Report - Urban Management

(/5 3 ) . ' & ) . ! . # %
Housing Finance and Law - Summary of the Compact Seminar 2007
habitat unit
Compact Course on Housing Finance and Law 1. - 9. June 2007
in cooperation with the University of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg) and Urban Management Studies, TU Berlin
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Compact Seminar on Housing Finance and
Law 1. – 9. June 2007
The South African students travelled to Berlin in June 2007.
Together they discussed innovations and alternatives in
housing finance and policies. Taking Berlin as a case study,
a range of experts were invited to present their approaches
and projects.
Marie Huchzemeyer
Johannesburg, South Africa)
[email protected]
Habitat Unit
Astrid Ley
Architecture Faculty VI
Berlin University of Technology
Strasse des 17. Juni 135
10623 Berlin
www.habitat-unit.de
Berlin, July 2007
Postgraduate students in housing and development studies
from the University of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg)
and of the International Master Course in Urban
Management at the Berlin University of Technology together
with architecture students from the Habitat Unit at Berlin
University of Technology took part in a compact seminar on
housing finance and law.
With this publication we would like to present a summary of
this compact course and thank all of those who contributed
to the success of the project.
We would especially like to thank all the presenters who
have dedicated their time and shared their insights.
Furthermore, we would like to thank those we have met
on our project excursions for their time and enthusiasm
in showing us around, introducing us to their projects and
sharing their experience. Last but not least we would like to
thank the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for
their financial contribution which made this project possible.
Thanks to all of you!
(/53).'&).!.#%
Content
p. 4
Map of Berlin - visited places
p. 5
course program
p. 7
Day 1 - 3th of June
p. 8
Lecture Uwe Becker: Housing in Berlin
p. 9
Bus Roundtrip Berlin
p. 11
Day 2 - 4th of June
p. 12
Lecture Andreas Rennekamp (KfW): KfW Housing Finance Programmes
p. 14
Lecture Werner Landwehr (GLS): Housing Finance for Low Income Households
p. 15
Excursion to Generationswohnen Karlshorst
p. 19
Day 3 - 5th of June
p. 20
Lecture Ralf Conradi (LBS): Private Housing Finance in Germany and the role of the Landesbausparkassen
p. 21
Case Study 1
p. 24
Lecture Dr. Andrej Holm (HU): Housing Privatisation in London, Berlin and Amsterdam
p. 29
Excursion to Wohnbaugenossenschaft Fidicinstraße (Kreuzberg) und Mietshausprojekt m13a (Wedding)
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
p. 32 Case Study 2
p.35
Day 4 - 6th of June
p.36
Lecture Stefan Hirche (KfW): Securitizing credits to support adequate housing in South Africa
p.38
Excursion to Prenzlauer Berg (Housing Innovation Projects Kastanie 85, K77, Marie)
p.41
Day 5 - 7th of June
p.42
Presentations of Housing in South Africa
p.45
Guided tour Samariterviertel
p.49
Guided tour Neukölln
p.57
Day 6 - 8th of June
p.58
Lecture Prof. Peter Herrle: “Urban conservation and housing”
p.59
Excursion to Marzahn
p.61
Dictionary
p.65
Glossary
p. 67 Contact List
p. 70 Participants
(/53).'&).!.#%
Berlin - visited places
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
habitat unit
Final Program (part one: 01/06/2007 – 05/06/2007) morning
fr 01.06.07
sat 02.06.07
sun 03.06.07
mon 04.06.07
tue 05.06.07
11.40 am
Arrival at Tegel (Iberia)
Meeting: Museumsinsel,
Alte Nationalgalerie
Room A 064/67
Room A 064/67
Room TEL 1011
9.00 – 10.00 am
Welcome and Introduction
09.00 – 10.00 am
Andreas Rennekamp, KfW (Kreditanstalt
für Wiederaufbau): KfW Housing Finance
Programmes
9.00 – 10.30 am
Ralf Conradi, LBS:
Private Housing Finance in
Germany and the role of the
Landesbausparkassen
11.00 – 2.00 pm
Guided architecture and
planning tour Berlin
(Pamela Giacaman)
afternoon
evening
4.00 pm
Berlin City Model
and Convertible
City Exhibition,
Senatsverwaltung für
Stadtentwicklung, Am
Köllnischen Park 3
10.00 – 11.00 am
Uwe Becker: Housing in Berlin
11.00 – 2.00 pm
Guided tour on „Housing Situations
in Berlin“
(Uwe Becker)
10.00 – 11.00 am
Werner Landwehr, GLS
Gemeinschaftsbank:
Housing Finance for Low Income
Households
1.30 – 2.30 pm:
Excursion Generationswohnen Karlshorst
(Peter Weber)
4.00 pm
Reception at South African Embassy
7.30 pm
UDK Concert: “Sternstunden
slawischer Musik”,
Konzertsaal Bundesallee
11.00 – 12.00 am
Dr. Andrej Holm, Humboldt Universität:
Housing Privatisation in London,
Berlin and Amsterdam
3.00 pm
Excursion Wohnungsbaugenossensch
aft Fidicinstraße 18
(Martin Hermes)
5.00 pm
Guided tour Wedding/
Mieterhausprojekt m13a (Ursula
Trüper)
7.00 pm
Braai at Mieterhausprojekt m13a
(/53).'&).!.#%
habitat unit
Final Program (part two: 06/06/2007 – 09/06/2007)
morning
afternoon
wed 06.06.07
thur 07.06.07
fri 08.06.07
Room A064/67
Room TK 017
Room H 2033
9.00 am – 1.00 pm
Prof. Marie Huchzermeyer, University of
the Witwatersrand: “The emergence of
slum elimination legislation in South Africa:
Grounds for concern?”
10.00 am – 11.30 am
Prof. Peter Herrle, TU Berlin: “Urban
conservation and housing”
10.30 – 12.00 am
Stefan Hirche, KfW Development Bank:
Securitizing credits to support adequate housing in South
Africa – the development role of KfW
Presentations by Wits students
12.00 am – 1.00 pm
Workshop/Discussion: Lessons Learnt
Meeting: Café Morgenrot, Kastanienallee 85
3.00 – 5.00 pm
Excursion: characteristic different housing
areas in Berlin (different walking tours)
3.30 - 5.00 pm
Excursion to (Cornelia Cremer,
UrbanPlan)
4.00 – 7.00 pm
Excursion: Housing Innovation in Prenzlauer Berg
(Dr. Michael La Fond, id22)
evening
sat 09.06.07
1. Friedrichshain (Carissa Champlin),
2. Neukölln (Anna Roeder, Marc Heinzel)
Open Air Jazz Festival Kreuzberg
7.35 pm Departure
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
3th June
by Carissa Champlin
(/53).'&).!.#%
successful in Europe and inevitably become low-income
housing
Lecture
“Mass Housing in Berlin” Uwe Becker
- Post-modernism- a return to the dense inner-city design
Re-use of breweries with apartments, restaurants, shopping
Conclusion:
→ rediscovering the innercity, waterfronts, industrial
areas
→ Important to balance private and public spaces
→ Community spaces are important for social learning
→ Personal experiences are important, look at local
characteristics when building
Building Periods:
→ Foundation- 1880s
→ Reform Architecture- 1900-1910
→ Modern- 1920-1930
→ Traditionalism/ Nazi-Era – 1930-1945
→ Reconstruction- social housing- Post WWII
→ Postmodern- 1980s
Elements of Urban Architecture in Berlin:
- Early building very dense (5m2 courtyards large enough
only for fire trucks to enter)
- Garden City Movement- 1920s-1930s
- After WWII, less dense design, allowing for more traffic
flow
- Huge settlements of 10,000 or more never seem to be
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Bus tour led by Uwe Becker
1. Hansaviertel
→
1950s - showcase of post-war housing development and first reconstruction phase, INTERBAU 57 (International
Building Exhibition in West Berlin), urban landscape
2.
Carl-Legien-Stadt (Prenzlauer Berg) – Bruno Taut & Franz Hilliger
→
1920s/1930s: Reformation housing, Socially responsible inner city mass housing construction of modernity
3. Stralauer Halbinsel (Friedrichshain)
→
1990s: inner city investor architecture in attractive waterfront location close from the 1990s
4. Hufeisensiedlung – (Neukölln) Bruno Taut & Martin Wagner
→
1920s/1930s: Icon of Berlin settlement modernity with worldwide recognition and model character for social
housing
(/53).'&).!.#%
5. Chamissoplatz (Kreuzberg)
→
1870s: restored Wilhelminian Style xhousing, first West-Berlin reconstruction model after the war, protests by
residents against deluxe reconstruction, status quo model
6. Flughafen Tempelhof (Kreuzberg)
→
1930s: Icon of Nazi era and memorial, mother of all airports, continuous debate about reuse of the areal after
dismissal of air traffic to Tempelhof
7. Brauereigelände am Kreuzberg (Kreuzberg)
→
conversion project business and residential use, view from Kreuzberg memorial, worldwide first monument
made of cast-iron, urban design explanations
10
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
4th June
by Adriana Dantas, Ghazaleh Jasbi and Raquel Amaral
11
(/53).'&).!.#%
provide support for developing countries and raise funds in
the international capital market. KFW is an advisor to the
government and performs tasks and services on behalf of
German government.
Lecture,
Andreas Rennekamp, vice president housing
The promotional programs of KFW include housing
and modernization, energy conservation,
modernization- KfW Housing Finance Program construction
renovation and modernization of residential building,
In the morning the participants of the housing finance
seminar attended a presentation about KFW (Kreditanstalt
für Wiederaufbau) bank housing finance program
by Andreas.Rennekamp, vice president of housing
modernization. This is a summary of the presentation.
KFW was founded in 1984 as a promotional bank of the
Federal Republic of Germany. KFW’s shareholders are the
Federal Republic of Germany with 80% and the German
federal states with 20%. The headquarter of KFW bank is
located in Frankfurt am Main. And it has around 50 offices
and representatives worldwide. The target groups of KFW
are enterprises, private individuals and municipalities in
Germany.
KFW missions are very expansive. Their main task is giving
impetus to the economy, politics and society. They also
finance the investment in Germany. In addition to this they
use of renewal energies and creation of owner-occupied
housing. They also have some promotional programs
for environmental protection such as the promotion of
investments by commercial enterprises to protect water, air
and the soil. In educational field KfW supports academic
studies and advance vocational training. Finally they finance
municipal infrastructure projects.
The housing finance programs of KFW are following as
below:
→
→
→
→
→
Co2 building rehabilitation, loan and grant
Housing modernization Eco-plus standard
Ecological construction
Home ownership
Solar power generation
Anyone who is investing in owner-occupied or rental
housing, such as private individuals or owner associations,
housing enterprises and cooperatives, municipalities,
12
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
contracting entities can apply for a grant or loan. This
application has to be handed in prior to the start of the
project as KFW will not finance a projects that has already
started.
As mentioned before one of the housing finance programs
of KFW is ecological construction. The objectives of
ecological construction can be a long term financing of
construction of KFW energy-saving houses 40 and 60
as well as passive houses. Also it can be a long term
financing of the installation of heating systems on the
basis of renewable energies in new buildings. The KFW
energy saving house 40 can be defined as: Annual primary
energy requirement must not be more than 40 kWh per m2
of useful building area and transmission heat loss must
be at least 45% below the limit specified in the energy
conservation ordinance. For the KFW energy saving house
60 the annual primary energy requirement must not be
more than 60 kWh per m2 of useful building area and
transmission heat loss must be at least 30% below the limit
specified in the energy conservation ordinance. Annual
primary energy requirement for passive house must not be
more than 40 kWh per m2 of useful building area and the
annual requirement must not be more than 15kwh per m2 of
floor space.
Energetic rehabilitation of residential buildings can
be financed through loans or grants by Co2 building
rehabilitation programs. The aim is to achieve almost the
13
energy conservation standard of new buildings. Two types
of promotion are available: Reduced-interest loans which
is up to EUR 50,000 per housing unit with a 5 – 12.5%
repayment grant or grants of 10-17.5% up to EUR 5,000
– 8.750 per housing unit. .
In a second variant of energetic rehabilitation financing
is available for measures from five different packages of
measures. All measures of the selected package must be
implemented in full for the entire building. There are also
two types of promotions available: Reduced –interest loans,
up to EUR 50,000 per housing unit and grants with 5%
grant, up to EUR 2500 per housing unit.
Housing modernization standard measures includes
modernizing and upgrading. It also improves the outdoor
facilities of multi family buildings such as green areas and,
playgrounds. The program in eastern Germany is also
active by deconstructing of unoccupied rental buildings.
Thermal insulation of outer shell of buildings and renewal
of heating system on the basis of renewable energies will
be done by housing modernization ECO-PLUS measures
program.
The promotional housing loans provided by KFW has
many advantages. It reduces the financing costs through
favorable interest rates. Long maturities and fixed interest
periods are possible. In some cases repayment grants are
also possible. There is also possibility of changing the bank
(/53).'&).!.#%
of the ultimate borrower.
Lecture
Werner Landwehr, GLS Gemeinschaftsbank
Housing Finance for Low Income Households
Werner Landwehr of GLS Gemeinschaftsbank, gave
a presentation on “Housing Finance for Low Income
Households”. This is a summary of the presentation.
The GLS Bank is a co-operative bank that has the same
restrictions of the other banks. Besides the bank financing
in ecological agriculture and renewable energies (fields
that the bank tries to finance), it also developed “Housing
Finance for Low Income Households”.
As a first step the bank requires the household to prove
certain the conditions. The bank analyses the size and the
quality of the house which the family actual has, the costs
that they have with the house and also the organization of
the community.
The lecture also showed that nowadays the housing
economy is profit-oriented, but the society wants a more
social approach. To achieve that, the bank must consider
the market of living price: cost of capital (investor),
management-costs and overheads (entrepreneur), and also
the consumption-dependent cost (resident).
According to this, the costs of living space would be
formed 50% by capital (investor), 40% by management
(entrepreneur) and 10% by consumption (resident).
The consequences of this policy would be some rental
restrictions and living space management (to avoid people,
with more conditions, taking part of the project); qualification
in house-management; affordable offers only for lowincome; investments-subsides; and the definition of a way
of using energy, living space, saving and others.
This finance system may be successful since it requires
the inhabitants to learn how to manage their houses; it
incentives common-property (co-operatives, associations)
– what helps people to know each other; people must
participate in joint project-planning, realization and
financing.
The equity capital became a little bit lower (20%), without
profit and personal work is done as equity capital, bundling
of small and individual guarantees, with integration of
promotion loans and financial integration of networks
(question of guarantee).
14
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
The work in the building construction is also seen as a
question of professional qualification that leads to the
qualification and cooperation in management. There is a
promotion of new rentals, of a sensible mixed inhabitants
structure and a support of others in the same situation. This
may contribute to the success of the housing projects.
The bank is concerned about self-qualification and job
creation (since people become more responsible for where
they live), responsibility for the quarter and integrative
actions.
Even they have many factors that may contribute in
the success of the project, they must consider from the
beginning the possible risks involved in the project.
Excursion
Generationenwohnen Karlshorst
(Peter Weber)
In the afternoon, the participants of the Housing Finance
Seminar visited the model housing project called
Generationswohnen Karlshorst. It is about a heritage
building that is being upgraded to shelter old and
handicapped low-income people, lead by a cooperative.
This project is one of 15 projects that the cooperative has
done up to now. All its projects are developed to attend the
poor community.
The first project of the cooperative is localized in the
“district” of Prenzlauer Berg and was built in 1990. The
tenants themselves have created the cooperative at that
time.
In 1993, the first building with the same principles but out of
the same “umbrella” was constructed. People involved have
started to think about which way would be better to help
15
(/53).'&).!.#%
the poor community: should all the projects be part of the
same network or not? They realized that it would be better
if everyone worked together to achieve this goal. Many
projects have appeared in the course of time.
The cooperative has 350 members who must pay € 500
to buy their share. They also have to dedicate 10-15h of
work for the cooperative within 2 years. Who wants to work
less, must pay €3.50 per hour not worked. The board of
management is elected for 2 years.
Since the building is a heritage (former base of Soviet Union
and later a school), the cooperative had some benefits but
also some demands: the purchase of the building and the
plot were cheap; they have counted with financial support;
the façades had to be preserved.
The total cost of the Generationswohnen Karlshorst
Project to renew the building has been € 3,000,000, with €
1,000,000 financed through the municipality, € 1,000,000
through GLS Bank and € 500,000 through KfW.
As some tenants have skills and others knowledge of social
integration, the cooperative has pays 5 tenants to work in
administrative part of the project and another 5 tenants to
work in the construction. Yet, these tenant-builders help to
train other builders.
To rent an apartment in this building, some requirements
were established. As said before, the project privileges old
people and handicapped low-income people, who have to
prove their income status. One third of the tenants are old
people.
Other requirements are thatthe tenants have to renovate the
inside of the building after a certain time and help the other
tenants accomplishing this task. Another one is accepting
the fact that the project will designate space for an
orphanage for 10 children. There will be a extra entrance
for the orphanage and staff taking care of these children 24
hours a day.
16
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
The upgrading was planned to turn the building into a low
energy house; the windows, insulation and heating system
were designed to consume less energy as possible. There
are no more apartments free in this building. Almost all
the units have 140 m2 for a 5-person family. The rental
is 3.5 €/m², which is half the price of rentals in the same
neighborhood. There are 2 units with 110 m2, built in an
extra floor, which are not for low income households. But
these families are also members of the co-operative. The
rental cost of these extra units is different, 6 €/ m².
The tenants have visited some similar institutions to have
an idea of how the project worked. There is a common
space for all the inhabitants, and all of them will plan this
space together. There is a former sport hall, which they
do not know yet how they will use it. They are still looking
for finance support and new ideas; maybe it will become a
market for eco-products.
17
(/53).'&).!.#%
18
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
5th June
by Mahmoudreza Khalili , Goitom Gebreegziabher and Kirsty McLean
19
(/53).'&).!.#%
own house.
Lecture
Ralf Conradi, LBS
Private Housing Finance in Germany and the
role of the Landesbausparkassen
by Giotom Gebreegziabher
On this date Mr. Ralf Conradi has explained the condition of
private housing finance in Germany in a particular reference
to the role of the Landesbausparkassen (LBS). He first
explained the organizational structure of the company. The
company is owned by regional saving associations (State
Banks). In 2006 the bank’s outstanding loan was about 25
Million Euro. The bank gives 1.5% interest for savings and
4% interest on loans.
He then explained about the laws applicable to housing
finance business in Germany. The Banking Act which is a
general rule for all financial institutions works to LBS also.
However there are also housing finance related regulations.
It works under legal form applicable to other business
establishments. It is governed by audits and supervisions
permissible to business operation.
He also explained that the bank has certain criteria for
eligibility to get consumers credit provisions. For instance,
single households with annual income of 25,600 Euro and
married couples with an annual income of up to 51,200
Euro are eligible to take loans.
He finally concluded by giving a general principle for a
typical housing finance scheme in Germany. Accordingly
60% of the money comes from bank loans or mortgage
loans, 10% on cash, 18% from the Bauspar loan and 12%
from the Bauspar own fund.
He also explained the housing characteristics in Germany.
One of them is low owner occupation rate as compared
to other European countries. More than 57% of the
households are living in rented houses. Therefore the bank
is working towards increasing housing ownership in the
country by providing loans to buy and/ or construct one’s
20
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Case Study 1
German Finance Case Study - Housing
Approach: Bausparkasse System
by Kirsty McLean
Brief Socio-Political Background of Germany
and Berlin
The bauspar system has its origins in 17th century United
Kingdom. The mutual self-help savings system used
there was later developed extensively and popularised in
Germany after the First World War, as a result of existing
poor housing conditions. After the Second World War, the
German government promoted the use of the bauspar more
widely, in order to help counter the housing shortage of over
six million units (United Nations, 2005: 21).
Today, housing prices in Germany are extremely high as a
result of expensive land costs and high construction costs.
This is reflected in comparatively low levels of ownership
by European standards, of approximately 43 per cent. As a
21
result, buying housing is relatively unaffordable in Germany
and the bauspar system provides an affordable and
effective means for families to be able to purchase their
homes (Conradi, 2007: 9).
The Problem Addressed By (and Target
Population of) the Bausparkasse System
Without the bausparkasse system, people would have
to save for approximately 10 years in order to afford
to purchase property (Ibid.: 15). For this reason, the
Bausparkasse system, which involves a system of collective
savings and loans that operate outside of the market, was
introduced. Participants generally save 40 to 50 percent
of the loan amount. When purchasing property, this loan
is supplemented with a mortgage loan from a mortgage
bank, secured against the property. In Germany, mortgage
banks may only lend up to 60 per cent of the value of the
property, and must lend on the security of a first mortgage
(: 8-10). For this reason, the typical household would use
an individual bauspar account to save 40 per cent of the
purchase price, and then obtain a commercial mortgage
loan for the remaining 60 per cent of the purchase price
(Conradi, 2007: 16).
Approximately 25 million Germans participate in the
bausparkasse system, that is, about one third of the adult
population of Germany, and more than 50 per cent of
(/53).'&).!.#%
the housing stock in West Germany was funded in part
using the bausparkasse system (Ibid: 7).
Description of the Bausparkasse System
Germany has 11 regional bausparkasse which are owned
by a regional savings banks association, or ‘Landesbanken’
(state banks), and 15 private bausparkassen. The private
bausparkassen are mostly owned as subsidiaries of
insurance companies or commercial banks. The public
bausparkassen have 39 per cent of the market share, and
the private bausparkassen, 61 per cent (Ibid.: 4).
As noted above, the bausparkasse system operates though
the contributions of many people who put money into the
system in order to finance the purchase of housing stock,
in much the same way as a large, sophisticated stokvel.
Customers conclude a contract for a specific sum of money
(the bauspar sum). They then save money regularly, and
receive interest on those savings (1.5 per cent on average
per annum). After a specific amount has been saved, the
customer is entitled to a loan for the remainder of the bauspar
sum, at a related interest rate on loans of 4 per cent (Ibid.:
4).
The general rule is that the customer should try to save 40
basis points of the bauspar sum (calculated at a total of 100
units). The rate of saving is up to the individual customer, but
on average it usually takes about 7-8 years to complete. 60
basis points of the bauspar sum is then borrowed as a loan.
Repayment of the loan is terminated after approximately 10
years and there are no early repayment fees (Ibid.: 4).
Bausparkasse are regulated by the German Banking Act and
Bausparkassen Act. This legislation restricts the legal form
which the bausparkasse can take to a public company. The
legislation stipulates strict auditing requirements and
permissible operations; general business principles; and the
standard terms and conditions for bauspar contracts. It also
stipulates that bauspar funds may only be used for specific
purposes and that bauspar loans may only be secured by
mortgages. Exceptionally, bauspar loans may be granted
without security, such as for use in a renovation. In addition,
the legislation stipulates the maximum volumes up to which
bauspar funds may be invested outside the system or used
for the granting of anticipatory and intermediate loans; and
consumer credit provisions ensure that adequate information
is provided to consumers regarding their loans (Ibid.: 18).
Successes or Shortcomings of the
Bausparkasse System
The bausparkasse system appears to have been highly
successful, in providing access to credit for low- and middleincome groups (United Nations, 2005: 63). Moreover, despite
the fact that the state does not intervene in determining which
households are granted loans, there is no market
22
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
failure for downmarket reach. The main reason for this is
that bausparkasse are public banks, and their mandate is
to provide a service to all of the public, where it is affordable
for them. Private banks try to maximise profits, while public
banks are simply self-sustaining (Conradi, 2007: np).
Some of the shortcomings of the bausparkasse system are
that the beneficiary household has to wait a considerable
period of time before they are able to access a loan. While
this may not prove too challenging in a country like Germany
with a thriving rental housing market and stable house prices,
it may prove more problematic in a country like South Africa.
Other shortcomings, which mainly focus on the inapplicability
of the bausparkasse system to South Africa, are discussed
immediately below.
a low or at least limited inflation rate. For example, in Eastern
Europe, authorities tried to set up bausparkassen, but had to
wait for inflation rates to come down to a manageable level
before they could operate on an affordable basis (Ibid.: 63).
Furthermore, South Africa’s housing prices in the functioning
housing market continue to increase dramatically, which
makes saving an unattractive option. Moreover, given the
large demand for middle income housing, there is simply little
or no market for the development of low-cost housing stock
for sale within the market. Finally, in order to be successful,
the bausparkasse system requires a body of people with an
ability to save (Ibid.: 63)—something which probably does
not exist at adequate levels within low-income groups in
South Africa.
Relevance (or Not) For South Africa
References
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has
prepared a helpful report outlining three major housing
finance systems and their relevance for countries in transition
(United Nations, 2005). One of the systems considered is
the bausparkasse system, which is used in Germany, as
well as Austria, the Czech Republic, Solvakia, Hungary and
Croatia. It is also expected to be introduced into India and
China (Ibid.: 28).
Despite the extensive use of the bausparkasse system
elsewhere, there are reservations regarding its applicability to
South Africa. First, the bausparkasse system is dependent on
Conradi, R ‘Private Housing Finance in Germany: The Role of
the Landesbausparkassen (LBS)’ (power point presentation
and notes from a lecture presented on 5 June 2007).
Hendler, P. and M. Pillay (2002) ‘Housing Finance Trends:
The United States of America, India, Europe, Thailand and
South Africap (Paper presented at a Housing Conference in
Cape Town).
United Nations (2005) ‘Housing Finance Systems for
Countries in Transition: Principles and Examples’ (Report
prepared by the Economic Comission for Europe).
23
(/53).'&).!.#%
of ownership in various forms.
Lecture
Dr. Andrej Holm; Humboldt University of Berlin
- Housing Privatisation in London, Berlin and
Amsterdam
Reported and summarized by Mahmoudreza Khalili
The process of privatisation in these cities differ in terms of
political aims and actors as well as in terms of social/urban
effects. In reaction to local conditions of privatisation we can
notice three different facets of resistance: a public political
neighbourhood mobilisation in London, a legal strategy
to obstruct economic utilisation of privatised housing
stock in Berlin and a kind of institutional refusing of local
administrations and housing associations in Amsterdam.
In particular, the privatisation of the social housing stock has
changed both the housing market and urban governance
constellations. Privatisation itself has taken different forms,
and discussions of privatisation policies have referred to the
movement of rents towards market levels, contracting out of
various services to private sector agencies, and the transfer
The first wave of housing privatisation in Europe started in
the UK in the 1980s and was a consequence of the neoliberal agenda of the British (national and urban) policy.
The “right-to-buy” privatisation in the UK was and is widely
discussed in political as well as in academic contexts.
The privatisation in Berlin and Amsterdam are occurring
predominantly in the last decade and the forms of
privatisation differ from the experience in UK and the
Eastern European countries.
London
The housing policy in the UK has a long and deep tradition
of public housing. Since the housing act from 1980 the
council housing system were established. Council housing
/council homes are in communal ownership and were
responsible for housing provision to a wide range of
households for a long time.
The council housing dominated the sector of rent housing
before the privatisation started in the 1980s. The numbers
on the table show that the British housing system has
changed in the last 25 years.
24
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
1980
|
1990
|
Council Housing (public owned)
28% |
19% |
Housing
Associations
(Social
Landlords) 1%
|
2%
|
Owner-occupied
57%
|
68% |
Private rented sector
14% |
11%
|
2005
11%
Registered
8%
The following table gives an overview of the privatisation
dynamics in London.
71%
10%
Source: Presentation Andrej Holm
The process started with the Right-to-Buy Housing Act in
1980. The Housing Act’s target was the opening of council
housing sector for buyers. Every tenant of a council home
received the right to buy her homes. Different stimuli were
offered to enforce the privatisation.
The Housing construction and Control Act and the Housing
and Planning Act in 1984 and 1985 directed to existing
housing stock able to privatise as well as the group of
households, who can act as buyer.
25
An urban problem related to the privatisation were the
increasing house prices – the new act try to reduce
the number of sales, by prolongation of resale times.
Households, who resale her privatised home until a period
of three years had to pay a part of profit to the council
administration.
Housing units
Range
1980-1985
67.300
23%
1986-1990
41.500
14%
1991-1995
39.600
14%
1996-2000
59.400
21%
2001-2005
79.200
28%
Total
287.000
100%
Source: Presentation Andrej Hom
Privatization
p.a
13.500 p.a
8.300 p.a
7.900 p.a
11.900 p.a
15.800 p.a
11.500 p.a
Berlin
The social housing sector in Germany can be differentiated
in two groups:
the public housing stock and the rent-controlled social
housing stock.
(/53).'&).!.#%
“Public housing” could be understood as a housing stock in
public ownership. In the last five years more than 500.000
public housing units have been privatized in Germany. The
concept of “Social housing” had to be understood as a
temporary social effect of public funding programs. ‘Social
housing’ in Germany does not comprise a clearly defined
stock of housing but rather a temporary characteristic of
housing stock.
In 1990 the share of public housing (with more than 400.000
housing units) on the total housing stock amounted by
nearly 30% - but as a result of privatisation politics in the
last years this rate increased to around 15% until today.
Two kinds of privatisation in Berlin:
→ a stock transfer (when public housing associations
sales a part of its stock)
→ The privatisation of public housing corporations itself,
which occurs when local government sells out its
share of the association to private owners.
Privatization directives
The privatisation in the first Half of the 1990s was mainly
appointed by a national act (Altschuldenhilfegesetz), which
made it a condition that at least 15 per cent of the existing
stock of every public housing company and every housing
cooperative in the former GDR had to be sold, before the
company/cooperative would be relieved of inherited debt.
Privatization practice
The process of housing privatisation started with the political
changes and the reunification in early 1990s. Three steps of
privatisation in Berlin are as following:
→ (1990-1995): the first step was mainly appointed by
the 15 per cent privatisation according to the national
act (Altschuldenhilfegesetz). Altogether this affected
the sale of around 30.000 housing units, mostly in
East Berlin (in average 5.000 p.a.).
→ (1996-2000): second step resulted from the political
intention to mobilising and activating the assets of
public housing for Berlin’s public budget.
Around 46.000 housing units mostly from public
housing companies in West-Berlin were privatised in
this time (9.200 p.a. in average).
→ (Since 2001): the third step could be described as
a sale out of public housing. More than 135.000
housing units were privatised in the last five years
(27.000 p.a. in average).
26
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Altogether more than 200.000 public housing units were
privatised since reunification – this is an average of 13.000
privatised housing units per year. The financial investors
differ from the classical business of housing corporations
with an interest on long term rental income. The core
business of these new investors is real estate deals: the
buying and selling of housing units. Cerberus, the purchaser
of 65.000 dwellings from the public housing corporation
GSW is an impressive example for this new housing
economy. But the strategies of the investors were first of
all targeted at the internal structures of the companies. In
the first two years after privatization the business strategies
focused on opening up new credit lines by the revaluation
of the housing stock and on the introduction of new ways of
management.
[compartmentalization], which means that each group in
society was founding their own housing association. Yet,
in some ways these private organizations are comparable
to the organizations managing public housing in other
countries such as Germany.
The housing associations as branch offices of government
with the following roles in which:
→ central government determined rents, and set very
detailed building requirements through subsidies and
loans; and
→ Local government determined the choice of architect,
the manner in which contracts were tendered, and
also handled supervision during construction.
The main policy called “white paper” in the Netherlands in
the 1990s aimed following goals:
Amsterdam
Social housing in the Netherlands is not public housing.
Social housing in the Netherlands is built, owned, and
managed by private organizations. It means that in
Amsterdam the majority of the housing stock is in the hands
of housing associations. Such organizations were, and still
are today, non-profit organizations which have to invest their
gains into housing. As common in the Netherlands, these
organizations developed along the model of “verzuiling”
27
→ deregulation of the housing market
→ more resident control and more choice for housing
consumers, and
→ the promotion of homeownership and the selling of
parts of the social housing stock
(/53).'&).!.#%
Privatization covenants
In 1998, 22% of the tenants (66,500 households) indicated
that they were interested in buying their home at market
prices. The Ministry of Housing’s new policy had forced
the housing associations and the municipality to draw up a
sales policy. In Amsterdam, the arrangement regarding the
sales of social rented housing was made in two separate
agreements. The first, “Social Housing Sales Covenant I”
(1997), signed by the “Amsterdam Federation of Housing
Associations”, the municipality, the district authorities and
the “Amsterdam tenants’ Association” established that a
maximum of 15,575 dwellings would be allowed to be sold
in the 1998-2001 period. The second, “Housing Policy
Agreement 2001-2002”, includes a policy goal to raise
the level of owner-occupied homes in Amsterdam to 35%
(about 130,000 dwellings) by 2010. Sales quotas would
be established for each city district. The same parties later
agreed in the “Social Housing Sales Covenant II” that an
additional 13,000 homes could be sold in the following
period (2002-2008).
Ways of Privatisation
The Privatisation could be analysed in terms of different
political motivations, different strategies of implementation
and last but not least by different social effects.
→ The privatisation policy in London based more or
less on an ideological aim to reduce the power and
political influence of council administrations.
→ The privatisation in Berlin was mainly enforced with
the argument to reduce the public budget losses.
Therefore the majority of legal directives to privatise
were decided on local political level.
→ The privatisation in Amsterdam dominantly followed
a general motivation to increase the range of
homeownership and to reorganise the housing sector.
Also, the ways of implementations of housing privatisation
differs in the three cities. In London we had to observe
individual decisions to use the “Right to Buy” from sitting
tenants.
The Berlin Privatisation policies do not incorporate the
tenants into the privatisation process and the majority
of privatised housing was en-bloc sell outs to financial
investors.
For Amsterdam we have to observe a mixture of these
strategies. The privatisation occurs with tenants as well with
empty flats. In contrast to Berlin no privatisation was able
against the tenant’s desire.
28
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Excursion
The Renovation of old housing units in
Kreuzberg and Wedding:
by Mahmoudreza Khalili
Wohnungsbaugenossenschaft Fidicinistr. 18
The whole area was occupied in the war, because of the
airport.
20’s – 30’s – nothing was done in the area
60’s – neighbourhood was one of the centres of the
squatters
→ 200 houses were squatters
→ They wanted to keep the old buildings
→ The government wanted to destroy everything
70’s – the area was declared as an area to be upgraded
→ They wanted to keep the people in the area to
preserve the buildings
→ The families received money to renew the buildings,
but they couldn’t raise the rents
In 1982, it was the first renovation
You should have proven that you were low income or that
you already lived in the area.
Coordination agency in the neighbourhood (private) but with
government’s money,
they always gave better possibilities to the inhabitants
while their homes were being renovated – to decrease the
number of moving
2001 – They sold 10 buildings because they were not
profitable
The Municipality made a contest to the enterprises that
were interested in buying them, but they had to keep people
there. The main example is: co-operative with 12 people of
Fidicinstr. 18
29
(/53).'&).!.#%
Co-operative
To buy the building 3.500 Euro/ m2 and 900.00 euro/m2 to
renovate
They received 1,000,000 Euro from the municipality
They were the last building to receive this money
The requirements to receive the money – to keep the rents
low
They have the oldest kindergarten from Berlin (1918)
After 15 years, people could pay for home (then, they
decide if they want to buy it or to keep paying the rent)
– Berlin IBB Bank.
Wedding - Mieterhausprojekt m13a
by Giotom Gebreegziabher
The next excursion was done in the neighbourhood
called Wedding. It is characterised by high proportion of
immigrant population. Unemployment and poverty are
also widespread. This tour was guided by the three fulltime employees (one man and two women) of the District
Management Office.
According to the informants, the wedding neighbourhood
has about 15,000 inhabitants. Many of them are Turkish
and Arab. Although many of them are living there for 2-3
generation, they are not fully integrated to the German
community. In cognizant to this fact the Berlin senate yearly
earmarked 300,000- 900,000 Euros.
“Kreuzberg Chamissoplatz”, Alf Bremer, Gabriele Klahr, Christian Porst, Michael Stein, ProPolis Verlag
30
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
The European Union and the German Federal Government
also are main funding counterparts of the district
rehabilitation program.
Federal Government also are main funding counterparts of
the district rehabilitation program.
Currently the District Management is working to strengthen
the performance of Medium and Small Scale Enterprises
which are important to the daily livelihood of many
inhabitants. As the area has also high proportion of school
age population other social works like education, health and
safety issues are top priorities of the project.
31
(/53).'&).!.#%
Population of) Private Cooperatives
Case Study 2
Housing Finance Approach:
Private Cooperatives
by Kirsty McLean
Brief Socio-Political Background to Berlin and
Tempelhof
During the Second World War, 80 per cent of Berlin’s
housing stock was destroyed. The area surrounding the
Flughafen Tempelhof, however, was saved because the
allies avoided bombing area as they needed a large airport
after the war. Consequently, a large amount of historical
architecture in Tempelhof was saved. Despite this, the area
was already suffering from decline after the First World War,
and from the 1960s onwards the buildings were in very
bad condition because there had been no development or
renovation since the 1920s (Hermes, 2007: np).
The Problem Addressed By (and Target
Many of the buildings in the area were occupied by
squatters, and by the 1970s there were 200 squatted
buildings. In order to normalise the situation, the
government entered into contracts to legalise the squatters’
tenancy. The squatters wanted to preserve the buildings,
and not redevelop them, so the neighbourhood was
declared a ‘renewal area’. This meant that money was
given by government to renovate the area, on the condition
that the rents are kept low. Buildings were restored and
the residents remained in occupation. This avoided
gentrification (Hermes, 2007: np).
Description of Private Cooperatives
As a result of reunification, much of the housing stock was
privatised in order to generate money for the city, as its debt
stood at 50 billion Euro. In fact, in the past five years, over
half a million public housing units have been privatised in
Germany. In Berlin itself, from a total public housing stock
of 400 000 units (30 per cent of the total housing stock),
approximately half has been privatised (: 5-6).
The main reason to privatise is in order to access capital to
improve the poor condition of many buildings, given the high
cost of renovation. Privatisation can take two forms: first,
it can mean the sale of stock to private investors, who then
32
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
tenants’ housing associations (Ibid.: 9). This section will
focus on one specific private cooperative visited during the
tour of Berlin, in Tempelhof.
In Tempelhof, city authorities wanted to privatise ten
buildings. Tenants were given the option to create a
cooperative or to form a private company to take ownership
of the building and manage it on behalf of the tenants. The
tenants of the building visited decided to form a cooperative.
Renovations began is 1982 and were completed in 2001.
Originally, not all the tenants wanted to join the cooperative,
but eventually everyone living in the building agreed to be a
member of the cooperative. Prior to the renovation, heating
was basic and tenants could only heat one room. After the
renovation, all apartments were equipped with bathrooms
and central heating (Hermes, 2007: np).
All members of the cooperative had to make an initial
capital contribution of Euro 250 per m2. In addition, the
cooperative was given one million Euro to renovate the
building, on the condition that the rentals are kept low, so
that existing tenants are not forced out. The remainder of
the renovation was financed through a commercial loan
which will be paid off over 15 years. Contributions to the
repayment of the loan take the form of monthly rentals
by the tenants. If a household decides to leave the building,
they get paid out their contribution (Hermes, 2007: np).
After 15 years, when the loan is fully paid off by the
cooperative, the tenants can choose to change the
institutional structure of the building and either remain as
33
a cooperative or sell off the units as individual ownership.
The remaining capital cost, if the latter option is chosen,
would be 20 per cent of the value of the stock (Ibid.: np).
Successes or Shortcomings
The project has been highly successful as an
environmentally-friendly building, so much so that it
received a KfW award (Ibid.: np). The building has also
acted as a stabilising factor for the community, which
consists of many Turkish families which are not integrated
into the broader Berlin social fabric. By providing safe
tenure and affordable rental accommodation, such buildings
help Turkish families to feel part of the city (Hermes, 2007:
np).
Relevance (or Not) For South Africa
Private cooperatives could be used in South Africa,
but not, in my view, for the very poor. At a minimum,
households would need to be able to pay the equivalent
of a commercially-priced rental every month, as part of
their contribution to paying off the loan to purchase the
building. The estimated income group would therefore be
those households earning above R 2 500 per month, with a
steady income source.
A private cooperative would be appropriate in areas such
(/53).'&).!.#%
as Yeoville in Johannesburg, which consists of medium- to
high-density flats. For instance, a group of existing tenants
or occupiers could approach a landowner (or the state
where the landowner has abandoned the property) and offer
to purchase the property. The purchase would be financed
through a commercial loan in the name of a company, or
trust, formed by the tenants. The purchase price could be
subsidised through access to the national housing subsidy
for qualifying households—although in practice, individuals
have found it difficult to obtain the individual subsidy. The
mortgage repayments would be funded through monthly
‘rental’ paid by the tenants. If a private cooperative was
formed in South Africa in this way, it would be similar to a
shareblock scheme where tenants buy shares in a company
which owns the building in proportion to their ownership of
the building.
References
M Hermes, 2007 ‘Excursion to
Wohnungsbaugenoosenschaft’ (notes from a lecture
presented on 5 June 2007).
Holm, A. (2007) Housing Privatisation in London, Berlin
and Amsterdam: Process, Effects, Resistance (unpublished
paper).
Ralf Conradi, LBS
Private Housing Finance in Germany and the
role of the Landesbausparkassen
by Giotom Gebreegziabher
On this date Mr. Ralf Conradi has explained the condition of
private housing finance in Germany in a particular reference
to the role of the Landesbausparkassen (LBS). He first
explained the organizational structure of the company. The
company is owned by regional saving associations (State
Banks). In 2006 the bank’s outstanding loan was about 25
Million Euro. The bank gives 1.5% interest for savings and
4% interest on loans.
He also explained the housing characteristics in Germany.
One of them is low owner occupation rate as compared
to other European countries. More than 57% of the
households are living in rented houses. Therefore the bank
is working towards increasing housing ownership in the
country by providing loans to buy and/ or construct one’s
own house.
34
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
6th June
by Anna Roeder and Marc Heinzel
!LLIANZ
35
(/53).'&).!.#%
Lecture
Stefan Hirche, KfW Development Bank
Securitizing credits to support adequate
housing in South Africa – the development
role of the KfW
Facts: total assets at the end of 2006: EUR 360 →
billion.
Bond issue volume in 2006: more than EUR 51 billion
→
Employees: 3600 on average in 2006.
→
Rating: triple-A/AAA/Aaa
The KfW Bank’s activities are splitted into 4 segments.
by Marc Heinzel
The KfW Bank, an overview:
→
History: the KfW-bank was founded after the
second world war in 1948. the target was to finance the
reconstruction of the german economy. The seed capital
came from the ERP, the Eurpean Recovery Program.
Nowadays the shareholders are the Federal Republic of
Germany (80%) and the German Federal States..
→
Location: the headquarter is in Frankfurt/Main. Approx. 50 offices and representations worldwide.
→
promotion of housing, environment and climate, protection, education, infrastructure, social issues.
→
promotion of SMEs, business founders, start-ups
→
international project and export finance
→
promotion of developing and transition countries.
36
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Mr. Hirche told us a lot about the engagement of the KfW
bank in Sub-Saharan Africa (the segment promotion of
developing and transition countries).
The mission is to contribute to economic growth through
capital market development. The promotion and
improvement of the financial infrastructure plays a very
important role in this process.
An example in South Africa to support adequate housing:
Blue Granite International
First loan securitisation
The shortage of suitable housing for the population at large
is currently one of South Africa’s most pressing problems.
Thanks to long-term loans, more and more South Africans
can afford to buy their own home.
In order to increase the available liquidity, it makes sense
to securitise these loans in the international capital market.
This will ultimately make private housing affordable for
people with low incomes, too.
In a securitisation transaction, the loan portfolio is sold to a
special purpose vehicle, which in turn issues international
capital market bonds to investors.
The first securitisation of South African housing loans was
37
organised by Standard Bank and KfW Entwicklungsbank
operating as Blue Granite International.
The total volume was EUR 250 million. In taking this step,
KfW Entwicklungsbank emphasised the importance that it
places on sustainable support for private housing in South
Africa. (Hirche)
- taken from the booklet ‘Financing development - new
prospect for Africa, may 2007’
important links:
www.kfw.de
(/53).'&).!.#%
degenerated houses have been renovated.
After the introduction we went to see another project in
Kastanienallee.
excursion
Housing Innovation in Prenzlauerberg
Guide: Dr. Michael La Fond
by Anna Roeder
At 4.00 pm the whole group meets in Café Morgenrot,
Kastanienallee 85. Dr. Michael La Fond as part of the “d22:
Institute for creative sustainability” held an introductive
speech talking about the past development of the district
“Prenzlauer Berg” itself and several innovative housing
projects which have taken place. The reasons for those
alternative housing projects, which also exist in other parts
of the city, are the wish that families move back into the city
centre. It is a method to create a home, a nest, for certain
needs and affordable prices.
“Kastanie 85”
“K77”
The K77 (Kastanienallee 77) is a concept of selfadminitration.and collaborative living in those remaining old
houses of Kastanienallee, which haven’t been renovated
yet. It is construed for aproximately 21 people, contains
a community kitchen, collaborative organized household.
Decisions are reached in consensus.
The rooms change randomly every two years to create
equal conditions.
In the ground floor is a Café, a cimena and some craft
facilities. Constructive aims are interventions in a very
ecological sense.
The walk through the dictrict continued and we passed
several other living projects with certainly different
background.
http://www.wohnprojekte-berlin.info
http://www.wohnportal-berlin.de
Already before the Fall of the Wall several houses of
Kastanienallee 85/86 where occupied. Until 1993 the first
rental agreements have been signed. With the support of
the senate program “living political self-administration” the
38
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
“MARIE”
The “MARIE” Marienburgerstrasse 40 is a self-organized
building community right next to Marie Park. It is made by
and for families which want to build there nests.
The group began to organize itself in 2005, along with the
architects Arnold&Gladisch and the developer Andreas
Stahl.
The Project contains besides the 23 apartments a
community roof terrace and a garden along with a
meeting room. They used energy-saving design and ecotechnologies. The apartment and the commercial space
cost about 1,850 Euro and are already sold.
www.marienburger-strasse.de
39
(/53).'&).!.#%
40
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
7th June
presented by Ezetu Ebiumene, Carissa Champlin, Anna Roeder and Marc Heinzel
41
(/53).'&).!.#%
Presentations on Housing in South Africa
A Report of the Seminar on Housing, Finance
and Law
presented by Ezetu Ebiumene
The activities on Thursday started with presentations by the
South African students about various aspects of the housing
finance and law situation in South Africa.
The first presentation by Joshua and Victor gave a brief on
the South African historical background specifically looking
at the province of Limpopo with a particular reference to
housing. The presentation considered the period between
1994 and 2007 since the Limpopo province was created
after the democratic transition that followed the end of the
Apartheid era in 1994.
This was followed by a presentation by Lance on
presidential lead projects referring to his direct involvement
in one of such projects (Alexandra) in South Africa.
According to him the main focus of the project was
i) ii) iii)
iv) Mobility
Safety / Security
Education, Health and Recreation
Housing.
Every province was entitled to at least one project. Total
project value was put at €15 million
with a construction time frame of 5 years. Unlike the others,
the one at Alexandra was valued at 3 billion South African
Rand, which is equivalent to €300 million with a construction
time schedule of over 10 years.
The third presentation by Joyce and Modise focused on
the housing finance system in South Africa. They started
with a brief description of an Apartheid city and how it has
contributed to the poor housing situation in the country.
Thereafter, they spoke briefly on the South African housing
market which is divided into a first generation and a second
generation housing market.
They talked about the national housing deficit created by
the Apartheid regime and the roles played by the banks
to improve the situation. As a result, certain innovations
to mitigate the problem emerged at both institutional
and community levels. The presentation also highlighted
various governments’ efforts of mass / low cost housing
schemes at different times to reduce the housing deficit.
The presentation also highlighted the mode of financing
these projects through, government subsidies. All the
42
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
above mentioned successes of government were however,
facilitated by the 1992 housing policy. The presentation also
featured, the partnership existing between local people and
municipalities through CBOs and NGOs to prioritize their
development needs.
The next presentation was on the right to housing in
South Africa by Champ, Tshepo and Kirsty. According to
the presenters the 1992 housing policy of South Africa
went through a long process of negotiations and evolution
to eventually emerge as the national Housing Code in
2000. They also spoke on the introduction of the PIE
Act (Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful
Occupation of Land Act) of 1998 by the government to
protect unlawful occupiers of land and houses from forceful
and illegal eviction.
The final presentation came from Prof. Marie Huchzermeyer
of the University of Witwatersrand on the “Emergence
of Slum Elimination Legislation in South Africa”. She
described the government plan to amend the PIE Act and
the introduction of the KZN slum elimination bill which
reflect government’s commitment towards the elimination of
slums by the year 2014 – a misinterpretation of the MDGs
(Millennium Development Goals).
It was important to note that, the hosting rights are further
threatened due to the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup in South
43
Africa which is stimulating government towards further
eradicating slums. In conclusion, she however expressed
doubt in the possibility of achieving the set goal by the year
2014, giving the following reasons;
i). That, in spite of government efforts, the living
conditions of slum dwellers are deteriorating, leading
to a greater uncertainty in the minds of slum dwellers.
ii). The emergence of more cases of unlawful evictions.
iii). Increased overcrowding, lack of privacy, spread of
communicable diseases etc.
(/53).'&).!.#%
CONCLUSION
It was learnt, that in spite of government efforts at improving
the slums, the conditions remain unchanged thereby,
increasing the uncertainty in the minds of slum dwellers.
Therefore, government should employ more bottomup planning and implementation strategies to evolve
more inclusive cities in South Africa. In other words, the
government and the people must see themselves as
genuine partners in governance. Increased enlightenment
and economic empowerment are also necessary tools to
give impetus to the participation of the people in matters of
governance.
Finally, the day ended with two guided excursions to sites of
renovated historical landmarks e.g. parks, buildings and real
estate firm renovation projects as well as operations.
44
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
First Tour
Guided Tour
The Samaritar Quarter Renovation Project
by Carissa Champlin
The Samaritarviertel was constructed within a short period
of time from 1900-1910 beginning from in the West with
its newest buildings in the eastern part of the quarter. The
houses were built for the workers of the slaughter houses
which lie just north of the quarter.
45
Since 1993, the Quarter which lies 3,5km directly east of
Alexander Plaza on the eastern edge of Berlin’s inner
city has been designated as a renovation area. Its dense
building structures and high population leaves little room for
green and open spaces. Therefore, one of the goals of the
renovation has been to enhance the existing open spaces,
to build playgrounds and sports areas as well as to make
courtyards greener.
Today, due to the high costs of renovation, there is only
one original property owner still possessing property
in the Quarter. Modernization was a key aspect of the
renovation project in which electricity and gas appliances
were replaced, windows were double-sealed, balconies
were added back where missing or in dangerous condition
and units without WCs were furnished new bathrooms. As
more and more people are attracted to the exciting urban
atmosphere of East Berlin and as more and more areas are
being renovated, Friedrichshain is following in the footsteps
of Prenzlauerberg and becoming ever-increasingly more
expensive to live in. Special efforts are being made to keep
rent prices low and affordable for those currently living in
the district (although I have to say that my rent is quite
overpriced itself).
(/53).'&).!.#%
2) Rigaerstraße 83 –Squatter occupied house
1) Frankfurter Tor (195-60)1
1,8km –Germany’s longest landmark
Designed by Hermann Henselmann, chief architect of Berlin
Karl-Marx Alley (form. Stalin Alley) was designed to be the
prototype of Soviet architecture and city planning with its
broad boulevards and prefabricated facades for housing
units. It was the first major housing initiative of the new
government.
After the fall of the wall, there were many disputes over
property ownership to be worked out. In the case of
Rigaer 83, two owners (one being a Jewish family) claimed
ownership of the house. During this time, the house
became occupied by squatters who were not paying rent
as no owner had been announced. The city progressed so
far even to prepare the house for demolition by explosion
when the inhabitants unified and boycotted the effort.
The squatters then banded with a larger association and
successfully purchased the house as they were successful
in their refusal to evacuate the house. The house is now
owned by the association and all renters must also pay
membership dues of about 600€ which is refunded when
they move out, much like a rental deposit.
46
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
3)Schreinerstraße facades
Renovation financing in East Berlin boomed in the mid1990’s. A governmental support program offered 80%
financing of renovation expenses while the remaining
20% of the expenses were to be paid in ‘self-help’ such
as owners painting their homes which is one reason for
the unique and colourful facades of the district. However,
in the case of Schreinerstrasse (a street under historic
preservation), regulations were put in place limiting the
outer appearance of the buildings to a pre-selected palate
of color options which has resulted in the homogenous
appearance of the street. Otherwise, few rules and
restrictions were put on the building owners in terms of
the outer appearance of the houses. This has become a
characteristic part of former East Berlin.
4)Messelhof (Alfons Messel 1896-98)
On the corner of Schreiner- and Proskauerstraße is the first
house built in the area which actually does not belong to
Samaritar Quarter but was a fine example of quality design.
47
5) Bänschstraße Promenade & Samaritar
Church
formerly a paved parking area was restored as a long and
narrow green area extending to the west and to the east of
Samaritar Church (1892-1894)2
6) Slaughterhouses
The vacant slaughterhouses on Eldenaerstraße have been
a project of what is called in German ‘zwischennützung’
meaning intermediate or new use for old buildings. This
is common to find in Berlin, a shrinking city which has
been undergoing the process of de-industrialization.
The slaughterhouses have recently been renovated and
transformed into a grocery store, clothing shop, motorcycle
(/53).'&).!.#%
meaning intermediate or new use for old buildings. This
is common to find in Berlin, a shrinking city which has
been undergoing the process of de-industrialization.
The slaughterhouses have recently been renovated and
transformed into a grocery store, clothing shop, motorcycle
repair shop, etc. A particularly creative use of the houses
can be found in a neighboring park where the metal frame
of the slaughterhouse was left in tact enhancing the
ambiance of the park.
7) Voigtstraße 22
view into a recently-remodelled East Berlin apartment
square area: 68 m²
rent: 520€
utilities & other: 74€
8) Pettenkoferstraße- Urban Upgrading and
Modernization examples
Somewhat controversial housing renovation project where
the investor wants to redesign the floorplans of the house’s
units making larger, high-rent apartments. There are worries
that this will affect the housing market in the quarter in
a negative way. Also to note are the measures to make
the roads in this residential area quieter by laying asphalt
instead of stones and to view one of the last remaining, fully
non-renovated houses in the Samaritarviertel.
(Footnotes)
1
www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de
2
www.samaritarviertel.de
48
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Second Tour
Guided Tour
A Walk through Neukölln in June
by Marc Heinzel and Anna Roeder
A didactic walk through the northern part of Neukölln,
a district in the South-Center of Berlin.
Every station has its own topic:
→
→
→
→
nature in the city +
a village in a city center
social housing area of the 60s
culinary excursion + reform architecture 1920s
streetlife of Arabs and Turkish in Berlin
This walk is about the history of Berlin and the development
of a very divers city shown by one example, the district of
Neukölln. It is about architecture, social conditions, cultural
influence and problem management.
Neukölln shows the process of immigration and „integration“
of different nations in a big city, its automatisms,
its networks, its problems.
49
History
The history of Northern Neukölln is the history of
Rixdorf:
14th century _mentioned for the first time as
„Richardsdorp“ (Dorp - today: Dorf - means village).
In those days there existed several independet villages
in the south of Berlin which today are districts
of the city, such as Rudow, Buchow, Britz and Rixdorf
- todays Northern Neukölln. They were very green,
with a castle in Britz (which still exists), several
churches and handcraft factories.
15th century _ the orden of fraternity of Hospitallers
sold their properties to the cities Berlin and Cölln
which were still divided, one situated on the northern,
one on the southern side of the river Spree.
18th century _ The Bohemian created their green village,
the center was surrounded by 12 small agricultural
farms, places like Richardsplatz, God‘s Acre
and the Church were forming their enviroment.
19th century _ more branches start to move from
Berlin to Rixdorf: textile business of the Bohemian
Rixdorf, forges and joineries of the German part,
already before industrialisation one of the biggest
residential areas of underclass. a new type of housing and
colonies emerged („Mietshauskasernen“rental baracks), lots of building activity
since 1890. Social residential areas and new
(/53).'&).!.#%
infrastructures were built.
20th century _ age of industrialisation, process of
proletariatisation, Neukölln becomes 14th district of Greater
Berlin.
Neukölln Today
Today Neukölln is the biggest economic district of Berlin, in
a very dense area of Shops and commercial business.
There are 22.000 Businessmen and 5.000 Businesses.
The district is structured by three main axes, which
exist ever since: Hermannstraße, Karl-Marx-Straße,
Sonnenallee (take a closer look on the map!).
Half of Northern Neukölln are foreigners of 1st to 2nd and
sometimes 3rd generation, alltogether 60.000 foreigners.
In the more southern regions of Neukölln there is rather
still a suburbian atmosphere: long housing blocs, green
spaces, single or duplex familiy houses.
There is a lot of activity going on in the area of Northern
Neukölln. in the neighbour district Kreuzberg
there are a lot of young and old „activists“ ,who make their
own little business with fashion, food, design,
art. There are a lot of cultural festivities and programs
like „48 hours Neukölln“, designed to improve the bad
image of Neukölln. Because there ARE social problems,
there is a hig rate of crime and drug business, a low
rate of integration of the „foreigners“, which are not
even foreigners anymore in the scene of bureaucracy.
But they still don‘t identify themselves with that place totally.
Certain groups and communities do not communicate.
But this is what the district is all about, its diversity,
patchwork, variety. Only that so far there are no strong links
inbetween them.
To improve the situation there are lots of social and
cultural initiatives such as the District Management
(‚Quartiersmanagment‘- QM). Those try to link all the
potential of the district and try to help the people finding
work, getting a good education, improve the conditions of
many women.
GUIDES: Anna von Roeder, Marc Heinzel
June, 6th 2007THE NEUKÖLLN TOUR
50
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
plan of Neukölln and tour
7
Tour of Neukölln Berlin
Start - U-Bahnhof Neukölln
1. Körnerpark
2. Richardplatz
6
3. Rollbergviertel
5
4. Saalbau Neukölln
4
5. Rathaus Neukölln
3
6. Ideal-Passage
7. Tek-Stil
2
End - Landwehrkanal
1
Marc Heinzel
51
Anna Roeder
Berlin, 6. June 2007
(/53).'&).!.#%
Körnerpark
Richardplatz
1910 the owner of the gravel pit Franz Körner gave the
ground to the city as a present with the condition to name
the foture park after him. The Park has been built 1912-16
architect: Gutzeit, gardener: Kullenpark.
Size: 3,6 hectare, 5-7m deep, high walls of arcades, walls of
cascades, Orangerie, Art galery
The tendency to a Neo Baroque style derives from the
garden art of the turn of the century.
The park was supposed to give the surounding area a
pretty imprint and animate to a favoured dictrict. It had and
still has a decorative purpose.
Here one can find the oldest building substance of whole
Neukölln. It is a cultural center of Neukölln. Already in the
old days it was the center of the Bohemian people.
It is a mixture of old trade businesses such as the carrier,
the forge and a lot of restaurants and cafés. There isn‘t a lot
of traffic, the atmosphere reminds of a medieval village.
52
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
God‘s Acre
„Confrérie des Chevaliers du Goûte Boudin“
In 1751 it was built for the Bohemian refugees as a
cementary. Surface: 5600 m²
Rollberg Siedlung
Blutwurst manufactory:
The traditional black sausage with a secret mixture of herbs
has been made here for over hundred years. The owner,
Markus Benser, has been given a knighthood for the „knight
of the blood sausage“ from the famous French brotherhoos
53
This social housing blocks are a sign for the ideology
of the sixties, when old urban structure has been totally
demolished to make space to new social housing projects.
The strucure of peripheral buildings negates the historical
urban plan.
Built: eastern part: 1966-74, western part: 1976-82
Historically this area is the first continuous worker suburb,
beeing mainly built in the 1880s. But the standard was
very bad. With the new social housing blocks the intention
was to improve the oldfashioned social housing type. As
an example: on the same surface there have been 5200
apartments before, now there are 2300 with the adequate
mordern standart. 90% of the flats didn‘t even had a bath.
(/53).'&).!.#%
The area is a social combustion point. There is a high
fluctuation, people do not want to stay for longer, the
high percentage of foreigners creates also problems.
The green spaces are not creating a social enviroment of
communication. The inner courtyards are closed.
Today the owner of the blocks, Stadt und Land - a state
housing association -, tries to improve the conditions with
certain activity concepts such as bonus programs for
students, security in the area and offers of social activity
and clubs for children and adolescents. Also by urban
interventions they try to improve the situation.
Architects: Oefelein, Freund und Schmock
Ideal-Passage - reform housing
1907 foundation of the ‚Baugenossenschaft‘ „Ideal“, whose
members were left-winged social democrats. There were
lots of initatives towards social hygiene, precautionary
medicine and living reform.
Their slogan was: The best place to become healthy is a
healty home.“
Therefore the building cooperatives played a pioneer role
in the housing reform. They tried to offer a place to live, not
only a house. Mostly 1-2 room apartments, with/without
bath, shops in ground floor. Very important are
54
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
The idea was to have different renting levels to create a
certain mixture of habitants. There was a rather high sense
of community, also members of the building cooperative
were living in these apartments and identified themselves
with it.
Sonnenallee
the 4 courtyards, which give life to the block. Good living
conditions: big windows for air and light inside, warm water,
central heating, toilet inside the apartment, tubs in the roof
for those without own bath room.
The facade is strucured by oriels, loggias and balconies.
Differenciated roofs create a picturesque atmosphere.
55
A dive into the world
of Arabia, mainly
affected by turkish
immigrants, with all
its richness of food,
clothes and activities.
There are colorful
signs in arabic letters
showing the great
impact of a foreign
culture in Berlin.
(/53).'&).!.#%
56
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
8th June
by Venkata Ramana Gudipudi and Vangara Anil Kumar
57
(/53).'&).!.#%
Lecture
Prof. Dr. Peter Herrle
‘urban conservation and housing’
The last day of the workshop on ‘housing law and
finance’ commenced with a presentation on ‘from urban
conservation to upgrading’ by Professor Peter Herrle.
Professor Herrle in the presentation discussed very briefly
the process of urban conservation and upgrading taking into
account many case studies.
The seminar was started by giving a short difference
between an urban conservation project and an upgrading
project. The seminar gave a brief overview of the
major differences between both cases. The overview
of professor’s Herrle’s presentation includes problems,
approaches, participation process, case studies. The
presentation includes two main highlights:
1. The different approaches to tackle urban upgrading
2. The process of land management in Mumbai.
1. Professor Herrle included 5 main ways in approaching an
action area plan:
→ Clearance and re-development: this leads to the loss
of coherence in the society in terms of social and
economic aspects. Example: action area plan in New
York.
→ Restoring the past: this demands a lot of finance
in order to implement the project. Example:
conservation of historical core in Jaipur, India.
→ Commercialization of old city: this also leads to social
coherence within the core area of the city. Example:
commercialization of core area of Venice.
→ Upgrading infrastructure and housing: this can lead
to social segregation and gentrification. Example:
upgrading infrastructure in Damascus, Syria.
→ Social city approach: this process needs a lot of
government support and it is time consuming.
Example: social city approach in Marzahn, Berlin.
2. The process of land management for slum upgrading in
Mumbai:
Professor Herrle described the process of slum upgrading in
Mumbai. While explaining so he introduced the concept of
Transfer of Rights (TRA) which is included under the slum
rehabilitation act in India. The right says that ‘if any builder
builds an apartment in any slum he has to accommodate
58
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
the slum dwellers in his apartment for free. By doing so he
will be free from floor space index’. It means that if a builder
builds and provides housing for urban poor he can build as
many floors as he wants in any other place within Mumbai.
This topic attracted many people’s attention as it was a very
new and innovative process in urban land management.
One of the South African student asked if this process
effective any where in the world’ professor Herrle answered
that this process can be used only at the places where the
private market is very active and in cities where land values
are high. He also added that this process will work out in
Mumbai as the land values are really high and there exist a
number of private builders.
Excursion to Marzahn:
The workshop started again at 3.30, in Marzahn. The
students were highly glad to meet Mrs. Cornelia Cremer
the chief executive for urban plan in Marzahn. She gave a
brief overview of the project ‘Urban plan’ in Marzahn. She
mentioned the major factors that initiated the project. The
students watched a short film which is documented by
‘urban plan’ which includes the process of execution of the
project and the views of different people who are living in
Marzahn for the last few decades.
59
Cornelia Cremer stated: “The project was initiated after the
re-unification of Berlin. After the destruction of ‘The Berlin
wall’ there was a huge shift of people who were residents of
Hellersdorf to the other parts of the city. This left a number
of houses in Hellersdorf vacant.
The municipality of Berlin took the initiative to go with the
project where some of the vacant apartments are destroyed
in order to main the continuity and the social life of the
people in Marzahn.”
The project: After the re-unification there were a number of
inhabitants in Hellersdorf who moved to other parts of the
city. This process of in-city migration left behind a number
of apartments unoccupied. The municipality of Berlin took
the initiative by involving ‘urban plan’ a private company to
come up with a land use plan for the area of Marzahn. The
project is done on public private partnership between ‘urban
plan’ and ‘The Municipality of Berlin’.
The process:
The main points that were kept in mind while preparing
a land use plan for the project are continuity and social
integrity. ‘Urban plan’ has come up with an idea of
demolishing some of the apartments which are left
unoccupied for a few decades and rehabilitated the people
living in those apartments. The people who are rehabilitated
were given compensation. There were many people who
(/53).'&).!.#%
were against the project during the time of its execution.
80% of the inhabitants in Marzahn are satisfied with this
project.
60
Dictionary
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
TERMS BERLIN HOUSING
Gründerzeit wilhelminian style / period era / end 19th century
Moderne modern movement / international style
Reformarchitektur
Bauausstellung
reform architectur
Wiederaufbau
reconstruction / revitalisation
Wohnungsbaugenossenschaft
building cooporation/cooporative housing agency (zu deutsch)
Wohnungsbaugesellschaft
residential building cooperative
Wohnungsbauverein
residential building union
Baugrundstück entwickelt
site, building plot, developed, undeveloped
Baugrundstücke zusammengelegt sites pooled together
Parzelle parcel (of Land)
Sozialbauwohnung
social housing flat / affordable housing unit
Sozialer Wohnungsbau
social housing / affordable housing
Siedlung
housing estate / settlement
61
building exposition / construction fair
Dictionary
(/53).'&).!.#%
Wohnung für das Existenzminimum
minimal dwelling / bed-sit unit
Wohnungsnot
Spekulant
housing shortage
Bauabschnitt
Einzelhaus
construction phase / stage
Doppelhaus
semi-detached house
Reihenhaus row/ line house
Mietshaus
apartment building / flats / apartment complex
Mieter
lodger, tenant, live in lodgings
Miete rent
Bodenpreise
real estate values / costs
Wohnblock
partment complex / block of flats / apartment slab
Blockbebauung
block footprint
Blockrandbebauung
perimeter block footprint
Zeilenbau
linear block
Doppelzeile
parallel block
Halbes Zimmer
guest bedroom
developer / speculator / carpetbagger
detached house
62
Dictionary
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Bebauungsplan
development plan, lay- out plan, legally binding land use plan
Bauordnung
building law, regulations
Bauantrag
Standort
building application
Aufgelockerte Stadt
Lichte Höhe
„aerated“ city pattern / low density city
Straßenbreite
width of the street, wide road
location / site
headroom
Traufe drip
Giebel gable
First ridge
Gewinn
profit
Bauordnung
building law , regulation
Erbpacht long-lease
Hauszinssteuer
house interest taxes
Laubengang acces balcony
Treppenhaus stairway
63
Dictionary
(/53).'&).!.#%
Staatlich gefördert
state-aided
Rationalisierung
rationalisation
Wohnfläche living area, useful area
Bewohner inhabitant, inmate
Trümmerfrauen
rubble women
64
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Glossar
Glossar: Housing Berlin
Bausparkasse (home loan banks)
“Bausparkassen” are special credit institutions which focus on housing finance. In Germany prominent examples are: LBS,
Wüstenrot.
Eigenheimzulage
It was a grant from the Government that supported people who wanted to build their own house or apartment. The
government hoped for an increased creation of self-used condominium. After passing a new law about condominium- the
grant was deleted in January 2006.
Mieterorganisationen (Tenant association)
They act and fight for tenant rights. They inform their members about their possibilities in duties and help answering
questions about renting and affairs between the lessor and the tenant.
Mietspiegel (Rent level)
The “Mietspiegel” was established to give a conspectus of how high the rentals are in a specific area. It is supposed to
prevent the tenants from grossly overpriced rental prices. It makes the rental market more transparent for the costumer.
Wohnungsamt (Housing office)
Housing offices are supposed to help people who have problems with their housing
They arrange social housing and prevent them from being homeless.
Even more they control the rentals and afford Public housing allowance.
Wohnungsbaugenossenschaft
Is a cooperative society with the aim providing cheap housing for its members. In Germany over 2.000 of those societies
exist. They administer over two million apartments and possess over three million members.
In Berlin over 10% of the whole housing stock is administered by “Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften”
65
Glossar
(/53).'&).!.#%
Wohnungsbauprämie (housebuilding bonus)
It is a permanent feature of the government housing support system. Eyerybody who is an individual with unlimited tax
liability over the age of 16 is entitled for this financial bonus if he/she pays home loan dues and does not excess the
income tax limit.
Wohnberechtigungsschein (housing qualification certificate)
Is an official certificate that enables a person to apply for an apartment which is supported by a social housing program
from the Government.
Wohngeld (Public housing allowance)
If the income is not sufficient, a person can apply for this grant to pay the rent or to pay the costs for an own apartment.
“Wohnungspolitische Selbsthilfe”
It is a political support program which was established in 1981 in Berlin where the Senate gives grants to reconstruction
projects where the dwellers help to reconstruct the old buildings they are living in. The program derives its origin from the
squatter scene.
Vermieterverband (lessor association)
It is a union that people can join if they own houses or apartments to represent their interests towards the Federal
Government, the county and the city.
They consult and support their members in housing affairs.
Vermögenswirksame Leistungen
These payments are set in the collective labour agreements or an agreement of the employment contract throughout the
employer. They are remitted monthly from the employer on the employees investment account. They are legal components
of a contract. They belong to the assessable income of non-self-employment work.
66
contact list
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Contact list:
UrbanPlan GmbH
Eisenacher Str. 56,10823 Berlin
phone: +49 30 787 95 70
eMail: [email protected]
Internet: www.urbanplan.de
Uwe Becker
Architect
eMail: [email protected]
Pamela Giacaman
PhD Student Habitat Unit
eMail: [email protected]
Jürgen Breiter
Mieterhausprojekt m13a
Projectinitiator / Urban Curator
Malplaquetstraße 13a
13347 Berlin
phone:+49 (030) 398 27 394
eMail: [email protected]
Internet: www.wedding-windows.de
C. Grobler
Embassy of the Republic of South Africa
Public Relations
Tiergartenstr. 18,10785 Berlin
phone: + 49 (0) 220 73 128
eMail: [email protected]
Dr. Ralf Conradi
Head of Department
Bundesgeschäftsstelle Landesbausparkassen
Friedrichstraße 83,10117 Berlin
phone: +49 (0)30-20225-5396
eMail: [email protected]
Cornelia Cremer
Quartiersmanagement Marzahn
67
Uwe Heinhaus
Baugruppe Marienburger Str. 40
Architect
heinhaus architekten
Chodowieckistr. 17-17 a
10405 Berlin
phone: +49 (0)30 417 255 85
eMail: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.heinhaus-architekten.de
contact list
Martin Hermes
Wohnungsbaugenossenschaft Fidicinstraße 18
phone: 0179-1420872
eMail: [email protected]
Professor Peter Herrle
Head of Habitat Unit
Berlin University of Technology
[email protected]
Stefan W. Hirche
Senior Project Manager
KfW Entwicklungsbank
L II b Sub-Sahara Africa
Palmengartenstr. 5-9, 60325 Frankfurt a. Main
phone: +49 69 7431-4743
eMail: [email protected]
Internet: www.kfw.de
Dr. Andrej Holm
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Stadt- und Regionalsoziologie
Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin
phone: +49/30-2093-4331
mobil +49/179-7755897
eMail: [email protected]
Prof. Dr. Marie Huchzermeyer
School of Architecture and Planning
(/53).'&).!.#%
University of the Witwatersrand
phone: +27117177688
eMail: [email protected]
Dr. Michael LaFond
id22:Institut für kreative Nachhaltigkeit
experimentcity/ ufafabrik berlin
Viktoriastrasse 10-18, 12105 Berlin
phone: + 49 / (0)30 / 755 03 - 189
eMail: [email protected]
Internet: www.experimentcity.net
Werner Landwehr
GLS Gemeinschaftsbank
eMail: [email protected]
Malcolm Langford
Human Rights Lawyer
Visiting Fellow, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights,
University of Oslo
eMail: [email protected]
Astrid Ley
Habitat Unit A53
Dept. VI Planning-Building-Environment
Berlin University of Technology
Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin
phone: ++49 (0)30.314 21833
68
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
mobile: ++49 (0)179-7997096
www.habitat-unit.de
www.urban-management.de
Andreas Rennekamp
Head of Division
KfW Bankengruppe
K IV a Wohnungsbau, CO2-Minderung, Erneuerbare
Energien
Charlottenstraße 33/33a, 10117 Berlin
phone: +49 30 20264-5797
eMail: [email protected]
Internet: www.kfw.de
Ursula Trüper
Mieterhausprojekt m13a
Malplaquetstraße 13/13a, Berlin-Wedding
Phone: 030-46 23 144
eMail: [email protected]
Peter Weber
SelbstBau e.G.
Rykestraße 13, 10405 Berlin
phone: +49-30-4419961
eMail: [email protected]
Internet: www.selbstbau-genossenschaft.de
69
contact list
contact list
(/53).'&).!.#%
Participants
South Africa
(University of the Witwaterand,Johannesburg)
Joyce Dimaktso Mpofu (Johannesburg, South Africa)
[email protected]
Laurence Andrew Fenn (Johannesburg, South Africa)
[email protected]
Marie Huchzermeyer (Johannesburg, South Africa)
[email protected]
Thepo Machaba (Johannesburg, South Africa)
[email protected]
Kirsty McLean (Johannesburg, South Africa)
[email protected]
David Mmakgabo Champ Sepuru
(Lebowakqomo, South Africa):
[email protected]
Joshua Moloi (Johannesburg, South Africa)
[email protected]
Modise Mphalo (Mafatsane, South Africa)
[email protected]
Victor Thikotshi (Johannesburg, South Africa)
[email protected]
Urban Management (University of Technology, Berlin)
Rachid Aboulfadl
[email protected]
Carissa J Champlin (Oklahoma, USA):
[email protected]
Adriana Barbosa Dantas (Fortaleza, Ceará – Brazil):
[email protected]
Raquel Dantas do Amaral (Fortaleza, Ceará – Brazil):
[email protected]
Ebiumene Itontei Ezetu (Port Harcourt, Nigeria): ezefra@
yahoo.com
Venkata Ramana Gudipudi (Vishakhapatnam, India):
[email protected]
Ghazaleh Sadat Hossein Jasbi (Teheran, Iran):
[email protected]
Mahmoudreza Khalili (Tehran, Iran):
[email protected]
Giotom Egziabher Legesse (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia):
[email protected]
Mr. Olagoke, Olamide Temitope (Lagos, Nigeria)
Anil Kumar Vangara (Khammam, A.P. India):
[email protected]
70
(/53). ' & ) . ! . # %
Architecture (University of Technology, Berlin)
Marc Heinzel, Berlin (Germany)
[email protected]
Astrid Ley, Berlin (Germany)
[email protected]
Anna von Roeder, Berlin (Germany)
[email protected]
71
participants
(/53).'&).!.#%
72