Of special importance were schemes that served joint housing interests. Between 2007 and 2013, more than 300 projects were implemented that pursued alternative forms of development. This, in turn, changed the situation on the property market. Buildings erected according to cooperative principles revealed a very high construction quality, both environmentally and architecturally. At the same time, they were economically much more reasonable than dwellings on the classical housing market. The “construction group” model came to have a great impact internationally.
Custom-made, adaptable forms of building provide valid solutions for more than one generation. Projects such as that at Ritterstrasse 50 by ifau, Jesko Fezer and Heide & von Beckerath (ill. 3) have led to a communal approach, social thinking and interaction between neighbours. The use of open spaces, planted areas and even indoor rooms may be shared with other residents (see the Spreefeld project, ills. 1, 2). Hybrid user structures are a means of activating urban space. Mixed uses promote an urban environment.
Building groups have also been prepared to invest in experimental forms of construction; for example, the multistorey timber structures of Kaden Klingbeil Architects or the 3XGrün project. Reasonably priced property like the housing development by AFF Architects in the Vicki-Baum-Strasse also enjoys the support of such building groups. ExRotaPrint or Am Urban are outstanding examples of projects organized by future users that not only meet concrete needs, but that infuse new life and mixed functions into what was formerly waste land. The present development at the wholesale flower market, and the Timber Market project on the River Spree are both being implemented in a cooperative form. The greatest challenge facing schemes of this kind in the future are the much higher prices that will have to be paid for building land.
Construction groups and cooperatives cannot resolve all the problems that have to be faced in the erection of housing, however. Projects developed on the personal initiative of the interested parties cannot compensate for the absence of social housing strategies. They can, however, provide impulses for pioneering solutions. Models of this kind can help to establish a balance between luxury developments and mass housing.
Berlin needs more than 6,000 new dwellings a year. In 2012 alone, the population of the city grew by more than 45,000, and this would seem to be a enduring trend, also in many other cities in Germany and indeed throughout the world. Are we looking for new ways to provide sufficient housing in the long term? Every city will respond to this task in a different way. Berlin is concentrating in the first instance on what is feasible in collaboration with its urban housing associations by increasing the density on existing sites. A fresh housing support programme was introduced in 2014, according to which 1,000 newly built dwellings a year are to be promoted. These will be granted at an average rent of €6.50 per m² to persons with an entitlement certificate for Berlin.4 Precise particulars relating to the number of rooms, the dwelling size and the support period are reminiscent of public housing programmes in the past. They are also subject to criticism because private investors profit from tax revenue in the long term, while the accommodation becomes more expensive. In order to achieve higher quality housing, the authorities are following new paths with experimental strategies, ideas for construction and habitation in the city. These measures are conceived as a spur to housing development associations to avoid the creation of mass housing without identity.
In the context of the Urban Living Workshop, 31 international architectural offices have put forward designs for eight different sites in Berlin. The proposals focus on creating better quality habitation, while increasing the housing density by filling vacant lots in an economical form. The model is a “city of short routes” to improve the quality of urban life. An intelligent increase in density can create not only additional inner-city living space. It can also upgrade undeveloped areas or waste land by integrating long-term or provisional uses. Both new and existing residents benefit from measures of this kind. The Urban Living Designs also reveal various architectural approaches to creating new forms of life and coexistence in cities. Solutions with the qualities of “self-made projects” adopted by protagonists of the classical property market are just as much sought after as strategies that result in a synergetic effect between urban residents and the decision-makers.
For a city to be adaptable and fit for the future, it needs variety and a mixture of uses as well as enclaves where alternative forms of living are possible. It is increasingly important that residents should identify with their city and participate in neighbourly initiatives. Active users are the key to success of sustainable concepts. One will see whether housing associations can implement the pioneering ideas of the “self-made city” and Urban Living Projects. At all events, the time has come for a new age of housing development.
