Construction projects in Berlin fail again and again. The reasons for this are diverse. But when we need new homes, we can’t please everyone. Gunnar Schupelius believes that there needs to be a rethink.
The Berlin entrepreneur Kurt Krieger (Möbel Höffner, Möbel Walter, Möbel Kraft) has been trying to build apartments and commercial buildings in Pankow for 13 years. Since then, obstacles have been put in his way.
In 2009, Krieger acquired the site of the former marshalling and freight yard (34 hectares) between the Pankow and Heinersdorf S-Bahn stations.
At first he wanted to build a shopping center next to apartments. That was prevented by the then Senator for Building, Michael Müller (SPD). The Senate and the district office forced Krieger to make ever new concessions: he was to build schools and day care centers on his own account, create a recreation area and reserve 30 percent of the apartments for social tenants.
Krieger agreed to everything, but he is not allowed to build. Because small natterjack toads live between the old railway tracks, which have to be relocated to Brandenburg. The Nature Conservation Union (Nabu) is suing against the resettlement. And so 2000 apartments, two day care centers, two schools, a furniture store and all commercial buildings are not built. A total investment of around one billion euros remains. Jobs, sales, tax revenue – all gone.
► Read all of Gunnar Schupelius’ columns here
Last Wednesday, Krieger appealed to the Governing Mayor Giffey (SPD) to put her foot down. She has made housing construction a “boss matter”. Now we are curious to see whether the boss will take action or remain a toothless tigress.
And Pankow is not the only case that should become a matter for the boss. Housing construction is prevented everywhere in Berlin. For example in Charlottenburg on a former railway property at Westkreuz station (Holtzendorffstraße, 16 hectares). An investor wanted to build 900 apartments here, only on a fifth of the area, he wanted to turn the rest into a park.
But even this fifth of the development was too much for the red-red-green majority in the district, there are no building rights, the whole area should remain a “fresh air corridor”. “We would like to see real additional freedom for the citizens at this point,” says City Councilor Fabian Schmitz-Grethlein (SPD). That can be the case, but perhaps the citizens would also like an apartment in which they can live. And what is more important when both are missing: “free space” or a roof over your head?
It’s great that Ms. Giffey is making housing construction a matter for the boss. But that’s not enough, we have to rethink: If we need new apartments, then we can’t please everyone. Then there is just one park less and then the toad has to give way.
A city could never have been built in this world if disadvantages compared to the natural state had not been accepted. Nature conservation must be balanced with the interests of the people. Otherwise it blocks everything, makes new construction impossible and leads to a housing shortage. Do we want that?