berlin borough of Treptow-Koepenick and the federal state of Brandenburg to the south (Figure 2.6). The entire borough encompasses an area of 44.93 km².
Source: http://www.wikipedia.de
Originally Neukoelln was made up of the city of
Neukoelln in the north and the villages Britz,
Buck and Rudow in the south (Figure 2.7). Until
1912, Neukoelln carried the name ‘Rixdorf’
which was changed due to a negative image
associated with the name. The northern part of
the borough was predominantly built after the
turn of the century when, due to migration
caused by the industrial urban development, the
request for housing increased dramatically.
Meeting this request, the first typical Berlin
Figure 2.6: Map of Berlin with highlighted
tenements (‘Mietskasernen’) were built in the
Neukoelln
1860s. These served as accommodation for
hundreds of workers in a very small space - a
dormitory town. The dwellings were characterised by their very cramped conditions. Nevertheless, in 1912, 250,000 inhabitants lived in the
former city of Rixdorf. When in 1920 the southern parts were affiliated to the municipality, the
process of urbanisation extended into these
Source: http://www.wikipedia.de
areas and Neukoelln became one of the biggest
districts of Berlin.
In order to improve the living conditions and the
rather bad image of a working class district, two
considerable housing projects were realised
during the 1960s: In the northern part of Neukoelln, the old and insufficiently equipped hous-
Figure 2.7: Districts in Neukoelln
ing stock was replaced by public housing devel-
opments and in the south the large housing estate of the Gropiusstadt was constructed.
15 / 111
From 1987 until 1995, the number of inhabitants in Neukoelln increased, as in all boroughs of
Berlin (about 314.9 thousand inhabitants in 1995). Since then the population has declined,
though Neukoelln remains the most populous borough in Berlin with 302,127 inhabitants at the
end of 2005.
2.2.2 Physical structure of the research area in the Gropiusstadt
45B
While other sites of complex house building in East-Berlin only emerged in the 1970s and 80s,
the Gropiusstadt was erected from 1962 to 1975. Plans for the construction of the large housing
estate - due to the neighbouring districts formerly named ‘Britz-Buckow-Rudow’ (BBR) - were
actually made midway through the 1950s as part of the policy of societal modernisation, which
was aimed at uprooting the established Berlin working-class milieus. The rebuilding process
after World War II got under way and, in accordance with the Charter of Athens, quarters characterised by old building stocks were to be provided with ‘Light, Air and Sun’ (‘Licht, Luft und
Sonne’). Therefore, it was considered necessary to built new living space for thousands of residents who still lived in the old buildings, which were set to be demolished. 5
F
Starting from considerations to expand the large
residential estate in Britz 6 in a southward direcF
F
tion, the idea emerged to erect the new estate on
an area which was located on the southern border of Berlin and thus far characterised by agriculture. As of May 1958, the first properties were
purchased from private and ecclesiastical ownership. In 1960, Walter Gropius and The Architects
Collaborative (TAC) took charge of the urban design framework of the new estate. Gropius
Picture 2.6: View of the research area in
Gropiusstadt
wanted to combine ‘various elements of traditional city life’ with contemporary modern methods of urban development. Reminiscent of Bruno
Taut’s Horseshoe estate and following the urban model of ‘structured and dispersed cities’, the
conception was arranged for circular structures and a few high-rise buildings embedded into
areas for one-family houses and residential quarters of manageable size. Large green spaces
5
Thus, many of the first residents of the Gropiusstadt were moved to this southern area from the northern
‘Red Wedding’, a district traditionally considered under communist influence, while inhabitants of the
southern renewal areas in Neukoelln were later moved to the large housing estate ‘Maerkisches Viertel’,
which was built only a few years later than the Gropiusstadt in the northern borough of Reinickendorf. The
accompanied loss of social relations was regarded to be without any significance (cf. Tessin, W. / Knoor,
T. / Pust, C., Birlem, T. 1983).
6
The large housing estate Britz was constructed from 1925 to 1933 as one of the first projects of social
housing in Germany. Due to its central building, which was designed by the famous architect Bruno Taut,
it is usually called ‘Horseshoe Development’.
16 / 111
were intended to disperse the housing development and should serve as local recreation areas
for the residents.
However, during the planning process, many of Gropius’ original intentions were modified due to economic and political reasons. 7 According to the conF
F
temporary urban model of ‘urbanity through density’
(‘Urbanitaet durch Dichte’) and against the background of the so called ‘car adopted city’ (‘autogerechte Stadt’) the housing stock was remarkably
Figure 2.8: First development plan as at
increased and several parking lots were added. As a
May 19, 1960 (TAC)
result, the buildings that were erected were much
higher and the estate was more densely populated
than was originally planned by Gropius. Figures 2.8
to 2.10 point out the development of the area and
reveal the major changes which primarily led to the
current appearance of the Gropiusstadt.
The Gropiusstadt covers about 266.5 ha and nowadays houses 36,120 inhabitants. Whereas the GroFigure 2.9: Second development plan as
piusstadt constitutes its own district of Neukoelln 8
at April 10, 1961 (TAC)
(Figure 2.9), the actual research area is explicitly
F
F
smaller. It is located between Lipschitzallee in the
east, Fritz-Erler-Allee in the north, Zwickauer Damm
in the west and the railroad track in the south and
encompasses an area of 89.86 ha (Figures 2.11 and
2.12). Its distance to the western city centre (Wittenberg Square) constitutes approximately 11-13 km
(linear distance).
Figure 2.10: So called ‘Principe-plan’ as
Arranged along a curved green corridor which spans
at September 1, 1961 (Wils Ebert)
the U-Bahn line, the residential areas have been structured for small neighbourhood units. As
compared to the uniformed build environment in Marzahn North the physical structure of the
Gropiusstadt covers a huge variety of buildings ranging from one storey bungalow houses and
three storey blocks to high-rise buildings with up to 31 storeys. The eastern part of the research
area shows a higher density and is generally constructed higher than the western part, which is
7
Regarding the development and planning process of the Gropiusstadt, cf. Federbusch, K. (1997), Bandel, H. / Machule, D. (1974) and Becker, H. / Keim, D. (1977).
8
In accordance with the 40th anniversary of the laying of the foundation stone in 2002, the responsible
local authority constituted Gropiusstadt as an individual district within the borough of Neukoelln alongside
the districts of Neukoelln, Britz, Buckow and Rudow.
17 / 111
rather more characterised by the green spaces that Gropius originally envisaged. The buildings
are arranged due to the position of the sun; diagonal arrangements as Gropius allowed for in
order to disperse the built environment were ultimately avoided. Eight or more storey blocks
were predominately built towards the fringe of the estate. However, due to their effect on orientation several height-dominating buildings have been erected at strategically locations in the
centre, such as U-Bahn stations, crossroads or shopping centres. These sub-centres are linked
to the residential areas via a continuous system of footpaths, which is clearly separated from
other types of traffic infrastructure. The single neighbourhoods are surrounded by loop-like
streets which are connected to smaller access roads that lead into the particular housing areas.
Source: StaLa Berlin
Figure 2.11: Road map of the research area
Figure 2.12: Map of the research area
Whereas the north-western part of the entire district consists predominately of parallel and rightangled building structures, the research area features a more differentiated ensemble of ground
plans. Originally starting from the concept of simple lines the physical structure in the area mirrors the overall development into a more varied build environment. Despite its scale and density, the estate shows a dispersed structure which is further intensified by the use of colourful or
plastically details at the edges or in the pedestal zones of the buildings. According to contemporary stylistic devices, concrete slabs showing a rough surface have been fixed to the front and
side walls in order to create a differentiated structure.
Picture 2.7: View of the ‘Gropius-House’
Picture 2.8: View of the ‘Ideal’ high-rise
18 / 111
Exemplified on the ‘Gropius-House’ and the ‘Ideal’ high-rise (both located at Wildmeisterdamm)
these stylistic devices can be impressively shown. At the curved ‘Gropius-House’ (Picture 2.7),
the top levels are arranged for maisonette dwellings which reach for two floors and correspond
in height to the loggias at the back side as well as to the half-round balconies at the front side of
the building. The ‘Ideal’ high-rise (Picture 2.8), which is the highest residential building, not only
in the Gropiusstadt but in the entirety of Berlin (89 meters), is non linear in design with parts of
the structure, such as loggias or unequally constructed oriels, jutting out and giving the facades
a dispersed and singular impression.
The ‘Ideal’ high-rise is one of only few buildings in the case study area which is not owned by
the housing company DEGEWO. 9 Whereas the housing company GEHAG actually holds the
F
F
largest stock of buildings in the entire Gropiusstadt (but more or less in the north-western part),
the research area, due to its tenure structure, is usually called DEGEWO-territory. Private ownership plays only a minor role in this area. An exception however constitutes the estate along
the Lenzelpfad which is architecturally characterised by one storey bungalows and the holding
of private property.
Picture 2.9: Entrance to the green corridor at
Lipschitzallee
Picture 2.10: Entrance to the green corridor at
Zwickauer Damm
One of the main objections formulated by the residents after the completion of the Gropiusstadt
regarded the insufficient incorporation of greenery. Even though nature had time enough to develop over the last thirty years, the housing companies as well as the municipality in cooperation with an advisory board of residents established several measures aimed at the revaluation of the green and open spaces. Besides several physical measures that have been
9
The ‘ideal’ high-rise is owned by the housing cooperative IDEAL, which was founded in 1907 as the
response to the misery and needs of the workers living in Rixdorf at that time. The high-rise is the only
building owned by IDEAL e.G. in the Gropiusstadt.
19 / 111
taken in the past 10 , the estate’s landscaping today provides the impression of an extensive
F
F
green environment, which is intensified by the access to the rural Brandenburgian vicinity since
1989. Due to a regular cultivation of the public parks the environment, although actually still being rather monotonous, gives the overall impression of being quite clean and well-kept (Pictures
2.9 and 2.10).
The green corridor, actually more a footpath than a recreation area though providing several
parks and football grounds, is appropriated by children and juveniles utilising the large greenery
for games and playing. Nevertheless, at nightfall the area is perceived to as being particularly
dangerous. Serving as a connecting path to cover the distance from the residential areas to the
U-Bahn stations (and vice versa) the corridor is well used during daylight. Due to a lack of social
infrastructure in the Gropiusstadt during the night (only a few pubs or bars exist in the area) the
public life comes to a standstill shortly after the last shops have closed and accordingly leads to
a situation where the streets and the greenery are only sparsely populated. As a result, social
control in the public areas is heavily reduced and, in conjunctions with problems of insufficient
lighting, the green spaces are turned into spaces of fear which are mostly avoided by the residents.
2.2.3 Services in the research area of the Gropiusstadt
46B
While the physical construction of the estate was rapidly completed, the development of the
social infrastructure lagged far behind. In 1971, the recently established ‘Haus der Mitte’ (which
was closed in 2006) was the only youth centre within the entire area. That said, in the meantime
the Gropiusstadt as a whole houses more day nurseries, schools and other facilities for children
and adolescents than the neighbouring districts. The research area offers an above average
service and includes several (adventure) playgrounds, youth clubs and schools, which also attract pupils from beyond the boundaries of the district.
This has been made possible by a well developed transport connexion, which was – as opposed to other large housing estates in Berlin – provided right from the beginning of the erection
of the estate. On the other hand, apart from the usual attractions within the area itself, the differentiated network of busses and the U-Bahn makes cultural activities and shopping facilities in
the surrounding area well accessible for the residents of the research area.
Thus, Berlin’s largest shopping mall, the so called ‘Gropiuspassagen’, which was build in 1997
near the U-Bahn station Johannisthaler Chaussee beyond the research area, marks an important identification point for all residents of the Gropiusstadt and allures people from the research
10
Such as the redesign of the square at the Lipschitzallee serving as an entrance to the green corridor
(Picture 2.9), the construction of a pavilion (which looks rather run-down nowadays) next to the Lipschitzallee within the green corridor, planting vegetation on the parking lots or the rearranged square around
the U-Bahn station ‘Wutzkyallee’ (for other examples cf. Federbusch, K. 1997, pp. 74-75).
20 / 111
area as well. Since ‘publicity’ constitutes only a minor significance in the entire Gropiusstadt, the
‘Gropiuspassagen’ are of particular importance regarding the self-image of the residents.
On the other hand, the shopping centre creates problems. Due to the more than 180 shops,
coffee bars, fast food restaurants and department stores, noise and pollution in the surrounding
area seem to be unavoidable. Furthermore, the ‘Gropiuspassagen’ attract children and adolescents which like to spend their leisure-time in the premises of the shopping mall. However, the
centre management and private security firms, anxious to guarantee an undisturbed shopping
experience, move large groups of juveniles along. At the weekends the discotheque ‘Fun’,
which is located in the ‘Gropiuspassagen’, is secured by an intensified police presence and migrant juveniles primarily from Turkish or Arabian backgrounds are sometimes refused entrance
to the club.
Apart from the ‘Gropiuspassagen’ which supply the long-term needs, daily retail in the research
area is predominately provided near the U-Bahn stations ‘Wutzkyallee’ and ‘Zwickauer Damm’.
Due to the underlying contemporary architectural model of separated urban functions, these UBahn stations were designated to create small centres within the residential areas. Although
satisfying the daily needs (e.g., food, etc.), these sub-centres fail to give the feeling of a vital
and lively public space. Particularly at the weekends and during the evening hours, the area
appears ‘dead’ since people principally stay at home due to a lack of restaurants or other facilities of urban nightlife. In this respect the Gropiusstadt still matches the original idea of a dormitory town, which does not include labour and leisure time facilities. Concerning labour, the research area offers only poor prospects. Although providing some jobs in the field of retail trade,
most of the employed residents are forced to leave the Gropiusstadt for work.
Regarding the health care infrastructure, the area is well equipped. North of the Gropiusstadt
Berlin’s largest non-university hospital, located in Britz, offers a full supply of medical care. In
addition, according to the model of eastern German policlinics the medical centre at Lipschitzallee was founded in 1976. Fundamentally modernised during the last years, the facility comprises 23 medical practitioners from various realms of health care caring for ordinary and particular diseases.
Contrasting to Marzahn North, the Gropiusstadt features several churches. Apart from ‘St.
Dominicus’ (catholic) at Lipschitzallee and ‘Martin-Luther-King’ (evangelic) at Johannisthaler
Chaussee the actual research area houses the evangelic parish ‘Gropiusstadt-Sued’. Furthermore, a couple of public facilities, like the ‘Haus der Mitte’ are operated by ecclesiastical organisations. Although constituting the majority among the non-Germans in the Gropiusstadt Turkish
or Arabian migrants in the area are not organised in religious respects. Mosque associations
are more typically located in the northern parts of Neukoelln.
21 / 111
2.3 Socio-Demographics of the research areas in Marzahn
North and the Gropiusstadt
17B
2.3.1 Inhabitants
47B
Marzahn North is a particularly young area. Young in the sense of its history as well as in the
sense of its inhabitants. Whereas the other parts of the panel estates in Marzahn-Hellersdorf
were occupied with young families from East-Berlin and other GDR governmental districts, who
were well educated and well paid, Marzahn North – due to its late construction as well as its
contemporary politics of occupation – was let to entire tenant groups from the poorer East-Berlin
inner-city districts, which were predominantly not redeveloped and to a high extend let to socially and politically ‘problematic’ people. During the past years, the demographic development
in Marzahn North showed a steep decline of the population and high turn-over rates: Better-off
families left the district whereas low-income households moved in. Whereas the entire borough
of Marzahn-Hellersdorf still suffers from the shrinkage of the population, Marzahn North benefited from the efforts made in the course of urban regeneration particularly at the ‘Ahrensfelder
Terraces’ (see chapter 2.5.1) and nowadays registers an even increasing population after several years of decline (+2.7 per cent). As at the end of 2005, the area accommodated 17,479
inhabitants (Figures 2.13 and 2.14). The gender ratio is rather balanced at 51 per cent men and
49 per cent women.
21000
Marzahn Nord
Gropiusstadt
20764
20000
19861
19291
19000
18000
17205
17479
17018
Inhabitants
17000
16797
16755
16753
16000
16782
16569
16498
2003
2004
15000
2000
2001
2002
2005
Year
Figure 2.13:Populations developments in Marzahn North and the
research area of the Gropiusstadt
In contrast, the population in the research area in the Gropiusstadt is rather stable. Although
suffering from high turn-over rates shortly after reunification, when West-Berlin’s island position
was abolished and people could move to the surrounding areas, the population figures during
22 / 111
the last five years lie rather constantly between 16,498 in 2004 and 16,797 inhabitants in 2000.
Noteworthy vacancies do not exist within the Gropiusstadt (2-3 per cent within the DEGEWO
housing stock). As at the end of 2005, the research area housed 16,782 inhabitants. The gender ratio shows a slight surplus of women at 53 per cent (47 per cent men).
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
Berlin
+0.2%
+0.1%
-0.1%
±0.0%
+0.2%
Marzahn-Hellersdorf
-1.9%
-1.1%
-1.2%
-0.6%
-0.4%
Neukoelln
+0.3%
+0.1%
-0.2%
-0.4%
+1.0%
Marzahn North
-4.3%
-2.9%
-10.8%
-1.1%
+2.7%
Gropiusstadt
-0.3%
±0.0%
-1.1%
-0.4%
+1.7%
Figure 2.14: Development of the population – percentage de- and increase (Source: StaLa
Berlin)
2.3.2 Ethnicity
48B
Though throughout Berlin the share of migrants is much higher (13.7 per cent in 2005), Marzahn North shows the highest rate in Marzahn-Hellersdorf at all. Whereas the entire borough
accommodates only 3.3 per cent non-Germans, which is one of the lowest rates compared to
the other boroughs in Berlin, Marzahn North shows 5.5 per cent at the end of 2005. However, in
‘real terms’ the ethnic minority in Marzahn North is actually larger. It is estimated that approximately 21-26 per cent of the population are German-Russian migrants (‘Spaetaussiedler’), who
as legal Germans are not counted amongst the migrant population (cp. Knorr-Siedow/Droste
2003, p. 107). By way of contrast, the share of migrants in the research area in Gropiusstadt is
lower than in the entire borough of Neukoelln. Although Neukoelln possess one of the highest
percentages of non-Germans in the whole of Berlin (22.1% as to the end of 2005), the research
area in the Gropiusstadt contains only 16.4 per cent migrants. It proves that the migrant population predominantly lives in the northern part of the borough.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Berlin
13,1%
13,2%
13,3%
13,3%
13,5%
13,7%
Marzahn-Hellersdorf
3,1%
3,1%
3,1%
3,5%
3,6%
3,3%
Neukoelln
21,3%
21,5%
21,6%
21,7%
21,9%
22,1%
Marzahn North
4,2%
4,2%
4,6%
4,8%
5,1%
5,6%
Gropiusstadt
17,8%
16,2%
16,2%
16,1%
16,1%
16,4%
Figure 2.15: Share of migrants in percent (Source: StaLa Berlin)
Over the past five years, Berlin as a whole has seen an increasing share of migrants. On a spatial level it can be registered that particularly boroughs characterised with an already high share
of non-Germans (e.g., Neukoelln) show the highest growth rates of immigration (Figure 2.15).
23 / 111
This development is mirrored on a smaller scale spatial level: Marzahn North, which is already
characterised by a relatively high share of migrants, displays increasing rates whereas the entire borough of Marzahn-Hellersdorf, which features only a low share of migrants, does not
benefit from immigration as a whole. On the other hand, the migrant population in the research
area in Gropiusstadt is relatively stable. Whereas the vast majority of non-Germans in Marzahn
North come from Asia (particularly from Vietnam) and the former USSR, nearly half of the migrant population in the Gropiusstadt shows a Turkish background (43.9 percent as to the end of
2005).
2.3.3 Age composition
49B
Marzahn North was and still is the district with the youngest population within MarzahnHellersdorf. Whereas in the overall borough the average age of the inhabitants is 39 years, it is
35.7 years in Marzahn North. In comparison, the entire borough of Neukoelln and particularly
the research area in the Gropiusstadt appears to be much older. The average age of the inhabitants in Neukoelln is 40.5 years and in the research area this is even 42.5 years as to the end of
2005. 11 Also, in comparing both research areas to the overall city-average of Berlin, it can be
F
F
noticed that especially with regard to senior citizens Marzahn North shows lower rates than the
city of Berlin whereas the research area in the Gropiusstadt features explicitly higher rates of
elderly people than the municipal average. Although the overall development during the last five
years displays significant rates of growth in both the research areas and Berlin regarding the
age group of 65 and older, these figures are particularly high in the research area in the Gropiusstadt (Figure 2.16).
Marzahn North
2000
2005
Berlin
2000
in per cent
Gropiusstadt
2005
2000
in per cent
2005
in per cent
<6
5.2
6.3
5.0
5.0
5.9
5.7
6-15
13.5
7.8
8.5
7.0
10.0
9.1
15-18
7.8
4.6
3.2
3.1
3.4
3.7
18-27
15.5
19.1
11.0
11.8
9.9
10.1
27-45
32.9
26.2
30.4
29.4
23.9
23.2
45-55
12.4
19.2
13.2
14.1
11.5
12.6
55-65
6.3
8.1
14.0
12.4
17.5
14.1
>65
6.4
8.7
14.7
17.2
17.8
21.5
Figure 2.16: Population of Marzahn North, the Gropiusstadt and Berlin by age (Source: StaLa
Berlin)
11
Own calculations, based on StaLa Berlin.
24 / 111
The discrepancy between the research areas can be particularly shown with regard to the comparison of old and young people. Whereas in Marzahn North the gap between the inhabitants
aged 65 and older and the juveniles aged 15-18 only recently grew apart, the research area in
the Gropiusstadt shows an even wider gap between youngsters and elderly people. The portion
of juveniles nowadays is nearly six times higher than the share of elderly people. Since the
share of juveniles remained relatively stable whereas the percentage of senior citizens increased rapidly during the past five years, the aforementioned development continues and the
generation gap will become worse in the future. In Marzahn North, this development became
apparent only in 2003 and is still at a less advanced stage. But even today, the ratio of young
and old is nearly one to two (Figure 2.17). However, despite declining values in Marzahn North
both research areas Marzahn North (18.7 per cent) and the Gropiusstadt (18.5 per cent) show a
higher share of children and juveniles than the Berlin average (16.1 per cent).
25,0%
20,0%
19,1%
19,9%
17,8%
18,2%
7,8%
8,1%
8,1%
6,4%
6,8%
7,2%
7,3%
3,4%
3,4%
3,4%
2000
2001
2002
20,5%
21,5%
15,0%
Percentage
10,0%
5,0%
8,0%
5,7%
8,7%
3,5%
3,4%
3,7%
2003
2004
2005
7,0%
4,6%
0,0%
Gropiusstadt 15-18
Marzahn Nord 15-18
Gropiusstadt 65 and older
Marzahn Nord 65 and older
Year
Figure 2.17: Age composition of senior citizens and juveniles in Marzahn North
and the research area in the Gropiusstadt (Source: StaLa Berlin)
2.3.4 Unemployment and social situation
50B
Specific data regarding unemployment in Germany is usually represented as rates of unemployment, i.e., the share of persons registered as being unemployed of all persons being capable of gainful employment. However, German data protection rules as well as the layout of statistics on unemployment prevent the calculation of rates, related on a small scale spatial level.
Data production in this regard is organised by ‘employment-office-districts’, which are spatially
much larger than the relevant research areas in the Gropiusstadt and Marzahn North. The
smallest unit, which is available for the presentation of absolute unemployment figures, is the
25 / 111
statistical unit of ‘traffic cells’ (‘Verkehrszellen’). However, the relevant cells in the Gropiusstadt
are larger than the research area and include additional areas with a completely different physical and social structure. Thus, data regarding unemployment in the research area in the Gropiusstadt is not available.
Concerning Marzahn North, the relevant traffic cell ‘Havemann Straße’ coincides exactly with
the research area. Figure 2.18 shows the calculated rates on the basis of the available data 12 .
F
F
According to this, the area has suffered from dramatically increasing unemployment during the
last five years. As the end of 2005, nearly one in four of the population is beleived unemployed.
In comparison, the overall average in Berlin is 17.8 per cent (November 2005) 13 , which is alF
F
ready one of the highest rates in Germany.
25,0%
23,6%
23,0%
22,3%
21,0%
21,8%
2002
2003
21,0%
Percentage
19,0%
17,9%
17,0%
17,4%
15,0%
2000
2001
2004
2005
Year
Figure 2.18: Unemployment in Marzahn North (Own calculations: Share of persons registered as being unemployed of all persons aged 18-65 years)
Apart from the unemployment rate, the Senate for Health, Social Services and Consumer Protection frequently collects data to create a social index (Sozialindex), which indicates relative
levels of social disadvantage and disempowerment on a spatial level. The index is based upon
25 indicators derived from data on demographic developments, household structures, education, unemployment, income, housing and health care. Not significant with regard to the absolute level, the figures provide data to compare different areas with respect to the ranking and
interpretation of social changes (Senatsverwaltung fuer Gesundheit, Soziales und Verbraucherschutz 2004).
12
13
Source: StaLa Berlin.
Source: Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2005).
26 / 111
On the borough level, Marzahn-Hellersdorf is registered positive and ranked five, whereas Neukoelln is registered negative and ranked ten of a total of twelve boroughs (Figure 2.19). 14 As
F
F
Neukoelln was ranked 17 in 1995 and 19 in 1999 (due to the old division into 23 boroughs), the
social structure of the borough has changed for the worse during the past years. Since the
smallest spatial unit generating the social index is the traffic cell, the social position of Neukoelln
as a whole does not give evidence about the social situation of the research area in the Gropiusstadt. However, it is generally assumed that particularly the northern parts of Neukoelln are
sinking deeper into poverty. That said, the relevant traffic cells including the research area provide an ambivalent picture: Whereas the cell ‘Lipschitzallee’ has deteriorated slightly, the cell
‘Wutzkyallee’ has improved. However, it is assumed that the social burden within the Gropiusstadt is explicitly higher than in the neighbouring areas of the traffic cells. According to information provided by the police, the ‘Report on children and youth welfare service’ states an
increased moving in of problematic and moving out of better-off families at the same time. Particularly the residential areas of the research area (Lipschitzallee, Joachim-Gottschalk-Weg,
Kaethe-Dorsch-Ring, Sollmannweg, and Theodor-Loos-Weg) are heavily burdened with a disproportionately high share of migrants, single parents and families suffering from social welfare,
drugs or psychic diseases. The area is increasingly characterised by drug use, school refusal
and growing poverty (Bezirksamt Neukoelln von Berlin 2003).
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
-1
-1,5
Friedrichshain
Kreuzberg
Mitte
Neukölln
Pankow
Tempelhof
Schöneberg
Spandau
Lichtenberg
Marzahn
Hellersdorf
Reinickendorf
Charlottenburg
Wilmersdorf
Treptow
Köpenick
-2
Steglitz
Zehlendorf
Social Index
-0,5
Borough
Figure 2.19: Social Index with highlighted Marzahn-Hellersdorf and Neukoelln
(Calculation: Senate for Health, Social Services and Consumer Protection)
14
All data collected for 2003.
27 / 111
Characterised by similar problems, the research area Marzahn North shows the lowest values
of the social index within the entire borough of Marzahn-Hellersdorf, which indicates a high rate
of unemployment as well as a high density of people dependant on social welfare. Actually, although decreasing in 2003, Marzahn North was characterised by nearly twice as many persons
receiving social welfare benefits than the Berlin average at the end of 2004 (15.2 per cent compared to 8.0 per cent in entire Berlin). Thus, Marzahn North has the highest figures within in the
borough. Generally, the share of women dependant on social welfare at 52 per cent is higher
than the share of men at 48 per cent.
28 / 111
2.4 Crime rate trends for Marzahn North
18B
19B
Although unanimously declared as relatively safe and not especially noteworthy with regard to
crime, the crime rate trends in both Marzahn North and Marzahn-Hellersdorf increased from
2000 to 2004. 15 Whilst in 2000, the total number of crimes committed in Marzahn-Hellersdorf
F
F
(per 1000 of the population) outnumbered the total number of crimes in Marzahn North, this
trend changed over the next two years. Already in 2001, more crimes were registered in Marzahn North than in Marzahn-Hellersdorf. In both areas, the total number of registered crimes
increased between 2000 and 2002, reaching a peak in 2002. After 2002, the number slowly
decreased again, coming to a preliminary halt in 2004. However, the increase in Marzahn- Hellersdorf followed a steady path, rising from 134.6 crimes to 151.6 crimes calculated per 1000 of
the population. And after its climax in 2002, it steadily decreased, almost returning to its point of
origin with 136.3 crimes per 1000 of the population in 2004. The increase in Marzahn North did
not follow a steady path, but escalated unproportionally from 132 in 2000 to a preliminary high
of 158.7 crimes, reaching a peak of 173.4 crimes calculated per 1000 of the population in 2002.
180
173,4
170
173
172,4
169,2
160
166,2
164,5
158,7
164
159,3
151,6
150
Frequency Figure
143,8
140
130
142,3
134,5
136,3
City
Marzahn-Hellersdorf
Marzahn North
132
120
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 2.20: Crime statistics for Marzahn North compared to MarzahnHellersdorf and Berlin (all crimes calculated per 1.000 of the population)
As Figure 2.20 shows, Marzahn North witnessed a steeper incline in the total number of crimes
registered than Marzahn-Hellersdorf did. The crime-rate of Marzahn-Hellersdorf followed the
15
Due to the adoption of a new processing system in 2005, which caused a loss of three months within
the crime statistics of 2005, the reported period is 2000 until 2004. On this small scale spatial level, the
data only refers to offences reported to the police (‘access statistics’) and does not give evidence about
the further treatment within the criminal justice system.
29 / 111
general trend registered in the city of Berlin, though never reaching Berlin’s peak of 172.4
crimes calculated per 1000 of the population. This was not the case in Marzahn North, where
the crime-rate disproportionally escalated between 2000 and 2004 as compared to Berlin.
With 166 crimes calculated per 1000 of the population in 2000 and 167.7 in 2001, Neukoelln
basically followed the general trend of the crime rate of the overall city of Berlin, registering
about the same number of crimes as the city in general. In 2002, Neukoelln outnumbered the
amount of crime registered in the city of Berlin, witnessing 182.5 crimes calculated per 1000 of
the population. After 2002, the crime-rate decreased in Neukoelln, following the general trend
as had been noted in the city of Berlin (Figure 2.21).
190
182,5
178
180
170
182
166
167,7
169,2
160
172,4
162,7
166,2
164,5
159,3
150
Frequency Figure
140
120
110
137,4
135,8
130
125
City
Neukölln
Gropiusstadt
116,3
100
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 2.21: Crime statistics for the Gropiusstadt compared to Neukoelln and
Berlin (all crimes calculated per 1.000 of the population)
The Gropiusstadt had with 125 crimes calculated per 1000 of the population a significantly lower
crime-rate in 2000 than both Neukoelln and the city of Berlin did. It also fell short of the number
of crimes registered in Marzahn in the same year. Following the general trend as seen across
Berlin, the Gropiusstadt witnessed an increase in crime in 2001. Yet, with 135.8 crimes calculated per 1000 of the population, it still did not reach the number of crimes registered in either
Berlin or Marzahn. However, in 2002 the Gropiusstadt registered 182 crimes per 1000 of the
population, outnumbering not only the number of crimes registered in Marzahn in the same year
(151.6 in Marzahn-Hellersdorf and 173.4 in Marzahn North) but in the city Berlin as well (172.4).
After the peak in 2002, the number of crimes registered in the Gropiusstadt dropped significantly (137.4) in 2003, falling behind the number of crimes registered in both MarzahnHellersdorf (173) and Marzahn North (142.3) as well as in the city of Berlin (166.2). This trend
continued in 2004, with an all-time low of 116.3 crimes calculated per 1000 of the population.
30 / 111
2.5 Crime maps for Marzahn North and the Gropiusstadt
20B
2.5.1 Description of the relevant Police KOBs
51B
The research area in Marzahn North includes seven Police KOBs 16 , though two of these KOB
F
F
areas, one in the north-eastern part of the research area and one in the south, go beyond the
boundaries of the research area. Maerkische Allee in the west, Klandorfer Straße in the north,
Havemann Straße in the south and Rosenbecker Straße in the east define the first Police KOB
(KOB 1) of Marzahn North. The second Police KOB (KOB 2) stretches across an area between
the Rosenbecker Straße in the west, the Havemann Straße in the south, Schorfheider Straße in
the east and Hoehenwalder and Klandorfer Straße in the north. Schorfheider Straße defines the
western border, An der Wuhle the eastern border and Havemann Straße the southern border of
the third Police KOB (KOB 3). Because it goes beyond Golliner Straße and because it includes
a small verge of green in the west, KOB 3 exceeds the research area. The fourth KOB (KOB 4)
covers the area between Maerkische Allee and the railway tracks in the east, the Havemann
Straße in the north, the western Flaemingstraße and the Wittenberger Straße in the south.
Flaemingstraße also defines the western border of the fifth KOB (KOB 5). KOB 5 further ranges
from Havemann Straße in the north to Borkheider Straße in the east and Niemegker Straße in
the south. The sixth KOB (KOB 6) covers the area between Borkheider Straße (western border), Havemann Straße (northern border), Golliner Straße/Belzinger Ring (eastern border) and
Borkheider Straße (southern border). The research area exceeds the area of KOB 6. Further, in
the eastern part of the research area between the northern part of Havemann Straße, the
Belzinger Ring in the west and the south-eastern section of Kemberger Straße, the research
area includes an area that is not registered in the available data. Wittenberger Straße and Niemegker Straße define the northern border of the seventh KOB (KOB 7). In the east, KOB 7 ends
at Borkheider Straße. In the west, Maerkische Allee delimits KOB 7. In the south, Wuhletal
Straße borders the seventh KOB.
The research area in the Gropiusstadt includes three Police-KOBs, generally covering the area
between Fritz-Erler-Allee in the north, Zwickauer Damm in the east, Lipschitzallee in the west
and Friedrich-Kayßler-Weg, Wutzkyallee and Theodor-Loos-Weg in the south. The area between the northern Fritz-Erler-Allee, western Lipschitzallee, Rudower Waeldchen and Sollmanweg/Friedrich-Kayßler-Weg in the south defines the first Police-KOB area (KOB 1). KOB 1 includes a western section which does not cover the research area.
The second Police KOB of the Gropiusstadt, KOB 2, covers the area between Fritz-Erler-Allee
in the north, the southern Friedrich-Kayßler-Weg and Horst-Caspar-Steig as well as Zwickauer
Damm in the east. The third Police KOB area, KOB 3, located south of KOB 2, consists of the
16
The so called ‘contact area’ (‘KOB’) is the smallest spatial level on which crime statistics are registered
by the police in Berlin.
31 / 111
area between Friedrich-Kayßler-Weg and Horst-Caspar-Steig, Zwickauer Damm in the east,
Zittauer Straße and Matthaeuser Weg in the south and Rudower Waeldchen in the west.
2.5.2 Total crime
52B
In Marzahn North, the KOB, showing the highest amount of crime calculated per 1000 of the
population varied. In general, KOB 7 tended to show the highest number of crimes registered in
Marzahn North. However, this wasn’t always the case. In 2000, the number of registered crimes
was highest in KOB 2. Except for 2002, when the number dropped to 151.5, the amount of
crimes registered in KOB 2 tended to be around 200 crimes calculated per 1000 of the population. This was similar to KOB 7 and KOB 6, the other two KOBs that tended to register the largest amount of crime. When in 2002 the number of registered crimes in KOB 2 dropped to 151.5
calculated per 1000 of the population, the number dramatically rose in KOB 7 to 288.5 crimes
calculated per 1000 of the population. Other KOBs, showing a smaller amount of registered
crime, tended to increase in the number of crimes throughout the years.
Generally, the Gropiusstadt registered a smaller number of crimes compared to Marzahn North.
In the Gropiusstadt the largest KOB, KOB 1, showed the highest level of crime throughout the
years, except for 2002 when KOB 3 registered more crimes than KOB 1 did. In this year, the
number of crimes in KOB 1 significantly decreased while they increased in KOB 3, a development comparable to the one that took place in Marzahn North in 2002. In 2001, KOB 1 reached
its all-time peak of 253.3 crimes calculated per 1000 of the population. After that, numbers of
crimes have tended to decrease.
32 / 111
Figure 2.22: Crime maps for the research area Marzahn North 2000 – 2004 (all crimes calculated per 1000 of the population)
33 / 111
Figure 2.23: Crime maps for the research area in Gropiusstadt 2000 – 2004 (all crimes calculated per 1000 of the population)
34 / 111
2.5.3 Theft
53B
With the exception of 2004, Marzahn North always had one KOB with more than 90 thefts calculated per 1000 of the population throughout the years covered. In 2000, 2002 and 2003 the
rate of thefts committed per mill was highest in KOB 7, the largest of the Marzahn KOBs. Over
90 thefts per mill were registered within this area, reaching a peak in 2002 with 117.7 thefts calculated per 1000 of the population. In the year 2001, however, it was no longer KOB 7 but KOB
5, a KOB bordering on KOB 7, which superseded the mark of more than 90 thefts calculated per
1000 of the population.
This was not the case in the Gropiusstadt, where a crime-rate of more than 90 thefts calculated
per 1000 of the population was only reached in 2001. In that year, KOB 1 of the Gropiusstadt
had 103 thefts. As in Marzahn North, it was also the case that the largest KOB, registered the
highest rate of thefts. However, in the Gropiusstadt, the KOB registering the highest rate of
thefts remained the same throughout the years and reached a theft-rate comparable to the one
in Marzahn North with more than 90 thefts calculated per 1000 of the population only once.
In deviating from the findings in the Gropiusstadt, in Marzahn North two KOBs witnessed significantly high crime level. When the number of thefts increased in one of these KOBs, the number
of registered thefts decreased in the other. So, in 2000 KOB 7 had 95.9 thefts calculated per
1000 of the population whilst KOB 5 only registered 70 thefts. In 2001, thefts decreased in KOB
7 from 95.9 in 2000 to 79.4 in 2001. At the same time, however, the number of thefts registered
in KOB 5 increased from 70 thefts in 2000 to 94.5 in 2001. In 2003, the theft-rate reached a
peak with 117.7 thefts registered in KOB 7. KOB 5, on the other hand, noticed a slight decrease
with 84.8 thefts. This changed in 2003, when both KOB 7 and KOB 5 noticed a small decrease
of thefts from 117.7 (2002, KOB 7) to 102.2 (2003, KOB 7) and 84.8 (2002, KOB 5) to 72 (2003,
KOB 5) calculated per 1000 of the population. In 2004, neither KOB hit the mark of more than
90 thefts. But the number of thefts registered in both KOBs came to a state of equilibrium of
84.1 in KOB 7 and 80.3 in KOB 5.
In 2000 as well as in 2001, Marzahn North had one KOB that showed comparatively small rates
of theft. In 2000, KOB 1 registered 24 thefts calculated per 1000 of the population. In 2001, the
number of thefts in KOB 1 decreased to 19.1. However, in 2002 the number of thefts registered
in KOB 1 more than doubled from 19.1 in 2001 to 58.3 in 2002. This continued in 2003, reaching a peak of 85.1 thefts calculated per 1.000 of the population. In 2004, the number of thefts
registered in KOB 1 slightly decreased again to 74 thefts but never came close to its original
mark of 24 thefts calculated per 1000 of the population.
None of the KOBs of the Gropiusstadt registered quite as few thefts as some KOBs of Marzahn
North did. While the Gropiusstadt KOBs only once crossed the mark of more than 90 thefts, the
Gropiusstadt KOBs never fell below a rate of 30 thefts. KOB 2, the one with the smallest
amount of registered thefts, started off with 31.4 thefts in 2000. In 2001, the number of thefts in
35 / 111
KOB 2 had increased to 34.1, reaching its final peak in 2002 with 47.9 thefts calculated per
1000 of the population. In 2003, the number of thefts started to decrease again (42.9). This continued in 2004, with the number of registered thefts (32) similar to the one in 2000.
36 / 111
Figure 2.25: Crime maps for the research area Gropiusstadt 2000 – 2004 (all crimes calculated
per 1000 of the population)
37 / 111
2.5.4 Burglary
54B
Burglary in Marzahn peaked in 2000. During this year, KOB 7, Marzahn North’s largest KOB
and the one leading in the number of thefts registered in Marzahn North, witnessed 11.2 burglaries calculated per 1000 of the population. In 2001, this number decreased to 9.3 burglaries.
It further decreased in the following years to 0 burglaries in 2002, 1.4 burglaries in 2003 and 0.7
burglaries calculated per 1000 of the population in 2004. Thus, the number of burglaries registered between 2002 and 2004 strongly decreased within KOB 7, while at the same time it increased in KOB 1 from 0 burglaries in 2000 to 4.8 in 2002 to 6.8 burglaries calculated per 1000
of the population in 2004. Between 2000 and 2004, Gropiusstadt registered fewer cases of burglary than Marzahn North did. As in Marzahn North, the largest KOB of the Gropiusstadt registered the highest number of burglaries with 3.5 burglaries calculated per 1000 of the population
in 2000 and 2001. After 2001, the number dropped to 3.2 in 2001. It then continually decreased
to 2.5 in 2003, reaching a final low of 1 burglary calculated per 1000 of the population in 2004.
In difference to Marzahn, the KOB registering the highest number of burglarys remained the
same in the Gropiusstadt throughout the years. The other two KOBs of the Gropiusstadt outbalanced each other in the number of registered burglaries. When the number increased in KOB 2,
it decreased in KOB 3. In 2003 and 2004, the numbers of burglaries calculated per 1000 of the
population reached a state of equilibrium in both KOBs.
2.5.5 Robbery
55B
Between 2000 and 2003, KOB 5 of Marzahn North witnessed the highest rate of robberies calculated per 1000 of the population. After a short decline in 2001, robbery reached an all-time
peak in 2002 with 6.4 robberies. After 2002, a shift took place: In 2003, it was KOB 7, the largest of the Marzahn North KOBs, that noticed the highest number of robberies, registering 6.2
robberies calculated per 1000 of the population. In 2004, neither KOB 7 nor KOB 5 registered
the highest amount of robberies. Instead, it was KOB 6 which registered 5.7 robberies. A development had taken place in this particular KOB. KOB 6 had started off with a very small rate of
registered robberies in 2000 and 2001. This changed in 2002, when the number of robberies
registered in KOB 5 jumped to 3.1. After a slight decline in 2003, KOB 5 reached its peak of 5.7
robberies. The number of robberies registered in the Gropiusstadt was continually higher than
the number registered in Marzahn North between 2000 and 2004. The KOB with the highest
amount of robberies remained the same throughout the years. As with the other types of crime,
KOB 1 kept its ‘leading’ position with an all-time peak in 2002 of 17.8 robberies calculated per
1000 of the population. Except in 2000, the number of robberies registered in KOB 1 never fell
below 9 robberies calculated per 1000 of the population. The other two KOBs of the Gropiusstadt noticed an increase between 2000 and 2002 with a peak in 2002. After 2002, the
number of robberies decreased again, reaching about the same level as had been registered in
38 / 111
2001. While the level of robberies registered in the different KOBs of Marzahn North varied, the
number of robberies remained relatively steady in the KOBs of the Gropiusstadt. In Marzahn
North the different KOBs varied in the number of robberies registered there throughout the
years, alternating the position of the area with the second highest level of robberies.
39 / 111
40 / 111
41 / 111
42 / 111
2.5.6 Street crime
56B
The amount of street crime registered in Marzahn North declined between 2000 and 2004. As
with other types of crime, KOB 7 took over the leading position with regards to the phenomenon
of street crime. In 2000, 64.8 street crimes calculated per 1000 of the population were registered in KOB 7, which defined the peak of street crimes committed in Marzahn. After 2000, the
number of registered street crimes continually declined in KOB 7, except for a small increase in
2003. In 2004, the number of street crimes had reached an all-time low of 22.4 calculated per
1000 of the population. The other KOBs in Marzahn North strongly varied in the number of registered street crime over the years. In general, the number of street crimes in KOB 5, the other
KOB in Marzahn North tending to take on a prominent role in the number of registered crimes,
remained relatively high. However, the number of street crimes registered in KOB 5 was comparable to other KOBs in Marzahn. Thus, KOB 5 did not take on a leading position concerning the
numbers of registered street crimes except for in 2001, when 52.0 street crimes were registered
in KOB 5. This was the only time during the research period when KOB 5 witnessed the highest
amount of street crimes registered in Marzahn. However, in 2001 and 2004 the level of street
crime in KOB 5 superseded the level registered in KOB 7. Significantly, KOB 1 started with a
relatively small number of registered street crimes in 2000. Throughout the research period, it
noticed a steady increase. In 2003 and 2004 it reached a peak of 37.3 street crimes calculated
per 1000 of the population.
Only one KOB, KOB 6, maintained a relatively small and steady number of street crimes
throughout the years. In 2002 and 2004, the number of street crimes registered in Marzahn
showed a significant distribution. All of the KOBs of Marzahn showed similar numbers of registered street crime, with registered numbers amounting to around 30 street crimes calculated per
1000 of the population.
In the Gropiusstadt, KOB 1 registered the highest number of street crimes throughout the years.
Though never quite reaching Marzahn’s level, there existed a steady rate of around 50 street
crimes calculated per 1000 of the population, with a peak of 59.8 in 2001. The number of street
crimes remained about the same in 2002 and then dropped until it reached an all-time low of
38.5 in 2004. The development noticeable in KOB 2 of the Gropiusstadt was comparable to the
development in KOB 1 of Marzahn North. At first, it showed a relatively small number of street
crimes. Then, in 2002 the number increased and kept its level in 2002 and 2003, before decreasing again in 2004.
Other than in Marzahn North, the KOBs of the Gropiusstadt never reached equilibrium as occurred in Marzahn North in 2002 and 2004. However, as had been the case with other types of
crimes, KOB 2 and KOB 3 tended to register similar numbers throughout a period of three years
(between 2002 and 2004). Except for 2004, KOB 3 showed a relatively constant figure of regis-
43 / 111
tered street crimes with around 25 street crimes calculated per 1000 of the population. In 2004,
this number dropped to 19.1.
44 / 111
45 / 111
2.6 Tackling social and physical problems in Marzahn North
21B
Besides other diverse intervention strategies to solve the complex problems in disadvantaged
urban districts, the Federal Government, the states and local actors have established several
measures in order to up grade large housing estates all over Germany. In the following section,
measures are introduced which refer to the research areas in Marzahn North and the Gropiusstadt. Apart from the efforts made by the (noise-) police, these measures are not directly
aimed at the prevention of crime. Nevertheless, it is assumed that these measures can be interpreted against the larger backdrop of creating sustainable and safe neighbourhoods as well.
2.6.1 City Reconstruction East: ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ – Crime
Prevention through physical measures
57B
58B
Due to the massive process of population shrinkage in East-Germany caused by demographic
trends and structural economic change since reunification (Glock 2002), the Federal Government and the states launched the subsidy programme ‘City Reconstruction East’ (Stadtumbau
Ost) 17 in 2002. Following a rather restrained phase of implementation, the programme today
F
F
appears as the most important tool of urban development in the new federal states. Provided
with 2.7 billion euros for the period until 2009 18 , the programme aims to enable local administraF
F
tions to develop coherent approaches to the vacant housing problem as well as to improve the
quality of living conditions in the cities. The programme focuses on both restoring city centres
and improving the high rise estates located on the fringes of the cities. Its major goal is to preserve socially mixed neighbourhoods and attractive cities in eastern Germany. To this end, two
main strategies are pursued: On the one hand, the demolition of vacant dwellings in order to
diminish the oversupply on the housing market is carried out, on the other hand is the improvement of neighbourhoods by renewal or maintenance of the existing buildings, adapting the infrastructure and reusing urban wastelands. Whilst during the first years of the programme most
cities concentrated almost exclusively on tearing down vacant buildings 19 , a revised version of
F
F
the programme now states that only 50 per cent of the funds can be spent on demolishing,
whereas the other 50 per cent will have to be spent on the improvement of neighbourhoods.
Nevertheless, the primary attention remains the removing of dispensable panel blocks in the
large housing estates outside of the inner-city districts.
17
In addition to this programme, a similar one for urban restructuring in western Germany has been
launched in 2004.
18
The development costs in 2006 amount to 110 million euros. All in all, 342 cities and 753 measures
have been funded so far (BMVBS 2006).
19
Thus, critics regarded the programme “nothing more than a blueprint for demolition” (Oswalt, P. 2005,
p. 14). Actually, this is the first time in German history that large-scale demolition of housing space has
been state-funded.
46 / 111
Due to a vacancy rate of approximately 21 per cent in 2001, the main focus of the programme in
Berlin was set to Marzahn North. Apart from the upgrade of the infrastructural location at Woerlitzer Street (including the refurbishment of an old school building and the rearrangement of surrounding public space) and the establishment of so called ‘intercultural gardens’ as a meeting
place for natives and migrants, the most successful example of how to realise the ‘City Reconstruction East’-programme in Berlin is probably the ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’, where a whole estate of old panel buildings was adapted and given a fundamental makeover (Figure 2.32).
Source: WBG Marzahn
Apart from a partial demolition, the height of the buildings has
been lowered by varying amounts in order to create a less uniform
profile of the area. Balconies, architectural canopies and roof terraces have been added to create a differentiated and individualised landscape which is closer to an ensemble of townhouses
Source: WBG Marzahn
than to a monotonous housing estate. The interiors of the buildings have also been redesigned with larger, more open dwellings
and modern kitchens and bathrooms.
The housing stock was reduced from 1670 to 409 dwellings. According to demand, the flats were predominantly conceptualised
to incorporate two rooms, whereupon multifarious ground plans
Source: WBG Marzahn
provide appropriate housing conditions for families, single households, senior citizens and disabled persons as well. A couple of
dwellings on the ground floor have been provided with garden lots
(Picture 2.12) and redundant parking space was unsealed and
vegetated. Due to the demolition and reconstruction, the streets
Figure 2.32: Havemann
Straße before and after
reconstruction
as defined space have altered heavily. Thus, the rearrangement
of the environment played a major role in shaping the districts
structure. As the result of excessive planting, formerly treeless
streets now appear as ‘avenues’; yards, rubbish containers and public spaces aroused from the
demolition have been broadly vegetated and the front gardens as well as the entrance areas of
the buildings were diversified (Picture 2.11).
Although mainly carried out for economic reasons rather than preventive purposes the ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ reconstruction still incorporates aspects of crime prevention measures. First of
all, the construction of smaller housing units breaks up anonymity and promotes advanced possibilities of neighbourhood contact. Secondly, due to higher rents the new tenants of the
‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ are principally better off inhabitants which leads to an improved social
composition of the population structure. Finally, since the modernisation of the ‘Ahrensfelder
Terraces’ radiates into the surrounding area the entire district benefits from an upgraded image
that creates increasing identification and individual responsibility.
47 / 111
(front side and entrance areas)
(back side and gardens)
2.6.2 ‘Socially Integrative City’: Neighbourhood management –
Crime prevention through social measures
59B
60B
Based on district development concepts successfully implemented in North Rhine-Westphalia
and Hamburg at the beginning of the 1990s, the Federal Government and the states jointly
launched the programme ‘Districts with Special Development Needs – the Socially Integrative
City’ in 1999. The overall objective of this programme is to improve the actual housing and living
conditions (predominantly through investment in construction measures and projects), to increase the residents' personal opportunities (by imparting qualifications, skills and knowledge,
creating openings in the labour and housing markets and helping people to help themselves)
and to up grade the district's image, local profile and neighbourhood identification (through stabilization and revitalization measures).
Berlin’s instrument to realise the Socially Integrative City programme is the neighbourhood management (Quartiersmanagement), which was established in 1999. Economic difficulties, increasing impoverishment and ethic problems have arisen in particular urban settings. Moreover,
the entire city has become somewhat social-spatially polarised and more and more segregated.
Some so called ‘Kieze’ (a colloquial expression within Berlin which grasps the concept of a village in a metropolis) suffered and were identified by the local government as so called ’disadvantaged neighbourhoods’. The Senate of Berlin defined 15 areas with so called ‘special development needs’. A couple of years later, another two areas were additionally selected. The
neighbourhood management was introduced in order to upgrade declining neighbourhoods.
Besides the difficult social structure a deficient built environment also aggravates the problems.
The selection of these neighbourhoods is based on a broad variety of parameters. The data
have been collected and administrated for the purpose of a ‘Social Urban Development’ since
1994 in the framework of the project City Monitoring (Stadtmonitoring). It contains geographically referenced data of mobility, selective migration and demographic structure such as bal-
48 / 111
ance of migration, migration of Germans and non-Germans, migration of children under 6
years 20 , number of foreigners per 100 inhabitants, data of unemployment such as unemployed
F
F
Germans and migrants per 100 inhabitants, change in per cent within 2 years, unemployed juveniles and young adults under 25 years, per cent of long-term unemployed (over 1 year) as
well as data of social welfare, discerned by Germans and foreigners per 100 inhabitants, long
and short term beneficiaries. The collection has increasingly been augmented with relevant information but at present does not contain crime data; even those this might be a very important
factor and could increase the strength of City Monitoring.
This data was used for a cluster analysis which generated 9 types of areas (in 2000, another
study followed in 2004 with 10 clusters) with similar developmental tendencies. The research
area in Marzahn North was classified as part of a cluster, mainly characterised as an area with
average fluctuation but heavy loss of population, strongly selective migration and a high unemployment rate. 270,000 out of 3,300,000 Berliners used to live in this type of areas, which are
East-Berliner neighbourhoods on the fringe of the city dominated by high-rise panel buildings.
Approximately 25 per cent live for less than five years in this type of cluster, what indicates a
rather stable population. The fluctuation rests on tenancy turnovers, 40 per cent move in the
rural surroundings. Families move away and other families move in, while more gainfully employed persons move out than into these areas.
Due to the City Monitoring in 2000, the Gropiusstadt was not clearly identifiable within a particular cluster. This might have been a reason, why only Marzahn North became a neighbourhood
management area in 1999 besides 14 other areas. Finally, over 225,000 people lived in these
neighbourhood management areas, in each of them between 4,500 and 24,000 people.
In each neighbourhood management area a local team has been established, that is hired by a
responsible body, which was chosen by the Senate Department of Urban Development in order
to implement social urban development. For each team, the borough appoints a co-ordinator in
the administration and the Senate of Urban Development appoints another one to ensure concerted action among their departments.
The neighbourhood management team is supposed to activate people and local business owners to participate in the economic and social development of the Kiez. The team has to network
local actors, to coordinate and organize cooperation between institutions e.g., schools, police;
associations, enterprises, and housing companies. Since community activation is a central issue in the programme, the neighbourhood management team is linked to a resident council,
which has been founded and organised by the neighbourhood management team. Furthermore,
it is supposed to help with project development and initiates such projects in different categories
like constructions in public space, social activities, as well as cultural and economic operations.
20
Migration of children less than 6 years indicates the movement of families, who do not want to start
schooling their kids in the neighbourhood school.
49 / 111
Obviously, the employees of the neighbourhood management need excellent skills in moderating, networking and management, as well as additional knowledge about fundraising with the
aid of other educational and labour programmes and how to guide local small scale businesses.
The neighbourhood management team develops an integrated concept of action in the frame of
the programme within certain categories that rest on an analysis of “their” area. These concepts
are revised on an annual basis..
With local actors the neighbourhood management teams arrange public meetings about different topics and organise working groups, workshops, mediation and planning processes, exhibitions and press coverage. The aim is to enlist the residents of the estates. Therefore, there is a
fund with 10000€ or 15000€, to implement small scale projects like planting vegetation in the
streets and public places or organising a backyard party.
Generally, neighbourhood management works in an optimum fashion when effective cooperation exists amongst those who are in charge of implementing the programme. Therefore there
are steering committees on different levels (local, borough, state), concerting the next steps and
goals of the programme. Obviously, the programme works top/down. Numerous projects have
been implemented. Although there is no evidence based on the mentioned quantitative indicators that neighbourhood management is effective in terms of stabilising the socio-economic basic data, the qualitative evaluation of the programme is positive regarding the implementation of
neighbourhood management and the results of the efforts. The evaluation demonstrates that
neighbourhood management is basically and essentially right to up grade ‘disadvantaged’
neighbourhoods. Accordingly, the policies of urban politics turned out to be successful. Supposedly, an outstanding success was the community activation through citizen boards. The evaluator recommends continuing neighbourhood management on a permanent basis.
Neighbourhood management aims to achieve nine strategic goals under the guiding idea of
integration and improved living conditions. These strategic goals are embraced by an ‘Integrated Action Concept’. One goal is to improve the individuals’ prospects on the labour market,
since unemployment is regarded the key-problem of exclusion. Therefore e.g., existing workplaces must be kept, particular job qualifications for excluded groups (especially juveniles and
young adults) should be offered, the unemployed are to be re-integrated into the labour market
through measures on the secondary labour market (public funded work), business start-ups and
small-scale businesses have to be sponsored and the general business location requires good
marketing. Another goal is continued training, as a lack of qualifications is a principle reason for
unemployment. This means that existing public facilities are to be kept and their services made
better known. Furthermore, non-German inhabitants often need to improve their language skills
and their basic knowledge about the political and legal system. Another strategic goal is the
general improvement of the physical shape of the neighbourhood in order to increase acceptance and contentment with the housing area. The same is true with the facilitation of social
50 / 111
infrastructure. Neighbourhood management aims to improve schooling, to support youth and
social work and to improve possibilities of leisure time activities in general. Furthermore, local
culture is supposed to be strengthened in order to activate and enhance the quality of public life.
Public health is another focus of the strategic goals. Health issues tackled by the neighbourhood management include an improvement in the health of the poor and the support of public
health education. Social structures are to be stabled through the promotion of dialogue, e.g., by
promoting contact among neighbours and the adoption of responsibility for the neighbourhood
in general. One more strategic goal is the active participation of citizens in public decisions
about the neighbourhood’s development, be it temporarily or on a regular basis. One more and,
in the context of this project, most interesting strategic goal is the improvement of public safety
and the enhancement of subjective safety. Subjective safety is considered a main factor of contentment of living in the neighbourhood. The operational goals to implement the strategic goals
include the application of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) and an
enlargement of violence prevention. Another focus is to fight the open drug scene. Even when
the crime rates are more or less the same as in other city areas, the Senate Department considers a greater fear of crime in the neighbourhood management areas – though as yet there
has been no inquiry.
On the basis of the City Monitoring in 2004, the Senate decided to extend the neighbourhood
management in Berlin. As three areas developed properly – mainly because of typical gentrification processes – they were removed from the social urban renewal process. Two areas were
spatially extended and 16 new areas were declared. Among those, only one area has the status
of the ‘first generation’ of neighbourhood management. The process has been sophisticated
and different categories of areas have been developed. Additionally, besides the neighbourhood
management areas there are also ‘District Management Areas – Intervention’ and ‘District Management Areas – Prevention’. The main difference between neighbourhood management and
district management areas is the allowance of money. District management areas are forced to
focus on the actual social urban renewal in the fields of integration, education, sponsorship of
gainful employment and participation of any class of the population. There is just a little funding
for constructions in the physical environment. Another difference is that there exist important
actors in the neighbourhood. These so called ‘strong partners’ e.g., like housing companies,
associations, parishes, community centres or schools are supposed to gradually adopt the role
of the former neighbourhood management team.
Marzahn Nord-West has been a neighbourhood management area since 1999, while the Gropiusstadt became a ‘District Management Area – Prevention’ in 2005. Some general criticism of
neighbourhood management says that neighbourhood management and district management is
a response to impairment and does not provide prevention.
51 / 111
In 1999, the housing company DEGEWO, which holds a stock of 4300 dwellings in the Gropiusstadt, already established a privately financed district management and was anticipated as
a strong partner in the future model of the programme. The company invested into their own
properties and performed urban renewal beyond typical refurbishment. The DEGEWO district
management focuses on tenant and citizen participation as well as upgrading the surrounding
environment of their buildings. The driving forces here were not citizen and public administration, but citizen and the ‘public’ private investor.
2.6.3 Crime prevention representatives – A measure of
community policing
61B
62B
During the 1970s, the Berlin police discovered the advantages of citizen-friendly police work.
The relationship between citizens and police had until then been neglected; prevention work
had not been a primary focus and the preferred principle was that of prevention through repression. As soon as the police realised that repressive measures offered fewer possibilities to exert
an influence on the development of local crime, the expansion of a trustful citizen-policerelationship became a high value and strategically important instrument for successful crimereduction. With this acknowledgement, the Berlin police started the implementation of so called
‘contact area officers’ (‘Kontaktbereichsbeamte’), officers who represented an immediate link
between citizens and police, acting as contact persons in questions of safety and therefore as a
means of bringing back police to the streets.
In 1988, first steps in the implementing the so called ‘Berlin Model’ led to the decision to convey
the ‘contact area officers’ into the respective police sections. Apart from an amplified involvement of uniformed police with detection work this model comprised a district and community
orientated approach, which was characterised by a stronger police presence aimed at a policy
of more efficient crime abatement.
While more and more police sections adapted to the ‘Berlin Model’ over the years, in 2004 a
further element of crime prevention was established by the police. From then on every police
authority and police section introduced a full-time crime prevention representative who is to coordinate crime preventive measures in his/her area. Regarding the case study areas the prevention representatives emanate from the police authorities five (Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg and
Neukoelln) and six (Lichtenberg, Treptow-Koepenick and Marzahn-Hellersdorf). The appropriate
police sections 56, covering the districts Britz, Buckow and Rudow, and 62, encompassing the
area of Marzahn, are located next to the research areas.
Although there are still some doubts about the acceptance and effectiveness of this measure; it
has nevertheless led to an increased consciousness of the importance of prevention within police ranks as well as amongst the population. The police’s self-perception also changed as they
now consider themselves as a service provider for the community and thereby strengthens the
52 / 111
social control. Crime prevention nowadays is recognized as a task the entire society has to
tackle, requiring a joint effort of the federal, state and local authorities alike, as well as private
citizens. The combination of both repressive and preventative strategies appears applicable to
reduce crime related problems in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods.
The crime prevention representative is responsible for accomplishing a number of different
measures. Public relations and cooperation with different organisations, for example,
neighbourhood management and other projects for residents belong to the functions of the
crime prevention representative. Moreover, crime prevention by the police is aimed at the
autonomous development of preventive approaches and plans for action as well as the identification of crime-abetting conditions within the respective areas.
High attention is paid to anti-violence-activities, especially those conducted in schools. Schools
are motivated to enter into a contract with the police in order to organise anti-violence presentations. Thereby, information regarding violence and crime in general and prevention methods
and consequences of criminal behaviour are provided. Possible situations of conflict are analysed in role-plays and children are given advice on how to behave in such situations.
By now, the work of the crime prevention representatives is equally appreciated both by the
police and by the residents. The model represents a substantial and efficient contribution to the
prevention work of the police on a small scale spatial level.
2.6.4 Concierge services – A rediscovered measure of crime
prevention
63B
64B
Going back to the period of promoterism (‘Gruenderzeit’) a large number of German housing
companies rediscovered concierge services in the end of the 1990s. Basically concerned with
the surveillance of entrance areas in residential buildings the concierge additionally controls
floors, garages, lifts and the surrounding area predominantly by using CCTV cameras.
Apart from the aspect of providing control and safety, the concierge, frequently described as the
‘house’s good soul’, fulfils an important function concerning the social cohesion of the household as well as providing services for the residents: The doorman satisfies different orders and
errands, especially for elderly, handicapped or ill people, accepts deliveries and post, and
opens the doors for tradesmen whilst the residents are at work. He even waters the flowers or
feeds the pets while the residents are on holidays. Many residents use the concierge lounge to
deposit their second latchkey. Residents do not only come when they need help with minor repair work but also to share personal worries about their family or work. After a while, the concierge becomes a reliable contact person, who knows all or at least most of the residents by
name, which can be up to 300 individuals. He is somebody to trust, who is always there, always
friendly and highly knowledgeable about the house; an institution that communicates a feeling of
safety. Very often, the residents possess his telephone number to call in case of an emergency.
53 / 111
On the one hand, the focus of the concierge services lies on the improvement of the living conditions, especially in socially disadvantaged areas, which leads to a higher attractiveness and
therefore a better profitability of tower block dwellings. On the other hand, the service strengthens the feelings of safety for the residents and leads, by means of control and surveillance, to a
decrease in crime rates. Additionally, the concierge also affects the revaluation of the residential
areas and their image in the media by attracting new target groups from the middle class.
Nevertheless, there are cases where residents resisted the establishment of a concierge service; especially in cases where they have to pay higher rents in order to cover the expenses of
the provided service. However, many housing companies found ways to pay for this service on
their own or with the participation of surrounding retailers. Despite the deprecatory response of
some residents and other critical voices, which fear the establishment of a permanent state of
surveillance, the number of concierges employed has rapidly increased during the last years.
Both the WBG Marzahn (admittedly not in the research area) as well as the DEGEWO (for example, at Zwickauer Damm 12 or at Joachim-Gottschalk-Weg 1) have introduced such services
a long ago. Due to several resident surveys conducted by the housing companies, the establishment of concierges evidently strengthens the residents’ subjective perception of safety. Due
to these experiences, the concierge services are considered to be an effective measure in preventing crime and avoiding anonymity in residential areas.
2.6.5 Noise Police (Laermpolizei) – A measure of neighbourhood
improvement
65B
66B
Due to cumulative registered disturbances of the peace by night the housing company WBG
Marzahn established a private security firm in 2004, which aims to ensure compliance with the
rest periods in their housing stock. Additional functions of the so called Noise Police (Laermpolizei) are the enforcement of the rules of the houses in general, the prevention of criminal offences and the surveillance of abandoned buildings due to high vacancy rates in the area. The
service is available everyday from 4/6 pm to 3 am and at weekends until 4.30 am. During that
time, occupants who feel disturbed by excessive noise or other problems caused by the
neighbours are encouraged to call the number of the Noise Police, which can be found in all
floors of the houses.
The employees of the Noise Police patrol the district partly by car, partly on foot. As regards to
their outward appearance, the Noise Police is constituted by uniform-wearing men. In most
cases their very appearance leads to a quick solution of the problem; especially concerning juveniles, who constitute the bulk of the disturbers.
The security firm follows an attempt which is mainly based on the de-escalation principle. Eminently trained in handling people under alcoholic influence, the Noise Police give a warning at
first. Calling the police is necessary only in cases where the disturber does not open the door or
54 / 111
in the case of an irresolvable conflict. Accesses to the dwellings as well as the use of arms are
not allowed. However, every incident will be reported to the housing company and permanent
disturbance could ultimately lead to eviction from the flat.
Due to the success of a model experiment implemented in some residential areas of Marzahn,
the WBG Marzahn expanded this service to the entire district. The costs of these services are
solely borne by the housing company and do not cause higher rents for its tenants. Since the
implementation of the Noise Police shortened the lengthy and bureaucratic way of handling
noise exposure into a direct and effective reaction, the vast majority of the occupants have expressed a favourable opinion about this measure. Short distances enable the Noise Police to
intervene rapidly which, in many cases, is not possible for the police. Furthermore, they support
the work of the police by preventing some of the smaller criminal offences.
In the past, many former occupants moved to other districts because of the permanent noise
exposure in the badly soundproofed slab buildings, which was an incentive for the housing companies to counteract this increasing development. Due to the cumulative competition on the
housing market, more and more housing companies are forced to offer an atmosphere of more
comfort and safety to their tenants. Thus, the establishment of the Noise Police was regarded
as an effective measure of control in order to strengthen the feelings of safety in the entire
neighbourhood. Although regarded as a type of social commitment, the service operates with an
economic backdrop that is aimed at reducing the fluctuation of residents and high vacancy
rates. Most occupants do not consider the assignment of this measure as a stigma but as a
contribution to a higher quality of living. The declining number of cases in which residents demanded the Noise Police’s help during the last two months is regarded by the housing company
as evidence of the measure’s success.
2.6.6 Physical refurbishment – Measures to prevent vandalism
67B
Apart from measures aimed at the take-over of informal social control through institutionalised
social control (i.e., Noise Police, concierges, video surveillance in specific areas), the housing
companies in Marzahn North and the Gropiusstadt implemented a number of actions that targeted a decrease in damages caused by vandalism and the improvement of public safety in
their buildings and the surroundings:

Entrances have been secured and covered with steel plates on the ground and first
floors (Picture 2.31)

Unhindered access to the attic storeys has been prevented by means of lattice doors

The areas below the basement stairs have been refitted with grills in order to avoid the
deposit of bulky refuse

Porches above the front doors have been installed

Rubbish containers have been locked in barred cages (Picture 2.32)
55 / 111

Frequently daubed walls (gables, entrances, ground floors and pillars) have been supplied with a surface coating aimed at preventing graffiti

All newly fixed shields in the surroundings have been applied with a varnished film to
prevent graffiti

Formerly easily accessible technical facilities in the basements have been locked with
lattices

Damaged benches, fences and palisades in public areas have been rebuilt using rugged
materials (metal, concrete)

Feelers related to thermal flue and smoke outlets have been substituted with powerful
metal casings
Picture 2.13: New designed entrance in
Marzahn North
Picture 2.14: Barred rubbish cages in the
Gropiusstadt
56 / 111
3
Report on quantitative data
6B
The following chapter reports the results of the population survey which was con-
22B
5B
ducted from December 2005 until February 2006 in the research areas in Marzahn
North and the Gropiusstadt.
3.1 Drawing of the sample
23B
The actual drawing of the sample was done by the State Administration Authority in Berlin.
There were two prerequisites for the sample from our side. First, only people at least 18 years
of age were allowed to be in the sample. This is due to the fact that the respondents are asked
to do a “Time Journey”, a retrospective evaluation of the situation in their district five years ago.
We assumed that this task – already critical from a methodological viewpoint – would make no
sense with younger respondents since they would hardly be able to remember things when they
were children. For the same reason, our second criterion was that the respondents had to have
been living in the given districts for at least five years.
In the run-up to the survey, there were announcements in local newspapers and information
was provided by the housing companies. The questionnaires were handed out to the respondents in a drop-off process: four student assistants were assigned to each of the two districts.
They made four attempts to drop off each questionnaire and scheduled a date with the respondent to pick it up again. In case the target person refused to participate or if all four attempts
failed to hand out the questionnaire, then another person in that house was chosen by the student assistant.
3.2 Description of the sample
24B
5065 questionnaires were distributed by four student assistants in each of the case study areas.
For Marzahn North, 502 out of 2182 questionnaires were filled out (23 per cent response rate).
In the Gropiusstadt, 519 of the 2883 questionnaires distributed were filled out (18 per cent response rate).
3.2.1 Gender ratio
68B
In Marzahn Nord we find an almost balanced ratio between the sexes – in the official data as
well as in our sample (Figure 3.1).
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn North
The situation in the Gropiusstadt is
Male
Male
Female
different. There is a slight gap in the
Female
Official Data
47,5%
52,5%
51,0%
49,0%
official data in favour of women which
Sample
39,1%
60,9%
48,8%
51,2%
might be explained by the fact that the
Figure 3.1: Gender ration 2005
people living in the Gropiusstadt are
57 / 111
significantly older than those living in Marzahn Nord. The longer lifespan of women could explain why there are more women. But this does not explain the 20 percent gap in our sample.
3.2.1 Ethnicity
69B
It is a commonly known issue that migrants are usually underrepresented in surveys. Unfortunately this proves true for our study as well. The discrepancy in Marzahn North is not very
strong but for the Gropiusstadt we find a considerable bias in terms of non-Germans participating in our survey (Figure 3.2). But how can this 12 percent gap be explained? One approach
could be to try and associate the reason with a lack of German knowledge among the foreign
citizens. When the designated respondents are not capable of understanding the questionnaire
they are more unlikely to participate in a survey.
Marzahn
North
Another possibility we cannot rule out is a bias
Gropiusstadt
16,4%
5,5%
man which alone might influence the likelihood of
4,3%
3,0%
foreign citizens to participate. Furthermore, there
Official Data
Sample
Figure 3.2: Migrants 2005
among our interviewers. Seven out of eight are Ger-
are clear differences between the percentages of
foreign citizens interviewed by each of them. One interviewer had only one non-German respondent whereas the interviewer with the highest percentage of foreign citizens interviewed
eight (11 out of 138 interviews carried out). While this would explain a general low percentage
of migrants in our sample, it does not explain the difference between the two districts. We assume that there are also differences between foreign citizens in the two districts. The majority of
the foreign citizens in the Gropiusstadt show a Turkish background while in Marzahn North,
most of the migrants are either from Russia, Poland or Vietnam. We can only speculate about
the reasons why different groups of foreign citizens should show different participation patterns.
3.2.1 Composition of age
70B
First of all, it is important to call attention to the fact that the official data in this table needed to
be adapted in order to be comparable with our sample (Figure 3.3).
Agegroups
18-27
27-45
45-55
55-65
65+
Marzahn North
Official
Data
Sample
23,5%
16,2%
32,2%
31,1%
23,6%
27,5%
10,0%
14,4%
10,7%
10,8%
Gropiusstadt
Official
Data
Sample
12,4%
5,1%
28,5%
24,1%
15,5%
15,6%
17,3%
26,2%
26,4%
29,0%
It was necessary to limit the base
on which percentages were calculated on ages at 18 years and older
since in our sample only respondents of 18 years of age and older
were allowed to participate.
100%
Before we investigate the age dif-
Figure 3.3: Composition of age (Official data and sample)
ferences between the districts we
Total
100%
100%
100%
must control how well our sample
58 / 111
represents the actual age distribution in the two districts. For Marzahn North we notice only one
large gap in the age group of the 18 to 27 years old which are underrepresented in our sample
by 7 percent. This age group is also underrepresented in the Gropiusstadt by 7 percent. For
both research areas the age group of the 55 to 65 years old is overrepresented in our sample.
The explanation for these results might be that the younger people are less often at home and
therefore their likelihood to participate in our survey is lower than the one for elderly people who
might spend more time at home.
Most obvious is the age
35
30
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn North
difference of the dis-
25
tricts – in the official
20
data as well as in our
sample. In our sample,
Percentage
15
there are almost three
10
times as many elderly
5
people
0
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
living
über 65
Age
Figure 3.4: Composition of age (Sample)
(65+
in
years)
the
Gro-
piusstadt than in Marzahn
North.
Con-
versely, there are three
times as many young people living in Marzahn North than in the Gropiusstadt (Figure 3.4).
3.3 Living conditions in the two research areas
71B
When asked if their neighbourhood was pleasant five years ago, more than two thirds of the
respondents reported that this was the case. The percentage of consent in the Gropiusstadt
was higher than in Marzahn North reaching 79 percent among women (Figure 3.5).
District
Gropiusstadt
female
The district was
a pleasant
district
The district is a
pleasent district
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
agree
79,1%
70,3%
64,0%
66,5%
disagree
20,9%
29,7%
36,0%
33,5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
agree
47,7%
36,7%
68,5%
64,0%
disagree
52,3%
63,3%
31,5%
36,0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.5: Pleasant district (2000 and 2005)
59 / 111
Today the situation has changed drastically. Whereas in Marzahn North the percentage of people considering their district to be friendly remained almost unchanged, the consent in the Gropiusstadt has dropped by almost 50 percent. Only 48% of the female and 37% of the male respondents agree that their district is friendly. A curiosity is the discrepancy between male and
female respondents in the Gropiusstadt. So far, we have no explanation for the fact that women
find their district more pleasant than men. Indeed, we would have expected that such a discrepancy would have been the other way round.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
The district was
a safe district
The district is a
safe district
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
agree
62,6%
59,2%
64,6%
61,3%
disagree
37,4%
40,8%
35,4%
38,7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
agree
24,5%
24,1%
49,2%
42,9%
disagree
75,5%
75,9%
50,8%
57,1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.6: Safe district (2000 and 2005)
Around 60 percent of the respondents in both areas say that there district was safe five years
ago (Figure 3.6). For the present these numbers dropped massively. Only 24 percent of the
respondents in the Gropiusstadt feel that their district is safe compared to 42.9 (for male) respectively 49.2 percent (for female) of the respondents in Marzahn North.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
The district
was a calm
district
The district
is a calm
district
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
agree
69,9%
70,3%
67,9%
63,2%
disagree
30,1%
29,7%
32,1%
36,8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
agree
41,5%
44,3%
54,5%
50,4%
disagree
58,5%
55,7%
45,5%
49,6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.7: Calm district (2000 and 2005)
60 / 111
In both research areas for today there is a significant lower consent to the statement “This district is quiet“ than for five years ago (Figure 3.7). Again, the drop in the Gropiusstadt is harsher
than in Marzahn North with almost 30 percent displaying less consent. Compared to this number the 13 percent drop of Marzahn North appears to be relatively low.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
The district was
an attractive
district
The district is an
attractive district
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
agree
69,9%
56,2%
45,3%
38,9%
disagree
30,1%
43,8%
54,7%
61,1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
agree
57,6%
43,8%
75,8%
74,3%
disagree
42,4%
56,2%
24,2%
25,7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.8: Attractive district (2000 and 2005)
The above table proves the success of the massive structural measures taken in Marzahn
North. For today a large majority of around 75 percent of the respondents consider that they live
in an attractive district (Figure 3.8). That is a boost of almost 30 percent compared to the situation five years ago. In the Gropiusstadt however, where less structural efforts were conducted,
the percentage of those who think that their district is nice dropped more than 10 percent.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
The district
was a clean
district
The district
is a clean
district
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
agree
57,6%
48,5%
44,3%
44,1%
disagree
42,4%
51,5%
55,7%
55,9%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
agree
31,0%
22,4%
45,3%
50,4%
disagree
69,0%
77,6%
54,7%
49,6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.9: Clean district (2000 and 2005)
Concerning the cleanness of the research areas we find a similar picture like before (Figure
3.9). Assumingly as a result of the efforts taken in Marzahn North, the percentage of the respondents who think that their district is tidy for today is slightly higher than for in the past. On
61 / 111
the contrary, in the Gropiusstadt only 31 percent of the female and 22 percent of the male respondents think that their district is tidy. Interestingly, female respondents in the Gropiusstadt
show another answer pattern than expected. It is unclear why 9 percent more women think that
the Gropiusstadt is a clean district, than men.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
If I could have, I
would have left
the district
If I could, I would
leave the district
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
agree
32,1%
33,3%
34,0%
34,8%
disagree
67,9%
66,7%
66,0%
65,2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
agree
49,5%
52,6%
38,5%
38,2%
disagree
50,5%
47,4%
61,5%
61,8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.10: Wish to move (2000 and 2005)
In the table “If I could, I would leave […]” we find that the wish to move out of the district has
grown enormously in the Gropiusstadt whereas there was only a slight increase in Marzahn
North (Figure 3.10). In other words: more than half of the respondents in the Gropiusstadt find
their district so unattractive to live in that they would like to move somewhere else.
3.4 Level of Fear of Crime in the research areas
72B
The overwhelming majority of the citizens in both districts feel safe in their homes at daytime
(Figure 3.11). However, there is a rise in the feeling of insecurity especially among women and
especially in the Gropiusstadt.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
Feeling of safety alone
at home during the day
- five years ago
at home during the day
- today
safe
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
94,4%
96,4%
91,5%
95,2%
unsafe
5,6%
3,6%
8,5%
4,8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
safe
87,7%
91,4%
88,8%
96,1%
unsafe
12,3%
8,6%
11,2%
3,9%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.11: Fear of crime alone at home during the day (2000 and 2005)
62 / 111
More than twice as many state that they are feeling unsafe at home today compared to the
situation five years ago. The level of insecurity felt by female respondents today is almost identical in the two districts. But there has been a different development for men. While less male
respondents in Marzahn North feel unsafe today than five years ago, this figure has increased
by five percent in the Gropiusstadt. For today more than twice as many male respondents in the
Gropiusstadt state that they feel unsafe at home than in Marzahn North.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
at home at night - five
years ago
at home at night - today
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
safe
85,8%
94,4%
79,8%
89,0%
unsafe
14,2%
5,6%
20,2%
11,0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
safe
75,2%
82,7%
74,8%
89,1%
unsafe
24,8%
17,3%
25,2%
10,9%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.12: Fear of crime alone at home at night (2000 and 2005)
There is a sharp increase in the level of insecurity felt at home at night compared to the situation during daytime (Figure 3.12). Overall, 25 percent of the female respondents state that they
feel unsafe at home today. Comparing the two research areas we find interesting differences. In
particular, the developments in the Gropiusstadt raise several questions. The percentage of
male respondents feeling unsafe at home during night has increased by more than 300 percent
within the last five years while this figure remained unchanged in Marzahn North. Delving
deeper into the data we find that among the 17 percent feeling unsafe, the vast majority are
elderly people. And since the population in the Gropiusstadt is much older than the one in Marzahn North, this fact contributes to an explanation.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
Feeling of safety alone in
the corridors and communal
spaces of your appartment
block during the day - five
years ago
safe
the corridors and communal
block during the day - today
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
91,1%
91,3%
85,2%
89,0%
unsafe
8,9%
8,7%
14,8%
11,0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
safe
79,9%
81,6%
86,6%
89,5%
unsafe
20,1%
18,4%
13,4%
10,5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.13: Fear of crime alone in the corridors of the apartment block during the day
(2000 and 2005)
63 / 111
Although the numbers have dropped somewhat there is still a high level of security felt both in
the Gropiusstadt and in Marzahn North concerning the feeling of being alone in the corridors
and communal spaces of the apartment block during the day (Figure 3.13). Again the measures
taken in Marzahn North become obvious. While the level even increased a little bit, there is a 10
percent drop to be stated for the Gropiusstadt. Every fifth resident feels unsafe today which
gives reason to worry and to think about counter measurements. Since there have been good
experiences with the introduction of the Concierge services in Marzahn North, this might be one
measure to think about in the Gropiusstadt as well.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
Feeling of safety alone in the
corridors and communal
block at night - five years ago
safe
64,4%
82,1%
62,9%
81,4%
unsafe
35,6%
17,9%
37,1%
18,6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Feeling of safety alone in the
corridors and communal
block at night - today
safe
52,6%
64,5%
63,9%
76,3%
unsafe
47,4%
35,5%
36,1%
23,7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.13: Fear of crime alone in the corridors of the apartment block at night
(2000 and 2005)
The question “How safe do you feel when you are alone in the corridors and communal spaces
of your apartment block at night?” concerns women in a different way than men since this is the
prototypical scenario for the fear of being raped (Figure 3.13). So it is to be expected that
women show a much higher level of insecurity. Looking at the data we find no real differences
between the situation now and for five years ago. The levels are almost identical in the two districts with female respondents showing almost twice as much discomfort than males. But today,
the respondents state very different levels of security. In Marzahn North, male respondents
show a slightly increased fear while in the Gropiusstadt this figure exploded by 100 percent. The
gap between male and female respondents is much smaller than in Marzahn North. Again, this
can be explained in good part by the fact that the population in the Gropiusstadt is significantly
older than in Marzahn North. And since elderly people in general are more fearful of crime, the
gap between the sexes is smaller, too.
64 / 111
District
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn Nord
Sex
Sex
female
the local street during the
day - five years ago
the local street during the
day - today
safe
male
female
male
93,7%
94,4%
93,0%
90,7%
unsafe
6,3%
5,6%
7,0%
9,3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
safe
82,1%
81,3%
91,9%
89,5%
unsafe
17,9%
18,7%
8,1%
10,5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.14: Fear of crime alone in the streets during the day (2000 and 2005)
Asked how safe the respondents feel alone in their local streets during the day, the figures for
Marzahn North remained stable with about 90 percent feeling safe out on the streets (Figure
3.14). In contrast to that there is a sharp increase of insecurity among the respondents in the
Gropiusstadt independent of their sex. Nowadays, 18 percent feel unsafe, compared to only 6
percent five years ago.
District
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn Nord
Sex
Sex
female
the local street at night five years ago
the local street at night today
male
female
male
safe
49,5%
60,6%
56,5%
66,7%
unsafe
50,5%
39,4%
43,5%
33,3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
safe
27,5%
36,2%
48,5%
63,0%
unsafe
72,5%
63,8%
51,5%
37,0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.15: Fear of crime alone in the streets at night (2000 and 2005)
Asked whether they feel safe out on the streets alone at night the respondents in Marzahn
North judge it all about the today as they did five years ago (Figure 3.15). Naturally there is a
strong gap between men and women. Women generally feel less safe than men. Compared to
the Gropiusstadt the level of security felt in Marzahn North is still high. For today only one third
of the respondents there feel safe out on the streets at night. That is a sharp decrease of more
than 20 percent within five years and certainly reason enough to discuss the overall policing
concept of this district.
65 / 111
District
Gropiusstadt
female
Feeling of safety using local
public transport during the
day - five years ago
Feeling of safety using local
public transport during the
day - today
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
safe
85,0%
88,6%
89,7%
86,1%
unsafe
15,0%
11,4%
10,3%
13,9%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
safe
59,1%
57,1%
83,1%
82,8%
unsafe
40,9%
42,9%
16,9%
17,2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.16: Fear of crime using public transport during the day (2000 and 2005)
Another drastic drop in feelings of security in the Gropiusstadt can be found in the item “How
safe do you feel when you are using local public transport during the day?” (Figure 3.16). From
a similarly high level of more than 85 percent five years ago this figure dropped in the Gropiusstadt down to less than 60 percent, whereas it remained stable in Marzahn North.
District
Gropiusstadt
female
Feeling of safety using
local public transport at
night - five years ago
Feeling of safety using
local public transport at
night - today
Marzahn Nord
male
female
male
safe
39,3%
49,7%
46,4%
50,7%
unsafe
60,7%
50,3%
53,6%
49,3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
safe
14,3%
23,2%
29,3%
39,6%
unsafe
85,7%
76,8%
70,7%
60,4%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 3.17: Fear of crime using public transport at night (2000 and 2005)
The above table presents the lowest scores of security of all items polled (Figure 3.17). With a
top low score of only 14.3 percent of the female respondents in Gropiusstadt feeling secure today using the public transportation system at night it shows that there is an urgent need to do
something about it. But this also holds true for Marzahn Nord. Only 30 respectively 40 percent
of the respondents feel safe using the public transportation system at night – a fact which cannot be regarded as a satisfying finding for the operating company.
3.5 Summary
73B
It can be garnered from the overall findings that the level of security felt amongst the respondents five years ago and today in Marzahn Nord has remained (with one exception) almost un-
66 / 111
changed, whereas a drastic drop of consent has occurred amongst the residents of the Gropiusstadt.
There is a general trend that the percentage of respondents from the Gropiusstadt feeling safe
today in various circumstances is down by up to 50 percent.
To a large extent, this finding can be explained by differences in the age composition of the districts. While residents in Marzahn North are rather young, there are mostly elderly people living
in the Gropiusstadt. And from numerous studies we know that elderly people are in general
more fearful of crime than younger people. A true reason of concern is the situation in the public
transport system, especially at night. With a vast majority feeling unsafe using busses, the subway etc., the authorities need to address this problem and find ways to give their customers a
feeling of safety.
3.6 Social cohesion
74B
Since there are big differences in the socio-demographics between the districts, one could have
assumed bigger differences concerning social cohesion as well. But this is not the case.
District
Gropiusstadt
Social
Cohesion
Index
very little social cohesion
Marzahn Nord
8,9%
9,8%
low level of social cohesion
18,1%
15,4%
moderate level of social
cohesion
36,6%
37,3%
high level of social cohesion
36,4%
37,5%
Total
100%
100%
Figure 3.18: Social cohesion in the research areas
Computed as the mean of the items v06a, and v09a-e, the index “social cohesion” does not
show significant differences between Marzahn Nord and Gropiusstadt. In both districts, more
than 70 percent of the respondents state a medium or high level of social cohesion (Figure
3.18). While this finding sounds impressive, it also raises questions about its validity. When we
think about who is likely to participate in a survey like ours, it becomes clear that our respondents in general are rather those who are getting involved in their district. People who are not
integrated in social networks are less likely to participate in surveys. Thus, we have to assume a
bias in our sample that overestimates the real level of social cohesion.
67 / 111
3.7 Problems in the research areas
75B
In order to get an overview concerning the general strain with problems in the district a sum
index over the variables v32a to v32r was computed. As a result, a new index variable with values from 1 “No problem at all” to 4 “Very big problem” emerged.
Comparing the two research areas we
District
Gropiusstadt Marzahn Nord
Level of
problems in
the District
low level of problems
14,0%
21,7%
with problems than the Gropiusstadt
moderate level of problems
65,0%
61,9%
(Figure 3.19). There is a 5 percent dif-
high level of problems
21,0%
16,4%
ference in the group of those respon-
Total
100%
100%
Figure 3.19: Problems in the research areas
Gropiusstadt
Demolished/Derelict
buildings
Groups of youths
hanging around
Rubbish or litter in
streets and parks
Homeless people
and beggars
Drunks on the streets
Drug addicts on the
streets
dents who think that there is a high
strain with problems in their district.
3.7.1 Incivilities
76B
District
Too much noise
find Marzahn North to be less strained
Marzahn Nord
There are seven items measuring inci-
No problem
70,6%
69,1%
Is a problem
20,9%
23,7%
Don't know
8,5%
7,3%
such
ished/Derelict buildings” are equally
Total
100%
100%
No problem
17,0%
28,9%
Is a problem
80,1%
65,8%
Don't know
2,9%
5,3%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
32,3%
41,9%
Is a problem
65,3%
54,4%
vilities in the districts. While problems
as
“Noise”
or
“Demol-
serious in both districts, there are some
which are a bigger problem in one of
the districts than in the other (Figure
3.20).
“Groups of youths hanging around” are
Don't know
2,4%
3,6%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
64,6%
70,9%
Is a problem
30,3%
22,6%
Don't know
5,1%
6,5%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
37,4%
45,8%
Is a problem
58,1%
48,1%
Don't know
4,5%
6,1%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
53,4%
65,2%
plained – again – by a conflict of the
Is a problem
20,0%
11,7%
generations. Elderly people in general
Don't know
26,5%
23,1%
Total
100%
100%
are more fearful of young people, es-
No problem
49,7%
50,8%
pecially when they hang around in
Is a problem
46,0%
46,4%
Don't know
4,3%
2,8%
Total
100%
100%
Figure 3.20: Incivilities in the research areas
seen much more as a problem in the
Gropiusstadt than in Marzahn Nord. 80
percent of the respondents think that
they constitute a problem in contrast to
“only” 65 percent of the respondents in
Marzahn Nord. This result is partly ex-
groups. They might pose a threat to
them although they are totally harmless. And since there are many more
elderly
people
living
in
the
piusstadt, this item is more likely to be considered a problem there than in Marzahn Nord.
Gro-
68 / 111
3.7.2 Crime
77B
District
Gropiusstadt
Graffiti
Harassment
of women
Drug dealers
Domestic
violence
Vandalism
Violence in
public space
Molesting of
children
Marzahn Nord
In the corresponding table, items are
No problem
27,2%
28,3%
joined together which are constituted as
Is a problem
68,2%
67,6%
crimes: “Graffiti”, “Harassment of women”,
Don't know
4,5%
4,1%
Total
100%
100%
“Drug dealer”, “Domestic violence”, “Van-
No problem
55,2%
60,6%
dalism”, “Violence in public space” and
Is a problem
15,4%
13,1%
“Molesting of children” (Figure 3.20).
Don't know
29,3%
26,3%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
49,8%
61,0%
in Marzahn Nord think that drug dealers
Is a problem
17,5%
10,1%
are a problem in their district, this figure
Don't know
32,7%
29,0%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
43,6%
41,4%
Graffiti
Is a problem
15,0%
23,9%
piusstadt. And drug dealers constitute a
Don't know
41,4%
34,6%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
24,2%
28,2%
is furthermore the category “Don’t know”.
Is a problem
67,6%
61,7%
When 41 percent of the respondents in
Don't know
8,2%
10,1%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
38,2%
49,0%
zahn North state that they don’t know if
Is a problem
34,6%
26,6%
domestic violence in their district is a
Don't know
27,2%
24,4%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
44,4%
51,9%
about the social cohesion as well. For this
Is a problem
21,4%
20,2%
reason, the fact that domestic violence is
Don't know
34,2%
28,0%
Total
100%
100%
While only 10 percent of the respondents
can go up to 68 percent for the items of
and
Vandalism
in
the
Gro-
bigger problem there as well. Enlightening
the Gropiusstadt and 35 percent in Mar-
problem or not, this tells you something
rather seen to be a problem in Marzahn
North might only reflect a higher level of
Figure 3.20: Crime in the research areas
social awareness. The actual level might
be much higher in the Gropiusstadt. The high level of unawareness of violence in public space
might be due to a behavior of avoidance, e.g., not going out after dark, avoiding certain places
etc.
69 / 111
3.7.3 Deficits
78B
District
Poor
lighting
Lack of
police on
the streets
Lack of
leisure-time
facilities
Lack of
social
services
There were four items presented which
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn Nord
No problem
50,0%
56,9%
portray different shortcomings (Figure
Is a problem
46,9%
40,1%
3.21). None of them was rated lower than
Don't know
3,1%
3,1%
Total
100%
100%
No problem
40,8%
40,0%
Is a problem
42,8%
47,4%
lem in Marzahn North. On the other hand,
Don't know
16,4%
12,6%
the lack of police on the streets is consid-
Total
100%
100%
ered to be a problem by more than 72
No problem
41,5%
34,2%
Is a problem
47,4%
57,8%
Don't know
11,0%
7,9%
Total
100%
100%
moderately stated as a problem when the
No problem
20,7%
36,7%
same respondents were asked to name
Is a problem
72,3%
55,0%
problems in their districts with an open
Don't know
7,0%
8,3%
Total
100%
100%
40 percent as being a problem, poor lighting, surprisingly, is a relatively small prob-
percent of the respondents in the Gropiusstadt. Interestingly, this item was only
ended question. Instead, a lack of leisure
facilities and a lack of / or broken lighting
Figure 3.21: Deficits of the research areas
were prominently stated.
3.7.4 Conclusions
79B
Comparing the results from the closed question battery with those from the open query, we find
that most of the problems in the research areas are covered with the first. However, there are
problems which were not addressed in the question battery. Basically, there a two big problem
areas that also must be taken into consideration. The first one embraces cleanness in general,
but also dog droppings and rubbish in the streets. The second problem area reflects a certain
xenophobic attitude: too many non-Germans and a lack of integration efforts on the part of migrants. In addition to these two issues, there are two more single items that were stated as
problems: alcohol and unemployment.
70 / 111
3.8 Development of problems during the last five years
80B
3.8.1 Incivilities
81B
District
Demolished/Derelict
buildings
Groups of youths
hanging around
Rubbish or litter in
streets and parks
Homeless people
and beggars
Drunks on the streets
Drug addicts on the
streets
Too much noise
The results for the incivilities reflect to a
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn Nord
Better
25,3%
50,0%
Equal
65,1%
38,8%
Worse
9,5%
11,2%
Total
100%
100%
North (Figure 3.22). In all items, this district performs better than the Gro-
certain
extent
the
success
of
the
neighborhood management in Marzahn
Better
3,5%
6,1%
Equal
44,9%
53,8%
Worse
51,6%
40,1%
Total
100%
100%
are seen to have become worse or re-
Better
9,3%
19,7%
mained as bad over the last five years.
Equal
52,6%
58,1%
Worse
38,1%
22,2%
Total
100%
100%
around”, “Drunks in the streets” and “Too
Better
8,5%
13,9%
much noise” are negative examples for
Equal
71,3%
63,7%
Worse
20,2%
22,4%
Total
100%
100%
and parks” constitutes a specific problem
Better
3,2%
6,5%
in the Gropiusstadt, where 38 percent of
Equal
59,1%
61,3%
the respondents view the situation to
Worse
37,6%
32,2%
Total
100%
100%
have become worse. The only item
Better
5,3%
16,1%
where a majority believes that is has got-
Equal
78,2%
74,3%
ten improved over the last five years is
Worse
16,5%
9,6%
Total
100%
100%
“Demolished/Derelict buildings”. Half of
Better
4,3%
10,4%
the respondents in Marzahn North state
Equal
64,3%
61,3%
that this problem has gotten better, still
Worse
31,5%
28,3%
Total
100%
100%
Figure 3.22: Perceived development of incivilities
during the last five years
piusstadt. Nevertheless, most problems
Especially “Groups of youths hanging
both districts. “Rubbish or litter in streets
25 percent in the Gropiusstadt.
71 / 111
3.8.2 Crime
82B
District
Gropiusstadt
Graffiti
Harassment
of women
Drug dealers
Domestic
violence
Vandalism
Violence in
public space
Molesting of
children
Marzahn Nord
Among the problems which constitute
Better
7,5%
16,5%
crimes, especially “Graffiti”, “Vandalism”
Equal
51,8%
49,4%
and “Violence in public space” have be-
Worse
40,7%
34,1%
come worse. Again, the overall perform-
Total
100%
100%
ance of Marzahn Nord is significantly bet-
Better
5,6%
15,3%
Equal
81,3%
73,1%
Worse
13,1%
11,6%
Total
100%
100%
tioned above gives reason to worry about
Better
4,4%
15,6%
the future.
Equal
79,0%
77,1%
Leaving methodological questions con-
Worse
16,5%
7,4%
cerning the validity of a retrospective
Total
100%
100%
Better
4,5%
8,9%
Equal
81,0%
73,8%
Worse
14,5%
17,3%
Total
100%
100%
Better
2,9%
7,6%
Equal
48,8%
55,8%
Concerning the (infrastructure) deficits,
Worse
48,3%
36,6%
only marginal improvements have been
Total
100%
100%
made, if any. The picture for Marzahn
Better
3,4%
6,6%
Equal
61,0%
67,8%
Worse
35,5%
25,6%
Total
100%
100%
Better
4,4%
8,0%
piusstadt. However, there are mixed re-
Equal
78,1%
74,3%
sults. For instance, while 14 percent think
Worse
17,5%
17,6%
that there has been an improvement in
Total
100%
100%
leisure-time facilities, almost 29 percent
Figure 3.23: Perceived development of crime
during the last five years
ter than in the Gropiusstadt. Still, the development of the three problems men-
evaluation aside, the concerns of the
residents are clear and should be taken
seriously by the authorities.
3.8.3 Deficits
83B
Nord is ambivalent since the respondents
from that district are more aware of
changes than the ones from the Gro-
think that the situation got worse over the
last five years. Overall, a majority in both
districts view the deficits as more problematic than was the case five years ago. The only deficit
in the Gropiusstadt that was drastically rated worse is “Lack of police on the streets” with 45
percent thinking that this problem has worsened. In Marzahn Nord, there are three deficits that
are striking: “Lack of leisure-time facilities”, “Lack of social services” and “Lack of police on the
streets” are all seen by approximately 30 percent as having gotten worse over the last five
years.
72 / 111
3.9 Measures to improve the situation in the research areas
84B
In a question battery, the respondents were presented with 17 different measures to solve / reduce the problems in the district. They were asked to rate them from 1 “Not at all appropriate” to
4 “Very appropriate”. For reasons of clarity we merged the categories into two: “appropriate”
and “not appropriate”. Furthermore, we excluded the category “don’t know” in which only very
few percent of the respondents made their cross. The different measures can roughly be divided into two groups. The first reflects a dimension of prevention and “social solutions”
whereas the second reflects active countermeasures and a call for “law and order”.
3.9.1 Prevention
85B
District
Better lighting
Fewer blind corners
More cleanliness in
streets and parks
Integration of
immigrants
Violence-prevention in
schools
Better support for
low-income groups
The overall agreement rate differs from 72
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn Nord
not appropriate
16,7%
24,0%
appropriate
83,3%
76,0%
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
6,5%
14,3%
immigrants up to 95 percent for measures
appropriate
93,5%
85,7%
like “Violence-prevention in schools” and
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
11,3%
15,5%
appropriate
88,7%
84,5%
citizens” (Figure 3.24).
Total
100%
100%
Interestingly, “Better lighting” – although
not appropriate
20,9%
28,0%
appropriate
79,1%
72,0%
Total
100%
100%
problems in the district – received only
relatively moderate agreement rates in
not appropriate
percent of the respondents in Marzahn
North pleading for a better integration of
“Better co-operation between police and
stated prominently in the open query to
5,2%
5,7%
appropriate
94,8%
94,3%
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
14,4%
7,4%
appropriate
85,6%
92,6%
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
13,3%
11,2%
appropriate
86,7%
88,8%
Total
100%
100%
“Prevention” measures, a repressive “lawand-order” policy is seen as being some-
the districts compared to the other measures proposed.
3.9.1 Repression
86B
More participation of
citizens in district matters
More sports- and
leisure-time facilities for
young people
Better co-operation
between police and
citizens
More information on
crime and crime
prevention measures in
my neighbourhood
not appropriate
Compared to the agreement levels for the
9,4%
7,3%
appropriate
90,6%
92,7%
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
5,3%
7,4%
respondents (Figure 3.25). Only 33, re-
appropriate
94,7%
92,6%
spectively 37 percent think that “Citizen-
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
11,0%
16,6%
appropriate
89,0%
83,4%
counter the problems in the district.
Total
100%
100%
But “More police on the streets” and
Figure 3.24: Preventive measures perceived
as adequate or inadequate
what less suitable in the opinions of the
patrols” are an appropriate measure to
“Stronger punishment for acts of violence”
still get agreement rates up to 93 percent.
73 / 111
3.9.2 Conclusions
87B
District
Video monitoring
of public spaces
More police
powers
Use of private
security firms
Citizen-patrols
Reduce the influx
of foreigners
Stronger
punishment for
acts of violence
More police on
the streets
Looking at the results of these question
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn Nord
not appropriate
23,0%
39,3%
appropriate
77,0%
60,7%
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
15,1%
24,7%
posed. Apart from “Citizen-patrols”, all
appropriate
84,9%
75,3%
measures find widespread acceptance
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
25,8%
37,6%
appropriate
74,2%
62,4%
In the open query to measures that would
make the inhabitants feel safer in their
batteries one might wonder about the high
rates of consent with the measures pro-
among the respondents.
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
66,6%
63,1%
appropriate
33,4%
36,9%
Total
100%
100%
statements. They were grouped into 22
not appropriate
18,9%
20,7%
categories. Among those, the demand for
appropriate
81,1%
79,3%
more police was most prominent with 34
Total
100%
100%
not appropriate
8,3%
8,6%
percent of all statements. “Better lighting”
appropriate
91,7%
91,4%
with 12 and “noise patrols / private secu-
Total
100%
100%
rity firms” with 10 percent ranked at
not appropriate
7,1%
14,1%
appropriate
92,9%
85,9%
places two and three. While the call for
Total
100%
100%
more police is consistent with the results
Figure 3.25: Repressive measure perceived
as adequate or inadequate
district, 573 respondents made 1086
from the question battery, there is – again
– a discrepancy in the prominence of
“Better lighting” in the open query and the question battery. An attempt to explain this gap could
be that there are some areas where bad lighting constitutes a very severe problem while in
most of the other parts the situation is not that bad. Those who are affected by this take the opportunity to specifically point this problem out, although it is voiced more in the Gropiusstadt, it
cannot be specified.
74 / 111
4
Report on qualitative data
8B
The following chapter summarises the outcome of the expert interviews that have
7B
been conducted in Berlin in May and June 2006. Serving as interview partners in
Marzahn North Mr Matthias Bahlo and Mrs Christiane Hoehne representing the hous-
ing company WBG Marzahn, Mr Gerd Boussel, prevention representative of the police, and Mr
Hans Panhoff from the neighbourhood management Marzahn North-West were available. In the
Gropiusstadt Mr Martin Voecks and Mrs Petra Haumersen from the neighbourhood management Lipschitzallee as well as Mr Joern Richters and Mrs Annett Biernath from the housing
company DEGEWO were interviewed. In the form of a group discussion Mr Hardy Telge, the
prevention representative of the police in the Gropiusstadt, as well as Mr Einfinger and Mr Fibranz, both section leaders of the police, have been consulted. In addition, Mr Jens-Oliver
Heuer, the prevention advisor of the State Office of Criminal Investigation in Berlin (LKA) was
interviewed.
4.1 Objectives
25B
The goal of all the interview partners who participated in the project, and the institutions they
represent, is ultimately to improve the quality of life of those residents living in the respective
large housing estates. The institutions involved generally carry out not-for-profit community service work, although it is to be noted that the interests of the WGB are somewhat more economically orientated:
“For us, improving the marketability of our housing assets stands at the fore…”
(Bahlo, Line 20).
Likewise, Mr Richters from the DEGEWO notes:
“…it also has to do with tenant satisfaction. By renovating the building facades, particularly those in the large housing estates, the reputation of the entire suburb is considerably strengthened” (Richters, Lines 38-41).
The work of the crime prevention representatives is, in as much, the only explicitly concerned
with crime prevention. The work of the other institutions is skewed more in the direction of social
engagement, where aspects concerning crime prevention and anxiety levels play more of a
supplementary role:
“(…) Prevention, (…) is more of a side effect” (Bahlo, Line 20).
Mr Richters, the manager of customer services at DEGEWO, sets similar priorities, assessing
the actual role of crime in the Gropiusstadt as secondary in nature:
75 / 111
“Crime does not play a role regarding the measures, which I have mentioned. It plays
- it plays a role with regard to other considerations in the Gropiusstadt. These considerations arise again and again, although I don’t want to claim that they all contain
an aspect of criminality. I believe that it has more to do with the low threshold” (Richters, Lines 63-66).
When functionally separated, the individual interviewees can be seen as focusing on the following priorities: The activities of Mr Boussel are concerned primarily with criminal prevention in
Marzahn. His target group is overridingly comprised of children and senior citizens – those considered most susceptible to criminal behaviour. Following on is the work of Mr Telge, a prevention advisor in the Gropiusstadt. His work places a clear emphasis on the schools in the area.
The work of Ms Biernath is primarily concerned with enabling cooperation to occur between the
various parties involved, which means building up contacts (also amongst the residents) and
initiating projects. The work of the Neighbourhood Management group is of a prophylactic and
supportive nature, going beyond the exclusive “landlord“-role of the DEGEWO. By influencing
and maintaining the structures already in place it is hopped that the suburbs concerned will be
propped up and prevented from sliding in a backwards direction. That said, despite the implementation of some improved safety measures, criminal prevention is not concretely considered
and continues to only play a marginal role in their program.
WBG sets its priorities in the first instance with the optimisation of their property (housing assets). Thus, whilst the implementation of increased safety measures arose from the wishes of
the residents, the final decision on the matter was still made primarily with economic considerations in mind. The area of crime prevention alone is not of a concrete concern for WBG (Lines
20, 22, 28).
The Marzahn Nord-West Neighbourhood Management group is represented by Mr Panhoff.
Likewise, this group also does not place any particular priority on criminal prevention – which
can be attributed to the fact that crime is not regarded as being a particularly problematic issue
in the area. The activities of the Neighbourhood Management consist instead of enabling the
residents to stabilize their living arrangements and to bring about and maintain a certain standard to their quality of life. Resident irritation and antagonization caused by high fluctuations in
the suburb are therefore of special concern. (Lines 424, 442). Mr Voecks from the Neighbourhood Management group in the Gropiusstadt also seeks to attain similar goals, although he
notes that the group in the Gropiusstadt is only at an embryonic phases and therefore is unable
to give any concrete priorities (Voecks, Lines 186-196).
Thus, it can be concluded that, with the exception of the police, criminal prevention does not
play a major role for the institutions involved in the housing estates of Marzahn and Gropiusstadt, and is seen as not presenting, in itself, a grave problem.
76 / 111
4.2 Crime and fear of crime
26B
With regard to the level of criminal incidences in the two research areas (which are predominantly comprised of juvenile crime) it can be concluded that problems have continued to exist
even after reconstructive measures were carried out. However, Mr Boussel has stated that the
evaluation period has been too short and that, on a positive note, in the reconstructed areas no
increase in the crime rate has been observed:
“(…) when one analyses the general surrounding and the incidences of street crime
in the areas, then it could be said that we have a state of relative peace and quite”
(Boussel, Line 371).
Mr Telge, the Gropiusstadt prevention advisor, also adds that the crime rate is not read in clear
conjunction with the overall crime rate figures of Berlin, as the crime rate, when compared with
Berlin as a whole has not significantly increased:
“It simply isn’t the case that the Gropiusstadt is a present day incarnation of Sodom
and Gomorra – it just isn’t so” (Telge, Lines 1434-1435).
Mr Richters from the DEGEWO further stated:
“The police once told me that the Gropiusstadt, in comparison with North-Neukoelln,
(…), is relatively peaceful” (Richters, Line 181-182).
Furthermore, with reference to the size of the area involved:
“I personally think that what we are experiencing here could be considered relatively
normal for a district where some 35,000 people (…) that is, live together in a close
environment (…). That is roughly the size of a small city, and naturally there is always something going on in a small city, and yet the media headlines always declare: ‘Once again in the Gropiusstadt.’ That is however not – in my opinion – the
correct approach. With 35,000 people there is always something going on, and even
when we take a multi-storey house, with say 700 people living in it, then that is also
like a little village and even in a little village there will be things happening on an everyday basis…“ (Richter, Lines 193-204).
Ms Biernath has estimated that the crime rate in the Gropiusstadt has remained both before and
after the redevelopment, relatively consistent.
Likewise, on the basis of police information Mr Panhoff considers Marzahn a relatively safe
place:
“(…) all police statements suggest, including those related to crime prevention and
those special reports relating to “re-settler” crime, demonstrate that there is no particular problem with crime here“ (Panhoff, Lines 868-870).
77 / 111
In fact, apart from the aforementioned issue of youth and juvenile crime, Mr Panhoff holds that
the area itself does not offer a sufficient criminal gain. This claim is based on the fact that the
residents of Marzahn have a low per-capita income, meaning that crimes such as robbery and
break and entry are an ineffective means of acquiring financial gain for any would be criminals
(Lines 865, 890, 908). He sees Marzahn less as a criminal hot-spot and more as a residence for
criminals (Line 859).
Mr Bahlo from the WBG noted a decrease in criminal activity in the special redevelopment area
of the ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’:
“the police have also confirmed that since the redevelopment of the Ahrensfelder
Terraces, the crime rate in this area has sunk dramatically“ (Bahlo, Lines 314-316).
He sees the grounds for this change stemming from a new (more affable) tenant clientele
brought about by an increase in rental prices and a revaluation of the area (Line 300). In comparison with the city as a whole, the crime rates are not considered above average. The factors
that support the advent of crime in Marzahn and the Gropiusstadt are factors that also occur in
a number of other areas of Berlin, not to mention large housing estates in general. Thus, the
overestimation is attributed to an exaggerated external perception (Panhoff, Lines 859, 866;
Bahlo Lines 306, 563).
The feelings of uncertainty expressed by the residents of both areas have been categorised as
being rather subjective. That is, a high rate of discrepancy often arises between the feelings of
uncertainty of the residents and the number of criminal offences that are actually taking place.
This is made most visible through the use of questionnaires, public discussions and the ranking
of the residents’ concerns with regard to questions of security. It was made apparent by the
residents that the introduction of safety and monitoring measures was not only wanted but indeed demanded. In particular, the residents desired more lighting, especially in public parks,
and a strengthening of security measures at the (apartment) entrances (Panhoff, Line 732;
Bahlo, Line 372). In a similar vein, Mr Voecks from the Gropiusstadt also noted that in addition
to lighting problems is the lack of a public social life after the sun sets (Voecks, Lines 458-461).
His colleague Ms Haumersen additionally noted the so-called “fear of crime”-paradox:
“I have the feeling that there is a paradox at work here, that is, anxiety and a fear of
one’s safety is to a certain extent self induced – as nobody leaves the apartments after dark, there is nobody on the streets and it accordingly becomes more dangerous”
(Haumersen, Lines 451-453).
The establishment of a concierge service as well as the engagement of security firms and the
so called ‘Noise Police’ have resonated well with the majority of the residents. In the Gro-
78 / 111
piusstadt, although the objective problems of crime are considered relatively small, anxiety levels amongst residents are particularly pronounced:
“In all honesty, I am not sure myself how we are to deal with this. You cannot simply
tell the people that their fear and anxiety is ungrounded” (Haumersen, Lines 86-88).
Therefore, an actual improvement in the objective security is somewhat of secondary importance – more important is the goal of providing an increased feeling of safety.
“The (concierge) had – as its particular purpose, on the one hand (…) the control of
the entrance, which is probably the most important task, but naturally it also provides
a certain service for the tenants there. And if this does not increase the objective security then at least it increases the subjective security, a fact which is particularly important for many tenants“ (Richters, Lines 88-91).
The installation of video surveillance cameras is, according to Ms Biernath, endorsed in the
Gropiusstadt (Line 332), whereas in Marzahn, although the cameras were not necessarily declined, they were also not explicitly called for (Panhoff, Line 1002). Moreover, it could be posited
that the anxiety feelings expressed by the residents of Marzahn are not directly associated with
the redevelopment, as they could also have been affected through social change brought about
by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Since then, tenants have registered an increasing necessity for
security (Bahlo, Line 372). However, according to the WBG, a certain degree of ambivalence
seems to exist with regard to the fact that increased security precautions will also call for greater
financial expenditure (Line 881).
All participants in the study certified that the introduction of increased security measures has
had a preventative effect, and that the addition decrease in anxiety levels amongst residents
has also had a positive effect on the general living climate (Boussel, Lines 532, 515). The Gropiusstadt Prevention Representative and his colleagues have also seen such changes occur:
“In general, it is my opinion that here in the Gropiusstadt nothing more happens here
than anywhere else, and the residents feel as safe or unsafe as anywhere else.
What they want is what they actually deserve. They want to see the police in the
streets either patrolling or talking with the elderly residents – it doesn’t really matter,
they just simply want to see them“ (Telge, Lines 1402-1207).
However, according to all key players in the Gropiusstadt (including the police), the central
problem remains the degree of disproportionate uncertainty amongst residents which can only
be partly nullified – and sometimes even strengthened – by video cameras etc. Those involved
are in agreement that such a distortion exists:
“(…) the residents do not see their environment in reality, they do not see it objectively“ (Richters, Line 1075).
79 / 111
Feelings of uncertainty, fear and prejudice have their roots in social problems, and exist independently of those experiences suffered by victims of crime:
“Thus, punch ups between teenagers, which are evidently somewhat in vogue… occur everywhere, and every now and then they also occur in the Gropiusstadt (…) and
then at other times they occur elsewhere (…) but it is correct to say (…) that these
incidents reaffirm the judgements and prejudices that the residents already have“
(Richters, Lines 610-615).
Those participants interviewed from the Gropiusstadt see the roots of the uncertainty as stemming, in particular, from the discrepancies between various generations – in the mix between
older, more established residents, and the numerous younger more recent arrivals. Beyond this,
there is also the degree of uncertainty that exists between migrant and ethnic German cultures,
although it is to be pointed out that the actual ratio of migrants living in the Gropiusstadt is no
higher than in Berlin as a whole. Mr Panhoff also sees the age-discrepancy as a reason for the
feelings of anxiety and uncertainty (Line 1147). He also notes that in Marzahn, which has a very
young population, there is fewer potential for such uncertainty to develop, in comparison with
the borough of Wilmersdorf for example, which possess a high proportion of older, female inhabitants. Mr. Bahlo (Line 395) also attributes part of the problem of uncertainty and anxiety to
the media, which, through their reports often shape the perception of a certain area and the
opinion of the residents living there. He illustrates this claim with the reoccurring issue of rightwing radicalism in Marzahn:
“It is the same with the theme of right-wing radicalism here in Marzahn, which is covered enormously in the media even though it is simply not correct. For instance, in
the year that I have been here, the NPD has only carried out a rally once or twice.
And on such an occasion only around 40 NPD members were involved – while there
were around 80 police. And yet, that evening in the news there is a report that the
NPD are marching through Marzahn“ (Bahlo, Lines 395-400).
Mr Heuer, the Prevention Officer from LKA Berlin, points out that a rise in feelings of uncertainty
may also have been caused by the intensified sensitisation of the population, brought about by
police ‘crime awareness campaigns’ (Heuer, Lines 151-157). The most common criminal group
in both Marzahn and the Gropiusstadt remain young offenders between 14 and 25 who come
from a migrant background. It is felt that the redevelopment has brought about no changes to
this criminal group. The Prevention Officer Mr Boussel estimates that the situation is the same
across Berlin:
“The main group of criminals are youth, juveniles and adolescents between the ages
of 14 to 25 (…) this is not just in Marzahn but rather is across the board as this is a
80 / 111
phase in life where some young people behave in a more or less delinquent manner”
(Boussel, Lines 327-331).
Another issue within the Gropiusstadt is that not all of those committing crimes actually reside
there:
“A segment of those involved in criminal activities certainly lives here, however others simply come here from all over during the afternoon. This is particularly so in the
Gropiusstadt as the U-Bahn connections are so good” (Einfinger, Lines 161-164).
As a result, young delinquents are seen as the most common criminal group in the Gropiusstadt, in particular the subcategory of:
“’travelling pupils’. And thus the schools are labelled as offering services to many pupils who do not even live in the area” (Einfinger, Lines 172-173).
Akin to the aforementioned causes of resident anxiety, these travelling pupils are often considered responsible for the existence of the many criminal groups (Einfinger, Lines 128-131). Similarly, Mr Voecks of the Gropiusstadt Neighbourhood Management notes:
“I believe that it (the most common criminal group) is comprised of adolescents who
want to steal and who come here from North-Neukoelln as students because they
have been kicked out of the schools there“ (Voecks, Lines 519-520).
However, for other crimes he sees different groups as being responsible:
“There is also the whole raft of fraud crimes which are carried out at the apartment
doors. These are mostly carried out my middle aged people, not youths, with the
most potential victims comprised of the elderly residents“ (Voecks, Lines 536-538).
The most frequent crimes which are observed fall within the field of adolescent and juvenile delinquency. In both areas these include vandalism, break-ins, shoplifting, armed robberies and
physical assaults. More serious crimes that occur infrequently include murder and manslaughter
and white collar crime which generally take the form of complicated fraud schemes.
4.3 Solution approaches
27B
In accordance with Mr Boussel the problems of crime and security in Marzahn concern the
young population structure, migration and subsequent integration problems, an increasing degree of anonymity amongst neighbours and the lack of caretakers to provide social control
(Lines 92, 95, 103, 110). The interview with the Gropiusstadt partners follows suit (Voecks,
Lines 111-120). Ms Biernath sees some of these problems in the Gropiusstadt as arising from
the many dark areas brought about by overgrown trees and bushes. On the other hand, large
numbers of non-Germans meet in public, which could be attributed to the fact that there are
81 / 111
very few suitable meeting places in the near vicinity (Lines 189, 265). The police see such structural problems as strengthening the perception of criminality:
“When one sees these houses, houses between eight and tens stories high, then it is
only natural that one’s feeling of safety is impaired, as, when I enter these houses
the lift is covered with graffiti, the corner smells as if someone has recently urinated
in it and the stairwells are rancid because they have never been pained and have
collected decades of grime and muck. In such cases even the hair on my neck rises
up (Einfinger, Lines 1452-1462).
In conjunction with the previously mentioned police “cleanup“ campaigns, Mr Heuer has also
visited the housing estates and noted:
“I spoke before about the crime awareness campaign which was recently conducted.
The residents are now more aware, (…) when you see the high-rises in Marzahn or
the Gropiusstadt with their thin walls, where it is possible to hear your neighbour
screaming, throwing objects around, loudly cursing and yelling out “I’ll kill you”
amongst other things” (Heuer, Lines 194-199).
In a nutshell, the various criminal problems that occur in Gropiusstadt and Marzahn can be attributed to social difficulties.
“The biggest problem here in the Gropiusstadt, as I see it, is that there is a two-tier
society. There are those who, having no work and nothing better to do, amuse themselves and run about here and those who work but have no time to care for their
children or to carry out any other social activities” (Telge, Lines 1624-1628).
Mr Voecks sees a similar problem with the generation divide:
“an engaged and accessible middle aged group is missing – they are either up to
their necks in work and have no time or they have nothing do – it is these two extremes“ (Voecks, Lines 411-413).
Like the other participants from the Gropiusstadt, he sees the difficult social problems that unemployment can lead to:
“parents no longer know how they should go about raising their children as they
themselves were raised in difficult social surroundings. This is for me particularly
shocking” (Voecks, Lines 645-647).
In Marzahn, Mr Panhoff also regards social problems as the root cause of the criminal activity.
The biggest problem in Marzahn is alcohol abuse, and the consequent onset of violent crimes,
particularly in the family sphere and amongst young people (Line 1167). Poverty, a lack of
means, resignation, isolation, integration difficulties (amongst both Germans and migrants) and
82 / 111
general filth across Marzahn are in his opinion the gravitational forces that bring about criminal
activity. Ms Hoehne and Mr Bahlo from the WBG see the problems of crime and security as
pertaining to a lack of social integration between the tenants, a generational conflict between
young and old, and the ‘Ghettoisation’ of some residential complexes which, to avoid conflict,
have been rented out to tenants from a homogeneous background. The minimal response to
various initiatives of the WBG and the Neighbourhood Management is also seen as problematic
(Lines 580, 966, 517).
In an effort to reduce levels of crime in the two areas, and to improve the overall security situation, a number of starting points were touched upon in the interviews. In both districts ideas including the instillation of lockable window shutters, improved lighting, video surveillance and the
use of security firms were raised. Although not explicitly aimed at reducing crime, urban planning measures to revitalise the districts were also suggested. The implementation of concierge
services not only provides a surveillance function but can also be considered from a social aspect as a point of contact for the residents. With regards to the aforementioned problems, Mr
Richters outlined the measures the DEGEWO has implemented:
“I can say that for individual houses (…) that every measure, be it the concierge, security services, (…) or the tenancy partners, who have sometimes become tenant
advisors and who also feel responsible, that all of these measures display an effect
as there is once again a degree of social control in these houses. The lack of social
control has been a problem in such large housing estates – social control as it once
existed has fallen away over recent years. The roll that the caretaker previously fulfilled has disappeared as such caretakers are no longer respected by the youth. As a
response the responsible neighbours are also forced into a state of remission” (Richters, Lines 230-241).
Special attention is also to be placed both in Marzahn and in the Gropiusstadt (as soon as feasible) on the one hand at a mixing of the tenant clientele, which is aligned particularly to attract
more financially viable residents and, on the other hand, social measures will help to prevent
the prevalence of criminal activity. In the Gropiusstadt such measures include the implementation of a “Neighbourhood Environment” residential committee, youth and adolescent work, violence prevention meetings in the schools as well as the designation of a residential speaker.
Furthermore, both the police and the housing companies have been seeking to work together –
with mixed results. Whilst in Marzahn both sides complained about a lack of readiness to cooperate (Boussel, Lines 261-265, Bahlo, Lines 807-816), in the Gropiusstadt the cooperation allowed for improved interpersonal contacts:
“The cooperative arrangement has functioned with Degewo since Ms Biernath has
been there and the position of district manager has been occupied. She and Ms
83 / 111
Koehler have treated us as a contact partner – we have frequently visited the area
and have met up on a regular basis. This has allowed them to show us the certain
areas that need particular attention from police, and us the certain areas that need
particular attention from Degewo. The partnership has functioned extremely well, but
it is to be added that this is only the case with Degewo“ (Telge, Lines 813-820).
In Marzahn a number of projects are being carried out including the Intercultural Gardens, the
implementation of official graffiti walls, a neighbourhood mediation project and a project to help
combat youth unemployment. A central role of the crime prevention work in both city districts is
a breaking up of the anonymity factor, which is seen as a key to many of the conflicts that occur.
As to what are the best methods for preventing crime, a number of strategies were favoured by
the interview partners. Mr Boussel holds that crime prevention in the first instance in not only a
job for the police but also a task for society as a whole, where each individual has as role to
play. This opinion was also expressed by Mr Heuer:
“In order to prevent crime – (…) we must firstly look at educational aspects, (…) as
prevention is (…) a task for society as a whole” (Heuer, Lines 411-415).
In practise, Mr Boussel has called for an arrangement that incorporates both repression and
prevention, as he sees the implementation of only one or the other as unable to bring about
lasting results (Line 1094). Mr Heuer is in agreement and condemns any approach that only
uses one of the aforementioned methods:
”Well, when it comes to the approach offered by Mr Beckstein (Bavarian Interior Minister), then it would be a case of prevention through repression“ (Heuer, Lines 464465).
However, his colleagues from Section 56 of the Gropiusstadt have put forward a harder proposal aimed specifically at creating perspectives for adolescents (Einfinger, Lines 1263-1264). A
changing of values and life perspectives as well as the consistent punishment of crimes even
with younger offenders also represents for Ms Biernath a promising model for successfully decreasing crime (Line 398). Mr Richters points to the greater societal problems that are at play
here, problems which the housing company alone cannot remedy (Richters, Lines 691-697). Mr
Voecks from the Neighbourhood Management shares this opinion and also places emphasis on
work with adults and adolescents and the creation of a better perspective for juveniles. However, he notes at the same time the extreme lack of youth perspective, especially for those coming from a migrant background:
“around 80% of young migrants have no apprenticeships – however, where should
they get the motivation to sit down and learn as they have so many personal difficul-
84 / 111
ties (at home too) including language, religion and cultural conflict” (Voecks, Lines
589-592).
In Marzahn Mr Panhoff notes than better security will be brought about above all else by technical measures, as crime will always exist regardless of any particular societal constellation. He
considers a higher police presence and a stronger crackdown on all crimes as being of particular importance (Lines 800, 1237). Mr Bahlo also endorses a method that would see severer
punishments being used to deter would be offenders:
“(…) I am of the opinion that harder punishments provide deterrence. I believe that
the situation which we are presently facing, that is, where first time offenders only receive a warning (even for relatively serious offences) is not OK. I do not believe that
has any type of corrective effect” (Bahlo, Lines 438-441).
Furthermore, Mr Bahlo also notes that his colleagues in the Gropiusstadt hold that a change in
the degree of apathy amongst the residents, particularly adults with a migrant background,
would play a pivotal role in reducing crime. As well as the rebuilding of functioning communities
which can often only be achieved by changing the way society thinks.
These long-term processes and changes can however only have an impact when they are
widely supported by the neighbourhood – and at present such support is rather unforthcoming,
both in the Gropiusstadt and Marzahn. Positive participation is predominantly demonstrated by
a small minority who offer there services time and time again, not however by the majority.
4.4 Crime and built environment
28B
Increasing the attractive nature of the neighbourhood through the refurbishment and/or demolition of the multi-story buildings promotes social control and cohesion and gives the residents a
sense of identity with the area in which they live. Moreover, such measures create opportunities
for the residents to come together and break the cycle of anonymity (Boussel, Lines 274, 173).
That said, Mr Richters places less weight on the actual refurbishment measures and more on
seeking the right tenant clientele:
“The problems are not caused by the buildings’ conditions, and will therefore not be
fixed through such refurbishment measures – the problems arise from the tenant
structure” (Richters, Lines 471-475).
A particular structural problem that many of those involved noted was the lack of facilities in the
Gropiusstadt:
“I believe such facilities are required (to reduce crime). For instance, when I look at
the corridors, which from the way they are designed are certainly not inviting, it becomes clear that they propagate anonymity rather than a spirit of community. How-
85 / 111
ever, in spite of this it was the case that in years gone by better social contact existed. And the reason was that there used to be far more spaces and facilities where
people could meet. Today, these areas no longer exist which means that if we are to
create solutions to the present problems we need to reinvigorate the social environment” (Voecks, Lines 698-718).
The completion of such structures favours interaction between the residents in the housing estates (Biernath, Line 414), enabling them to better discover the public spaces on offer (Panhoff
Line 91). The police in the Gropiusstadt also see this:
“I tell you, when my residential living environment is pleasing to the eye, when it allows me to have fun, where there are plenty of places to hang out, and where it is
easily accessible then I wouldn’t have to loiter around at the U-Bahn station” (Einfinger, Lines 1309-1314).
It has been established that through the construction of smaller housing complexes a drop in
crime can be achieved. Likewise, the crime rate can be mollified through opportunity reduction
building design (Bahlo, Lines 685, 699). The prevention advisor from LKA, Mr Heuer, expressed
this view:
“Yes you can (lower the crime rate through urban development). We now have a new
employee who is concerned solely with this idea, as I believe that over the last few
years in Berlin this idea has not received as much support as it perhaps should have”
(Heuer, Lines 711-714).
Moreover, Mr Heuer is perfectly aware of the difficulties that exist between the police, the administration and the housing companies. The police are often included during the building construction phase with relation to questions of traffic and road safety, but not with regard to questions of security.
All the interview partners are convinced that the increased safety levels in the buildings and the
surrounding premises have successfully led to an improvement in the overall situation. On the
one hand, the changes have provided a deterrent to would be offenders, and on the other the
feelings of safety and wellbeing displayed by the residents has increased. Of particular appeal
have been the concierge, the increased amount of lighting and the improved surveillance offered by video cameras and the noise police.
None of the interview partners in Marzahn drew a direct correlation between problems in the
residential area brought about by the increase in security – neither in their opinion nor on behalf
of the residents. However, in the Gropiusstadt the measures adopted were viewed somewhat
more critically, at least by some of those interviewed:
86 / 111
“Well, if the citizens feel safer because of the video surveillance then so be it” (Telge,
Lines 1139-1140)
and
“Less communication means less social control. That is, so long as the video cameras and technical equipment monitor the situation there is no great desire for the
residents to actively involve themselves with one another. Thus, they become less
concerned about what is going on around them. When someone leaves rubbish piled
up in a corner, they will just leave it there thinking that it would have already been
captured by the camera“ (Einfinger, Lines 1167-1171).
Mr Voecks from the Gropiusstadt Neighbourhood Management feels similarly inclined:
“I am particularly impressed with the idea of the concierge, as it provides a point of
human contact, (…) someone who is able to keep an eye out for the elderly residents
(…) I find it important that a degree of social control can thus be brought about.
However, from all this video surveillance I am not that taken aback. It provides a feeling of apparent safety where the residents don’t have to worry and have the feeling
that they are “no longer so accountable“. I find this a problem as people are then
happy to simply delegate their civil duties – that is why we are trying to strengthen
civil courage“ (Voecks, Lines 759-766).
Even Mr Richters levelled some criticism at the cameras:
“The cameras are controlled by the concierge, with the idea being that if something
serious happens, then it can be properly monitored. However, based on my personal
experience, such cameras rarely meet with much success. I therefore think that the
cameras are more there as a deterrent, which is OK, though I don’t think that they
would succeed in stopping a determined criminal” (Richters, Lines 900-904).
These matters aside, the measures already in place as well as those that are in planning provide no further alternatives to increase security within the buildings. Other measures that were
highlighted are not directly related to building security and orientate themselves in a more social
direction.
4.5 Success
29B
The success of their own work has been evaluated differently by those interviewed. Mr Boussel
(Line 901) views success as the meaning of his work and a prerequisite for his motivation. For
the officers from Section 56 of the Gropiusstadt the question of success is also an important,
though not entirely unproblematic topic:
87 / 111
“Well it depends how you want to define success - success for yourself or success
for the authority. If I were to make a personal definition that I only meet with success
when he [the offender] is actually caught, then I might as well not show up to work
anymore because this kind of success has not occurred. I will never be able to
achieve this and will thus never have this success. So I must change the way I look
for success and think that at least once in a while I manage to bring someone in from
out of the dark. Noticing names, writing things down and collecting information - only
that can be the goal. Anything else I am unable to achieve” (Einfinger, Lines 300310).
Mr Panhoff has no doubts about the success of his work, though he worries about its sustainability:
“if viewed solely from the output perspective I would say that the situation here is not
that bad. (…) I think it’s an illusion (…) to believe that through our intervention strategy and our work here such stable and robust self organization structures emerge
and that they will simply take over everything without any governmental support and
some degree of professional guidance” (Panhoff, Lines 624, 604-607).
Mr Voecks points to the fact that the Gropiusstadt Neighbourhood Management has not been in
existence long enough to truly evaluate success or failure. Neither Ms Birnath or Mr Richters of
the DEGEWO nor Ms Hoehne and Mr Bahlo of the WBG made concrete statements concerning
the success of their work. Ms Birnath does however note that the strengthening of the social
cohesion and social control through the Neighbourhood Management is regarded as selfevident, as is the support and maintenance of communications and contacts which are favoured
by the citizens in general (Line 679). With regard to the positive feedback received concerning
the redevelopment of the ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’, the WBG can only conclude that this was a
successful perception of their work.
4.6 Acceptance
30B
According to the appraisals of the interviewees, the urban redevelopment was largely accepted
by the residents in both districts (Boussel, Line 1003, Panhoff, Line 1367). That said, at the beginning of the reconstruction project surrounding the ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ some resident resistance was met, particularly from those who wanted to remain in their old houses. These issues were addressed at a number of meetings and discussion rounds. In one interview it was
proposed that the current residents of the ‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’ identified themselves with
their living quarters and were proud to live there (Bahlo, Line 136, 336).
In the Gropiusstadt Mr Richters summarized the general feelings of the residents as follows:
88 / 111
“Prior to the actual construction work beginning, everyone found the ideas good,
however once the builders showed up and began to work everyone found it pretty
horrible due to the inconvenience caused. At the end though everyone was glad we
had done it. It’s a sloppy way to put it, but in the end that’s exactly how it was” (Richters, Line 1106-1108).
Mr Boussel and Ms Biernath also expressed that the accompanying social measures like the
Neighbourhood Management program found favour amongst the residents – at the very least
they were accepted (Boussel, Line 1054, Biernath, Line 81). Mr Panhoff saw the Neighbourhood Management program as being heavily stigmatized, though an image reversal occurred at
a relatively fast pace. However, what he sees as problematic is the fact that the work of the program is not perceived by the residents, as positive results are not ascribed to its work (Panhoff
Lines 510, 1370). Even if its work were more widely accepted, Mr Bahlo still sees the
Neighbourhood Management adding a certain stigma to the area. He believes that its initial implementation was a rather excessive measure since there are not that many problems in the
area. He also adds that the activities of the Neighbourhood Management are scarcely noticed
and simply taken for granted by the residents (Bahlo, Line 278, 869).
In the Gropiusstadt there were mixed feelings about the Neighbourhood Management program.
On the one hand many residents felt relieved that something was being done, on the other its
implementation encountered resistance – less so from the residents themselves but rather more
from the institutions that already existed in the Gropiusstadt (Voecks, Lines 1153-1155).
4.7 Social Cohesion
31B
Though the strengthening of the social ties and social control through the redevelopment and
Neighbourhood Management programs was supported by the interviewees, the would be success of such measures is somewhat difficult to define. In the first instance, examples of measures to strengthen social cohesion have been put forward. The measures have been viewed as
offering a positive contribution to the culture of the residents, offering the potential to create
community. However, the extent to which the residents will actually take these suggestions onboard remains questionable. Mr. Bahlo from the WBG has only seen successful uptake in the
‘Ahrensfelder Terraces’. In other areas there remains, as previously, a large degree of anonymity (Lines 278, 936).
The Gropiusstadt police have indeed seen a weakening of social cohesion brought about by the
Neighbourhood Management:
“Neighbourhood Management is run by the Senate. And we have had the experience
in our sector that many, many institutions have been shut down or starved to death
(…) because the money just isn’t there. And now all of a sudden our great left wing
89 / 111
Senate comes along and says ‘hey we have a great idea, let’s make a Neighbourhood Management program here and give you an easy 5 or 6 million Euro.’ Well, this
is a great idea, but this money should really have been given to those institutions and
clubs that were already integrated, that were settled here. One could have given it to
them and they could have continued” (Telge, Line 743-751).
In contrast, the Neighbourhood Management counters that they have made a good start, though
ongoing problems regarding the integration of migrants and juveniles certainly exist (Voecks,
Lines 176-181).
Only Ms Hoehne and Mr Bahlo made statements concerning the efficiency of the certain strategies at play. As the most successful examples they listed the reconstruction of the ‘Ahrensfelder
Terraces’, the removal of graffiti within 24 hours, and the implementation of the concierge service (Line 981). Mr Telge pointed to the importance of emerging social networks as a strategy
for Gropiusstadt (Lines 335-337). However, the Neighbourhood Management referred to a failed
attempt to make use of one such network:
“(the) immigration office was involved, the Department of Construction of the Borough Authority, Ms Vogelsang, the building councillor made numerous attempts to
inspect no-go areas and to look at what could be done. Well, there were many ideas
pertaining to suitable measurements which they agreed upon, but then the project
just fizzled out” (Voecks, Lines 560-563).
In general one can say that according to the interviews all measures that resulted in increased
surveillance (concierge, video cameras, ‘noise police’, private security firms etc.) proved to be
successful as well as the majority of the redevelopment measures (reconstruction, maintenance
of public parks). This not only holds true in terms of a lower instance of crimes committed, but
also in terms of higher satisfaction levels with the living conditions in general and lower levels of
fear and anxiety in particular. This has positively impacted upon the marketability of the apartments themselves and brought about a general improvement in the area’s image.
Measures to safeguard against burglary were implemented by the housing companies in Marzahn after the fall of the Berlin Wall. New entrances were installed, along with new apartment
doors and lockable windows. In some cases two doors were placed at an apartment’s entrance
with numerous deadbolts, though alarm systems were not installed. The safeguards the tenants
themselves installed were also of a diverse nature, though they were not seen as being above
the average standard in Berlin.
The efficiency of the reconstruction measures in relation to the costs involved is viewed in a
positive light. The stabilisation on the district has been seen as the most important factor. This
has benefited the city as a whole as people have stopped moving away from the district. The
overall image of the district has also improved. Even if minor vandalism like graffiti could not be
90 / 111
noticeably decreased, there remains a higher level of satisfaction amongst the residents and a
positive identity that can help to counterbalance negative aspects. Ms Hoehne points out that if
these measures are to be evaluated more precisely then a long term approach must be applied.
4.8 Future planning
32B
What is generally left to be done in the districts was answered by the interviewees specifically in
the terms of their professional fields. Mr Boussel would like more financial funding for personnel
carrying out prevention work and to higher the quality of living by implementing more social
measures. He strongly recommends the reintroduction of the “Contact Area Officer” who functions as a contact person for the residents (Lines 1075, 1122). A lack of acceptance from within
their own department rather than a lack of acceptance amongst the residents is seen as a problem that will require future consideration (Lines 1403-1411).
Ms Biernath would like to see more institutions settle into the residential area in order to be able
to invest her project’s budget in a more efficient and sustainable manner (Line 740). Furthermore, she views improved communication possibilities as particularly important (Lines 791,
795). Mr. Richters agrees with this sentiment:
“In a residential area like this it is a problem in general when you cut back facilities.
Then along come small institutions that try and create facilities again and we then
provide those with premises and such. It would be nice if now under the Neighbourhood Management program all of this could become somewhat more networked”
(Richters, Lines 723-727).
Better networking and a broader knowledge of the situation in the Gropiusstadt is also a desire
of the police:
“By the time it was installed as an institution, the Neighbourhood Management was
exceptionally poorly prepared with regard to crime. As I have previously said, I was
present (…) at the very first meeting when the group was constituted, and what we
heard there really raised our hackles as police officers. Well they were talking about
things, blood and thunder, open drug scenes, dealing on the streets or whatever.
This is all far-fetched. There is nothing like that in the Gropiusstadt and they were totally stunned when we really said that it is not going to work like this. Guys, you cannot claim to want to fight something that we don’t have here… so what then do you
want to fight? (Telge, Lines 1806-1816).
The Gropiusstadt Neighbourhood Management sees a need for networking and rethinking
amongst all participants:
91 / 111
“When we agree upon a strategy which shall be applied here, and when we are all
supposed to work together to pull the strings, then this must happen not only at the
street level but also at the higher levels” (Voecks, Lines 1236-1250).
Mr Panhoff recommends that the Neighbourhood Management in Marzahn should take on the
role of a communicative entity with a local perspective, enabling them to initiate, manage and
limit certain processes (Line 1469). Openly discussing the problems of crime was raised by Ms
Hoehne as important. She also states that it is crucial to approach fundamental problems from a
local level. Mr Bahlo would like to see the police taking more rigorous steps, as, in his view, the
police do not take some matters very seriously. He thinks the police should move away from
simply driving around in patrol cars to actively appearing and engaging themselves with the
residents.
According to Mr Boussel, future planning should comprise of an evaluation and, where necessary, modification of the social programs with an aim to achieving the proposed goals (Line
1188). Funding for the Marzahn Neighbourhood Management is scheduled to cease in 2008. At
this point an evaluation process will be carried out to decide whether the program should be
continued. Until then several construction measures are planned for the area as well as the examination of the proposal for a resident patrol (Panhoff, Lines 597, 1250, 1414). Mr Richter
sees the future planning as a continuation of the work achieved thus far (Lines 1195-199). The
Gropiusstadt Neighbourhood Management would like to revitalize old neighbourhood networks
(Voecks, Lines 437-450).
Despite the fact that the other interviewees did not make clear statements concerning future
planning, one could assume that from the conversations held the majority would like to stay the
course – as far as financial means enable them to do so.
92 / 111
5
Site visit reports
10B
9B
5.1 Objective description of the Gropiusstadt
33B
Criteria
Content
General description of the entire area: Gropiusstadt
Gropiusstadt was constructed between the years 1962 and 1975 in between the old villages Britz, Buckow and Rudow as part of the overall borough Neukölln in the south of Berlin.
Main type of function
Residential
11 schools, 3 churches, library, medical supply, smaller shopping arcades,
Other functions in the
Berlin’s biggest shopping mall (“Gropius-Passagen”), parks, recreation
area
areas and playgrounds, (indoor) swimming pools, sports hall and sports
fields, bars & restaurants, community houses
36.120 inhabitants (2005), mostly high-rise buildings, primarily owned by
Circumference of the area
two housing companies (GEHAG, DEGEWO), 266.5 ha
Physical boundaries
General description of the specific area: Gropiusstadt (Lipschitzallee - Zwickauer Damm)
The research area borders to Lipschitzallee in the east, Fritz-Erler-Allee in
the north, Zwickauer Damm in the west and the railroad track in the south.
Residential
Smaller shopping arcades, medical supply, schools and library, parks,
Other functions in the
recreation areas and playgrounds, (indoor) swimming pools, sports hall
area
and sports fields, bars & restaurants, community houses
Circumference of the area 16.782 inhabitants (2005), 89.9 ha
Physical boundaries
Method
Date of visit
Time of visit
Weather conditions
September 22 2006
11:30h – 17:00h, during daylight
Sunny
• Mr Armin Woy, Official Tour-Guide Minoy Fachstudien Services
• Mr Marcus Ehbrecht, Mr Thomas Einfinger, Police (Division 5, Precinct
56)
• Mr Hardy Telge, Crime Prevention Advisor of the Police (Division 5,
Precinct 56)
• Mr Martin Vöcks, Head of the Neighbourhood Management Lipschitzallee
People spoken to
• Mrs Petra Haumersen, Member of the Neighbourhood Management
Lipschitzallee
• Mrs Marlene Lerch, Trainee of the Neighbourhood Management
Lipschitzallee
• Mr Michael Lohmüller, Head of Customer Service Dept. of the Housing
Company Degewo
• Mrs Annett Biernath, Neighbourhood Management of the Housing Company Degewo
What was the problem in • Bad image
the past (before measures • High crime rates particularly at the U-Bahn stations
were taken)?
• High fear of crime figures of the residents
93 / 111
What measures have
been taken?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Concierge-Lounges in some high-rise blocks
CCTV in entrance areas of few high-rise blocks
Situational
Redesign of some of the playgrounds
Private Security Firm in one of the shopping arcades
Neighbourhood management supporting local activities and projects
District management (run by the housing company DEGEWO)
Social
Anti-violence-activities in schools (hold by the police)
Temporarily extensive activities of the police (particularly at the U-Bahn
stations)
• Less crime
• Still high fear of crime-figures (particularly in public space, i.e. near the
Effect of the measures
U-Bahn stations)
• Less crime
• More balanced social structure
(Measures not realised yet, when will those measures been taken?)
• Neighbourhood management has been implemented in 2005 – they are
lots of things to do…
Measures still planned for
the area
• Redesign of the green corridor that crosses the Gropiusstadt
• Rehabilitation of still unredeveloped buildings (i.e. at the Horst-CasparSteig)
5.2 Objective description of Marzahn North
34B
Criteria
Content
General description of the entire area: Marzahn-Hellersdorf
Lying on the north-eastern edge of Berlin, the district borders the federal
state of Brandenburg to the north and the east, and the administrative
Physical boundaries
districts of Berlin Treptow-Köpenick and Berlin Lichtenberg to the south
and the west respectively.
Residential
All functions a city with more than 250.000 inhabitants could offer: ShopOther functions in the
ping centres, industry and trade, nurseries, schools and university, hospiarea
tals, recreation areas, etc. etc.
250.400 inhabitants (2005), mostly high-rise buildings made with precast
Circumference of the area concrete slabs, predominantly owned by big housing companies and cooperatives, 6.185 ha altogether
General description of the specific area: Marzahn Nord-West
The research area Marzahn North is part of the overall borough MarzahnHellersdorf which is situated in the Northeast of Berlin. Given its peripheral
situation the area is rather isolated: It borders to the villages Ahrensfelde
Physical boundaries
(Brandenburg) in the north and Eiche (Brandenburg) in the west. In a
southward direction the site is naturally delimited by the small river Wuhle.
In the east the urban rail tracks towards Ahrensfelde establishes a border
against the western part of Marzahn North.
Residential
Neighbourhood Management, Community Centre “Kiek In”, Children and
Youth Welfare Service, Children and Youth Clubs, Migration and ResetOther functions in the
tlers Centres, German-Russian Theatre “Tschechow”, Women’s Centre, 4
area
Primary Schools, 1 Secondary School, 2 Special Schools, 5 day-carecentres, 2 Adventure Playgrounds, Boxing Centre, Shopping Centre “Zu
den Eichen”, Recreation Area “Clara-Zetkin-Park”
Circumference of the area 17.479 inhabitants (2005), 119.9 ha
Method
Date of visit
September 21 2006
Time of visit
11:00h – 17:00h, during daylight
94 / 111
Weather conditions
Sunny
• Mr Jodock, Official Tour-Guide StattReisen Berlin GmbH
• Mr Gerd Boussel, Crime Prevention Advisor of the Police (Division 6,
Precinct 62)
People spoken to
• Mr Hans Panhoff, Head of the Neighbourhood Management Marzahn
Nord-West
• Mr Torsten Preussing, Head of the Residents Council Marzahn NordWest
• Shrinkage of the population
What was the problem in
• Increasing Unemployment Rate
the past (before measures
• Increasing Number of Welfare Recipients
were taken)?
• Generally bad image of the area in public opinion
What measures have
been taken?
• Deconstruction and demolition of buildings (“Ahrensfelder Terrassen”:
1670 flats reduced to 409 flats)
• Redesign of “Ahrensfelder Square” (Square in front of train station
Ahrensfelde)
• Environmental measures in Eichepark and Sellgrabenpark (both recSituational
reation areas) as well as at Schwarzwurzel Square and Havemann
Square
• Redesign of the schoolyards at Falkenschool, Paavo-Nurmi-School and
Dahlmannschool
• Private Security Firm (“Noisepolice”) for resident’s concerns
• Neighbourhood Management initiates and finances several projects on
i.e. neighbourhood newspaper, “Job Gate” (institution to be consulted in
all questions round the job market and possibilities of vocational training), mediation of neighbourhood conflicts, anti-aggression-training for
children and youth, language advancement, festivals (sports, music,
Social
etc.), art projects, intercultural gardens, local Image-campaign, etc.
Projects initiated by the Neighbourhood Management require acceptance of the residents council Æ Residents have been involved on all
levels of rehabilitation process
• Police carries out anti-violence-presentations in schools
• Stabilisation of the population number
Effect of the measures
• Moving in of higher-income population groups (Æ More balanced social
structure)
Measures still planned for • Redesign of Clara-Zetkin-Park (in the very next future)
the area
• Rehabilitation of so far unredeveloped buildings
95 / 111
5.2 Site visit report from Poland
35B
5.2.1 Gropiusstadt
88B
Situational
What stroke you most in
the area?
•
•
One of the most striking features •
of the area constitutes its dimensions: it is just real huge, both in
terms of the area, and dimensions of the buildings. When
compared with such residence
area as Hartclife in Bristol or
even Pradnik Czerwony in Krakow, it becomes clear what really
big residential area means. It is
also striking, that some buildings
are really huge and high (including the highest apartment building in Europe). Such high houses
were not constructed in the East,
but probably mainly because of
cost reasons. In Berlin additional
factor stimulating construction of
such houses constituted also the
fact that building areas in the
West Berlin were scarce. An absolute high point constitutes the
half-round monster in the centre
of the area. In principle one can
say that it is quite impressive,
even somehow interesting. But in
fact it is a real monster.
From the eastern European perspective there are few striking
features. First, a rather complex
design involving not only apartment houses, and schools – they
constituted obvious element of
the design in the East as well –
but also shopping centres, and
other elements of infrastructure
•
which were planned in advance
and build and developed parallel
to the apartment houses. This
makes the area a completely different from many in the East,
where apartment houses had
absolute priority, and only later
one started to think what else to
build (Marzahn is a good example here).
Social
It is one interesting feature about
Gropiusstadt which is both, situational and social. I mean here
the huge green strip running
through the area (with subway
underneath, I understand). In
principle such green areas in the
middle of the residential areas
are something very good, they
seem to improve quality of live,
provide opportunity to spend free
time and make nice impression
when one walks along. But example of Gropiusstadt shows
that every stick has two ends.
Remarks of the police officer,
that there are relatively many offences committed there, because
this green strip is easy to escape
from, show that unintentionally
you can crate areas extremely
difficult to control. As a matter of
fact there is no way to control
them in any informal way for inhabitants. Because of this what
remains is intensification of police patrols and constructing
fences separating houses from
this area. Anyway, this shows
how problematic are huge public
spaces (even if they are nice
green areas), and that you end
up anyway by trying to crate
some sort of easier controllable
private or quasi-private spaces.
It is interesting to note that apart
from these fences and fence plus
barbed wire around the Gropius
Gymnasium there is very little of
design specifically intended at
crime prevention. Does it mean
such thing are not necessary or
something else?
96 / 111
•
•
What lessons can your
country learn from the
visited project?
•
Second absolutely striking feature constitute green areas, obviously planned well in advance
and constituting integral element
of the design. This makes the entire area much more humane and
acceptable, despite huge amount
of concrete around. They are
also wonderfully maintained. This
contrasts very strong with Marzahn which was build without
such elements, and because of
this was “bald”. This is like in
many such areas in Poland what
makes them unbearable.
Third, it is quality of building,
materials etc. This is something
always striking for someone from
Eastern Europe where quality of
construction was notoriously
poor. But here in Gropiusstadt I
saw for the first time in my live
buildings build of concrete plates
which looked really good, and
one was not afraid they will
crumble any moment. I would
say that after approximately 30
years since construction most of
these buildings look very well
and are well maintained. There
are very few signs of them being
run down beyond normal tear
and wear. This is especially striking when compared with old, not
renovated yet parts of Biilmermeer which were in an appalling
shape.
This lesson is practically one:
•
that to maintain decent quality of
such residential areas you have
to have an idea in advance (even
if original ideas of Gropius were
not implemented fully), and not to
build by putting together separated pieces, and that to do this
you have to have money, money
and once more money.
What was impressive for me was
the meeting with police officers
after the visit. It seems that Berlin
police – like probably the police
in may other German cities –
seems to be really engaged in
various crime prevention related
activities. I think it is very important, that police officers involved
in crime prevention are not just
regular police officers assigned
to such tasks, but that they undergo a special training in crime
prevention. This is something
very important in my opinion.
97 / 111
What advise would you
•
give to the visited project?
It is hard to consider any con•
crete advice. Gropiusstadt is certainly not necessarily an ideal
place to live, but as compared
with such places in Eastern
Europe it seems to require hardly
any advising.
Can you give references
•
(good or bad examples) of
projects in your own country?
I must admit that one of the most
striking features for me was Walter Gropius Gymnasium: interesting architectonic design, but
barbed wire around was something difficult to believe to be
seen; Well… I have not seen
CCTV around the school (like in
Krakow). I wonder what is actually worse. Cameras may be
considered to be more intrusive
of course, but I think they are
better anyway. Schools surrounded by a barbed wire are
just terrible.
I am not certain about this, as it
escaped my attention during the
visit, but now after going through
my notices and pictures I have
realised, that apart from schools
there are no specific youthrelated facilities like clubs, meeting points etc. There may be
various reasons for this, like for
example no demand for them.
But I wonder whether a more active and specific policies in this
area, beyond establishment of
the Neighbourhood Management
Area and some activities of the
DeGeWo (like younger children
who interrupted our meeting preparing some “journalistic” materials on the district) may be eventually worth considering.
5.2.2 Marzahn North
89B
Situational
the area?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lighting in green areas which
does not belong to anyone;
Neglected surroundings of one
of the shopping centers (almost
a hot spot) as well as the green
areas in some parts of the
housing estate;
A neglected foot bridge over the
railway station;
Helplessness of the police in
the face of almost open sale of
cigarettes;
Closed backyards;
Reconstruction of a housing
estate by reducing the number
of floors in high blocks of flats.
•
•
•
•
Social
One policeman responsible for
the prevention on a vast area of
a housing estate; liquidation of
Kontaktbeamte
The work of the NGO members
with children and youths in the
streets (street workers)
Festival “5 Kontinente” – improvement of the feeling of safety
through integrating actions
strengthening community bonds
Quartiersmanagement as a form
of a all-inclusive support of
weaker neighbourhoods (but also
as a form of stigmatization)
98 / 111
visited project?
•
•
Deconstruction of buildings (reduction of the number of floors
and the improvement of the
standard of the flats)
„Multifunctional” caretaker supported by technical security
measures including close circuit
cameras
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(good or bad examples) of
projects in your own country?
•
•
Tidying the green areas around
entrances to buildings, regulating the issue of the lighting of
the green areas, liquidating
Angsträume around the shopping centre, revitalization of the
remaining part of the housing
estate (part of the blocks still
looked like in the socialist
times), considering putting under monitoring administered by
public institutions of areas regarded by the residents to be
dangerous.
“Zero tolerance” as a form of
reaction of the police to petty
and agravating street crimes
In Kraków the results are doubtful: “Stop 24” – a programme to
combat car thefts –special
marking of cars whose owners
declare that they do not usually
drive at night. If a police patrol
spots such a vehicle in the
street at night, they check the
driver.
A “stranger” programme for
school and nursery school children to teach them proper behaviour towards strangers in the
street and in their own homes.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anti-aggression training for children and youths
Kick-NGO as a mediator between neighbours
Boxzentrum – organization of
sport activities to prevent crime
among children and youths
Quartiermanagement as a form
of
- targeted support of local initiatives with grants and actions to
develop society’s selforganization
- integration of the institutions
which should cooperate to solve
problems In the neighbourhood
Limited programmes (grants) to
aid people seeking jobs
A programme to combat graffiti
through the creation of Graffiti
Gallery
Fortifying of the local police both
to counteract any evidence of the
lack of social control and to improve relations with community
consistent with the philosophy of
community policing ( greater engagement of the police in activities undertaken by other institutions)
Development of the “community
policing” by strengthening the
function of a district constable
Programme „Blue Card” aimed at
combining the aid provided by
different institutions for the victims of home violence
Senior – initiating mutual aid
among elderly people
Multiplicator – organizing the
victims of crimes to mutual aid
and to prevent repeated victimization
(also situational) Involving the
best firms for the prevention of
people and property into preventive actions on a town or city district level.
99 / 111
5.3 Site visit report from the UK
36B
5.3.1 Gropiusstadt
90B
What struck you most on
the site?
•
The high quality of building and
environmental state and maintenance. Good use of colour
and imaginative open spaces
(eg: playground, see below):
•
Potential problems with block
boundary treatments (burglars
and vandals can get right up to
building edge), recessed entrances, high-grown shrubs and
garage blocks which are not
well overlooked:
• Good relations between local
police and young people:
• Lots of community based social
projects and resident involvement
in decision making.
100 / 111
visited project?
•
•
of projects in your own
country?
•
That if you have good quality,
people will respect it. High quality refurbishment, landscaping
and maintenance will save
money in the long run, as places
are less likely to spiral into decline.
Make sure building boundary
treatments and landscaping don't
give easy opportunities for offenders.
Hulme area redevelopment,
Manchester
5.3.2 Marzahn North
91B
Marzahn is an inspiring example of how to revitalise a gloomy peripheral system-built housing estate of
the type found on the edge of many UK and other European cities. 21 Many of these estates (particularly in
the UK) have gone into serious decline and have become places of last resort for people with no other
choice.
In the UK, the general approach with such
estates is to demolish the high rise blocks and
then rebuild with cottage style housing (see, for
example Barton Hill, Bristol, Castle Vale, Birmingham and Southgate Runcorn - a modernist concrete slab estate designed by James
Stirling that was subsequently demolished and
rebuilt with pitched roof brick clad houses).
An exception to this was the Niddrie House
Estate in Edinburgh where the Civic Trust
Award-winning slab blocks had their heights
reduced and variegated as part of an extensive
rehabilitation programme for this drug and
crime-ridden estate.
In Marzahn this latter approach has been taken
on wholeheartedly. One of the advantages of
pre-cast concrete slab construction, is that, a bit like Lego, bits of the building can be unplugged relatively
easily (see photos). Overall, the attempt by the designers has been to produce a much more varied,
lively, verdant and colourful environment.
F
F
How the redevelopment relates to good Urban Design Criteria
Permeability. With the exception of some communal garden areas enclosed by perimeter blocks (see
photo below), the whole vast neighbourhood is completely permeable and links reasonably well to surrounding areas.
21
See www.goethe.de/kue/arc/dos/dos/sls/wus/en1411675.htm
H
101 / 111
Vitality. Including new retail, cultural and communal places, along with public art, has helped to make
Marzahn a more lively and fulfilling environment to live and work in (see photos above and below)
Community-run cafe
Public art at school
Variety and legibility. The remodelling of the neighbourhood has been done with the explicit intention of
achieving more diversity and variety, both in terms of appearance, dwelling type, tenure and usage:
Different apartment types over shops and cafes
Creating more variety and identifiable "quarters" through the deliberate breaking up of the original uniform, monolithic appearance of the estate has made Marzahn more "legible".
Robustness and Sustainability. German craftsmanship ensured that the original slab blocks were well
constructed. The opportunity was taken during the re-modelling to improve insulation for dwellings. The
considerable "greening" of the communal areas, is another sustainability benefit, along with the improvement of community facilities to increase social resilience:
Playground
102 / 111
Social Engagement. The "neighbourhood management" approach, along with early resident consultation
has ensured that social engagement has always been at the core of Marzahn's destiny. One of the positive legacies of the communist regime in Eastern Germany was that residents tended to be closely involved in the co-operative management of housing estates. This has continued, to some extent, under the
new regime, with block representatives still active in the neighbourhood.
Conclusions
The downside. It is difficult to find fault with this rehabilitation programme. Two minor niggles observed
during the site visit (in September 2006) were: a considerable amount of graffiti on bridges and walls
around the rail station and some rather secluded car parking spaces, hidden by luxuriant vegetation. (See
photos below)
Replicable strengths.
•
•
•
•
•
Quality. Probably the single most effective aspect of the success of the Marzahn redevelopment is
the investment in quality throughout. Everything has been done to a high standard and few corners
have been cut (as would probably happen in the UK when budgets over-run and economies are
made). One only has to look German cars and other technical products to realise that high quality, although expensive upfront, pays off in the long-term. The group responsible for regenerating Marzahn
wanted to avoid the decline of so many peripheral housing estates and foresaw the dangers of underinvestment, so they went in the opposite direction, with apparent success.
Diversity. As mentioned previously, a monolithic residential neighbourhood, where the only aim,
under the Soviet regime was to provide a roof over everyone's head, has been diversified both physically and socially. This has enabled a demographically varied range of residents to remain in the
area, where in Britain or France, such estates have become ghettoes for the poor.
Good infrastructure. Although it appears, geographically, to be isolated on the fringe of Berlin, Marzahn is well connected to the rest of the city with reliable, fast and subsidized public transport. The inclusion of new "destinations" in the form of the iconic "Westgate" (sic) shopping centre and other cultural attractions, means that other Berliners go there by choice.
Colour and delight. The motto for the Marzahn redevelopment roughly translates as "regeneration
with colour". There has been an explicit aim of introducing sensual pleasures throughout the
neighbourhood in the form of brightly coloured buildings and substantial investment in public art.
There has been a recognition that people benefit from finding joy, and not just functionality, in their
living environment.
Community involvement. Marzahn has benefited from its communist legacy in this respect and has
continued to involve residents in planning, management, maintenance and service provision in the
neighbourhood. This has helped to maintain cohesion and enhance social capital, evidenced by falling crime rates over the last few years.
103 / 111
5.4 Site visit report from Hungary
37B
Situational
Entire Area
the area?
visited project?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marzahn
Clean
New
Wellorganised
Graffiti
How they
rebuilt their
block houses
How they
made colours
from grey
Gropiusstadt
• Old
• Not well organised
• Graffiti
•
They do not
use cameras
Social
•
•
•
•
•
Situational
What stroke you most on •
the site?
•
•
•
•
visited project?
•
Clean
Building nice,
Italy style
Strange playground
Green are
maintained
The rail station was far
away
The way they
rebuilt the
block houses
Strengthening •
the social cohesion
The idea of
Genossenschaft
DEGEWO
How they
involve the
residents to
the life of the
neighbourhood
Decide what
to do with
their immigrants? Be
part of the
neighbourhood?
39B
Gropiusstadt
Gropiusstadt
Marzahn North
(Research area)
(Research area)
• Not frightened • Strange: the
• Turkish letters
• Nothing hapshopping cenon the streets
pened
tre is the
• They have
• The green is
“centre”
many imminot main• In the papers
grants in the
tained
there are artineighbourcles in Rushood
sian
•
How the
•
separate private and public places
•
•
•
Social
38B
Marzahn North
Gropiusstadt
• Muslims
• Immigrants
• Poverty
•
•
Specific Area
Marzahn
Immigrants
(mainly from
Russia)
Long history
of Marzahn
“Treff-Punkt”
The social
help system
•
•
Good sport
activities
(box)
‘Crime prevention theatre’
Cultural programmes
•
How they
organised
their institutions (DEGEWO,
Genossenschaft)
• Anti-violence
training
• Programmes
for children
Programmes for families to help
them in connection with domestic
violence
To involve the immigrants into
the life of the area- to know more
each other (German – nonGerman)
104 / 111
5.5 Site visit report from The Netherlands
40B
Marzahn North
the site?
Situational
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
visited project?
•
•
•
•
•
The area looks attractive.
The gardens at ground level of
the flats were well maintained
and looked great.
These gardens were very
broad/big, but they were just for
the lowest dwelling and not for
the dwellings above.
The levels from the eleven high
appartmentblocks they tore
down were re-used in St. Petersburg, Russia.
The demolishing of the top levels had a great effect: the blocks
are less huge, the gardens and
public space get more sun and
public space looks larger.
The square blocks have a park
in between, which is used by the
residents. The entrance is
closed with a gate. It’s a pitty
the trash containers were at that
gate and were not hidden from
view.
The space under the balconies
was made inaccessible with
plants and that prevented at the
same time climbing up.
If residents are willing to maintain a garden, it can contribute
to the view of public space and
more ‘action’ around public
space (social eyes from the gardens). It means less maintenance of public space.
Flat blocks don’t have to be
demolished completely and then
rebuilt: taking off the top levels
can give a beautiful result as
well.
Colours are very important.
Especially the colour white gives
a clean and neat view. The accent-colours make it lively.
If there are enough foreign televisions canals on the cable, the
landlord can demand in the
rental contract that renters are
not allowed to put satellite on
the outside.
Using attractive plants: in Holland we design too defensive,
easy to maintain and cheap.
Social
•
•
•
•
•
One of the blocks had a professional concierge: a nice looking
lady, easiliy to address by residents, looking after maintenance and giving a good atmosphere. The lobby is clean
and attractive: even art hangs
there.
One of the blocks had a ‘Vertreter’ of all the residents. This
was used in the DDR as well.
Communism fell, social cohesion remained
It takes a long time to fix public
lighting, because the city of Berlin is responsible.
In the dwellings of the
Genossenschaft a ‘Vertreter’ is
obligatory. Perhaps that is
mostly practical for the owner,
but hopefully that person keeps
a special eye on cleanliness and
maintenance of the block.
A concierge has to have a respectable position and should
look like a host. A real desk in
the lobby and an eye for service
is important. In Holland too
many concierges are just for
maintenance and wear overalls.
105 / 111
visited project?
•
•
•
(good or bad examples)
country?
Gropiusstadt
(research area)
the area?
•
Very quick painting over graffiti,
even though the colour of paint
is not identically with the building, prevents more graffiti and
gives a clean view.
Don’t lighten green spaces,
unless they really are necessary
as a route.(it can give a fake
feeling of safety)
If elevators are not accessible
for disabled persons, one
should consider if the investment is worth it.
For the balconies: in Budapest
the space under the balconies
was problematic (homeless
sleeping there).
Situational
•
•
•
The area looks attractive. The
green public space and the
clean and the painted building
facades are a good base for
well-being.
The area was built from the
concept of blocks freely in the
green space. That didn’t work:
there was too much space, arrears maintainance and anonymity. People wanted collective gardens surrounded with
gates to prevent them from the
public space.
Many playgrounds.
Social
•
•
•
•
•
visited project?
•
•
Don’t make public routes
through green areas: it’s great
in daylight, but unsafe in the
dark.
Space above collective entrances is protected with nets.
Balls, birds and trash can’t get
on the roof.
•
There are a lot of problems with
foreign boys (f.i. Turkish, Libanese) defending the family
honour. (see advice ***)
Great attitude to meet residents
with problems in an informal
way instead of in an office. For
instance victims of domestic violence.
Communal space on top of the
high building, with a great view
is used for resident-meetings.
Integrated maintenance seems
impossible because of very
strict borders between organisations and budgets. The social
works are focused on the general behaviour of residents. The
projects are not focused on
safety and for the image of the
area that’s a good approach.
The police have an important
role in crime prevention. In Holland the police loose that role
more and more.
The nicest space of a building
can be used for communal purposes.
106 / 111
•
•
(good or bad examples)
country?
•
Don’t light green spaces, unless •
they really are necessary as a
route.
For the big stony public spaces •
with signs “no football”: transform it into private gardens. The
chance of football diminishes
and residents are closer to public space (social eyes).
•
We think Gropiusstadt is on the
good way. Good references
enough in the hood selves
•
Pay more attention to problemcausing youngsters. Do it in a
positive, stimulating way.
*** Communication strategy to
show the boys that looking after
his family can be done in different ways. For instance: keep a
garden to provide the family of
fresh vegetables.
Stimmulate vol;unatrywork, give
money to the tenants so they
decide temselves what they
want to do with their budget.
Kids & space, a product of DSPgroep: problem-causing kids are
invited to design their own surroundings and be an ambassador for other children.
107 / 111
6
Lessons learned
12B
Within the last couple years, lots has been done to improve the quality of life in Mar-
11B
zahn, the high rise building complex of former East Berlin, as well as in Gropiusstadt,
the high rise building complex set up in the 60s and early 70s in West Berlin. Differ-
ent approaches were undertaken in both districts. However, altogether, extensive physical renewal took place. Marzahn and Gropiusstadt implemented lessons learned from similar approaches in the Netherlands and Great Britain and added measures of their own. Thus, both
districts but especially Marzahn invested in high quality throughout, ensuring a high standard in
the remodelling measures taken. Considerable thought was given to ensure a good infrastructure, connecting Marzahn to the rest of the city.
Following the British example, Marzahn concentrated on demolishing high rise blocks and on
rebuilding with “Italian style” housing similar to the British “cottage style” housing approach.
Marzahn profited from the fact that the pre-cast concrete slab construction allows to unplug bits
of the buildings relatively easily. As a consequence, a mix of low-rise and high-rise houses disperses the solid building structure, creating a more varied, lively and verdant environment. Additionally, the remodelling of the neighbourhood has been done by promoting public art, thus
achieving more diversity and a colourful environment. This was further enhanced by the generous use of colour, creating more variety and identifiable “quarters” through the deliberate breaking up of the original uniform, monolithic appearance of the estate. Marzahn’s unofficial Motto
can be summarized as “regenerating with colour”. Thus, there has been an explicit aim of introducing sensual pleasures throughout the neighbourhood in form of brightly coloured buildings
and substantial investment in public art. The considerable greening of the communal areas,
which used to be a “cement - desert” rather than an area of leisure, as well as the improvement
of community facilities enhanced living conditions even further.
In Eastern Germany, residents tended to be closely involved in the co-operative management of
housing estates. Profiting from this positive “socialistic legacy”, residents’ involvement prospers
in Marzahn. The “neighbourhood management approach”, along with early resident consultations, has ensured social engagement on a grand scale. For example, block representatives are
still active and well accepted in the neighbourhood. Residents are involved in planning, management, maintenance and service provision in the neighbourhood, which helps to maintain
cohesion and enhance social capital. Additionally, a “multifunctional concierge” combines the
role of a concierge, a guard, and a residents’ aide. Aside from preventing damage to the communal goods, the concierge functions as a contact person, a form of centre of social life in the
otherwise - due to their enormous size - anonymous apartment buildings.
108 / 111
The overall goal has been on revitalising Marzahn and on preventing residents with a higher
social and economic status from leaving the area. In order to strengthen communal bonds, to
enhance social engagement and to prevent crime, Marzahn installed several social measures,
such as an anti-aggression training for children and youths, limited programmes to aid people
seeking jobs and an Anti-Graffiti programme, combating graffiti by offering special areas were
young people are invited to paint and spray freely. Additionally, the Quartiersmanagement, a
semi-governmental programme, supports local institutions and initiatives in their work in the
district. Local meeting points, such as the Kick-ngo, act as a mediator between neighbours.
As Marzahn, Gropiusstadt took to heart the experiences of its British and Dutch predecessors.
However, the focus of Gropiusstadt was not on demolishing and rebuilding as it was done in
Britain and Marzahn, which might be due to a different building structure preventing such measures. Similar to Marzahn, Gropiusstadt focuses on high quality of building and environmental
state and maintenance. Special thought was given to the use of colour and imaginative open
spaces like playgrounds. However, the dimension of buildings and the entire area of Gropiusstadt are vast. Thus, the attempted effect of loosening up the solid, monolithic, clobbered
structure is not as well achieved as it is in Marzahn.
In difference to Marzahn, the original architectural planning of Gropiusstadt included grand
green areas, constituting integral elements of the design. Green corridors make the entire area
more friendly and humane than areas without such measures as for example in Budapest.
Thus, there was no need to set up additional green areas. In general, these green areas are
well maintained. However, lack of effective lighting, bad sight - lines and an easy access to the
subway have turned these very areas into a security problem. As a preventative response,
houses bordering the green areas set up high fences to deter burglars, creating a zoo-like atmosphere. Similar to this, the school of the area, the Walter Gropius Gymnasium, is surrounded
by barbed wire, creating a prison like atmosphere for the pupils attending this institution of education. These flaws should definitely not be repeated, neither in Germany nor elsewhere.
There are additional situational characteristics Gropiusstadt faces which have to be seen critically. For example, recessed entrances and high-grown shrubs as well as garage blocks which
are not very well overlooked represent another security problem. The building boundary treatments and landscaping give offenders easy access and are another bad example not to be copied elsewhere.
A measure worth copying is the communal work of the police. The police is involved on a grand
scale in the district, engaging in several programmes in schools (i.e. Anti-Violence Training) and
various crime prevention related activities. Noticeable are the good relations between the local
police and young people. In Gropiusstadt, there are lots of community based social projects.
The goal of the institutions and housing firms is to enhance resident’s involvement in general
and in decision making processes in particular. However, residents in Gropiusstadt tend not to
109 / 111
be as receptive to the measures offered as they are in Marzahn, Poland, or in the Netherlands.
In some houses in Gropiusstadt, there are concierges fulfilling similar functions as in Marzahn,
but there aren’t as many care takes as for example in the Netherlands.
Marzahn and Gropiusstadt already profited enouormously from the experience of Great Britain
and the Netherlands. However, among other things, both German areas could profit from
measures such as a better lighting as done in Cracow. The Dutch integration programme for
immigrants, offering language courses, is another measure especially Gropiusstadt, where
many of the residents are immigrants from various countries, could profit from. Further, Marzahn
and Gropiusstadt could copy the example of the after school programmes for pupils as offered
in the Netherlands and in the house of culture in Cracow. Moreover, the British brochures offering valuable information about the district, certain local and social problems such as family violence and important phone numbers are a measure worth replicating in Marzahn and Gropiusstadt. Similarly, Amsterdam offers a local TV and Radio programme providing first hand
information relevant for the district, a measure Marzahn and Gropiusstadt might profit from as
well. Further, Amsterdam succeeded in outbalancing situational and social measures. Especially Gropiusstadt might take to heart Amsterdam’s example of embedding the area into a diverse set of functions (leisure and work) and the co-existence of different constructional designs
(high-rise, low-rise).
110 / 111
7
Literature
14B
13B
Bandel, H., Machule, D. (1974): Die Gropiusstadt. Der staedtebauliche Planungs- und Entscheidungsvorgang, Berlin.
Becker, H., Keim, D. (Eds.) (1977): Gropiusstadt: Soziale Verhaeltnisse am Stadtrand. Soziologische Untersuchung einer Berliner Großwohnsiedlung, Stuttgart/Berlin/Koeln/Mainz.
Bezirksamt Neukoelln von Berlin (Ed.) (2003): Neuköllner Kinder- und Jugendhilfebericht 2003.
Teil 2, Berlin.
Bundesministerium fuer Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) (2006): Programme der
Staedtebaufoerderung, Berlin.
Deutscher Bundestag (Ed.) (1994): Großsiedlungsbericht 1994. Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung, Drucksache 12/8406, August 30, 1994.
Fangohr, H. (1988): „Großwohnsiedlungen in der Diskussion. Am besten alles abreißen?“, in:
Geographische Rundschau, 40/11, pp.26-32
Federbusch, K. (1997): GropiusStadt. Entstehung und Entwicklung der Berliner Großsiedlung,
Kassel.
Glock, B. (2002): „Schrumpfende Staedte“, in: Berliner Debatte Initial, 13.2, pp. 3-11.
Guratzsch, D. (2002): „Dekorierte Platte. Zwischen Leipzig und Moskau: Was wird aus den
Großsiedlungen?“, in: Die Welt, 27.07.2002.
Hannemann, C. (1998): „Großsiedlungen – Ost“, in: Haeußermann, H. (Ed.), Großstadt. Soziologische Stichworte, Opladen, pp. 91-103.
Herlyn, U., Hunger, B. (Eds.) (1994): Ostdeutsche Wohnmilieus im Wandel. Eine Untersuchung
ausgewaehlter Stadtgebiete als sozialplanerischer Beitrag zur Stadterneuerung, Basel, Boston, Berlin.
Knorr-Siedow, T., Droste, C. (2003): Large Housing Estates in Germany. Overview of developments and problems in Berlin. RESTATE report 2b, Utrecht.
Oswalt, P. (2005): “Introduction”, in: Oswalt, P. (Ed.), Shrinking Cities. Volume 1: International
Research, Ostfildern, pp. 12-16.
Schuemer-Strucksberg, M. (Ed.) (1994): „Strategie und Pragmatik zur Weiterentwicklung der
Großsiedlungen“, in: Senatsverwaltung fuer Bau- und Wohnungswesen (Ed.), Ideenwerkstatt Marzahn. Die Zukunft der Großsiedlungen – Zeichen fuer eine neue Identitaet, Berlin,
pp. 6-9.
Senatsverwaltung fuer Gesundheit, Soziales und Verbraucherschutz (Ed.) (2004): Sozialstrukturatlas Berlin 2003. Ein Instrument der quantitativen, interregionalen und intertemporalen
Sozialraumanalyse und -planung, Berlin.
Stadtbuero Hunger (Ed.) (2003): Quartierskonzept Gelbes Viertel, Berlin.
Statistisches Landesamt Berlin (2005): Die kleine Berlin-Statistik, Berlin.
Strubelt, W. (2006): „Großsiedlungen in Deutschland zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, zwischen Akzeptanz und Widerspruch. Ein eher persoenlicher Rueckblick“, in: Informationen
zur Raumentwicklung, 3/4, Bonn, pp. 139-154.
111 / 111
Tessin, W., Knorr, T., Pust, C., Birlem, T. (1983): Umsetzung und Umsetzungsfolgen in der
Stadtsanierung – die individuellen Auswirkungen erzwungener Mobilitaet am Beispiel der
Berliner Stadterneuerung, Basel.
Willinger, S. (2006): „Definitiv unvollendet. Die Großsiedlungen der Gesellschaft“, in: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 3/4, Bonn, pp. I-VII.

National Report Germany - Max-Planck

Transcription

Similar documents

Inhalt - jot wd

Full text as PDF/HTML

Stadtteilanalyse Jena

Animasjon - Mediepedagogene