4 ms·

Rightly so. Berlin has an amazing start up scene, certainly unique for and unrivaled in Germany. That being said, Berlin hosts a lot of NIMBYism. Particularly

Rightly so. Berlin has an amazing start up scene, certainly unique for and unrivaled in Germany. That being said, Berlin hosts a lot of NIMBYism. Particularly by people who gentrified the city in the first place and immediately turned to become fierce gentrification enemies. Essentially locking in their gains.

simonh 8y ago
Though presumably not financial gains? Gentrification usually implies skyrocketing property valuations, so early movers should stand to win big from the trend. I used to know someone that bought a flat in Soho, central London, in the mid-90s. She sold it when she married 8 years later and made over half a million quid. No idea what it would be worth now.
- detaro 8y ago
  People generally do not own their flats in German cities, its almost entirely a rental market. Can't find entirely up-to-date numbers, but <20 %, probably closer to 15 % in Berlin (including people owning single-family homes in the periphery)
- thomasz 8y ago
  Germany in general, and Berlin in particular has a very low percentage of home owners. Therefore, financial profit from gentrification goes to a small elite, maybe the upper 15%.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Berlin has a very different attitude to all of this than the UK. Rent control; graffiti isn’t property damage; very low rates of property ownership; city centre anarchist camps (at least, I think that’s what I saw); blurred Google Street View images all over the place… I have recently moved here from the UK and it feels like much I have barely scratched the surface of the differences. I doubt the concept of gentrification translates as well as a dictionary might suggest.
- woodpanel 8y ago
  It's gentrificators that become anti-gentrification activists once they secured their gain. The "gain" in this case is: 1) Getting to transform a neighbourhood (that you weren't a part of before) however it fancies you, while simultaneously prohibiting those that come after you from doing the same. 2) locking in the low rents you have to pay. While keeping supply of housing artificially low you're thus increasing the rent-gap between what you have to pay and those that move in after you. As the other commenters noted, Germany has a low home-ownership rate (good thing IMO but a whole different story). Because of strict laws on how to increase rents, gentrificators can secure themselves the low rents from before gentrification. It is not uncommon that one neighbour tenant in the same house pays two times your rent.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    > It is not uncommon that one neighbour tenant in the same house pays two times your rent In the US, it is not uncommon that one neighbor homeowner next door pays two times your mortgage. I would be interested in your story about home-ownership, but difference in pricing due to time of arrival doesn't seem like a differentiator between renting and buying.
    - woodpanel 8y ago
      if I get you right, you want to know the reasons why I‘m in favor of low-ownership rates. On top of my head: - Economics of scale: housing companies provide more quality/ € than your landlord that owns one flat or even what most owner-occupiers can reasonably provide for themself. - Real Estate is a Commodity, yes. Owning that is an investment, yes. But living in one isn‘t. It’s a product that you use. We should stop telling people otherwise. A house is not your retirement. - Austria, Germany and Switzerland are the countries with the world‘s lowest home-ownership rate. Putting them in that order, you also get their GDPs (Switzerland being the richest) as well as the lowest ownership-rate. That clarifies some myths: a) that low rate has anything to do with WW2 (it doesn’t) b) that high ownership rates benefit the people (it doesn’t, Third world countries have ownership rates topping 90%)
camillomiller 8y ago
This makes no sense. Berlin is a rent city, not a ownership one. So what’s the incredible gain to lock?
- woodpanel 8y ago
  Please see my other comments. But building on the idea, that because Germany/Berlin being a tenant place there are no gains to lock in - that logic would then conclude that there can't be gentrification at all. Which is of course nonsensical. Gentrificators don't need to be property owners, in fact gentrification theory explicitly states the opposite: that it's usually new tenants that change poor/working-class neighborhoods and spark the gentrification process. Those tenants are so called "pioneers", usually high educated, creative class, affluent and thus able to buy property even after the gentrification process has started.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Berlin has extensive rent control. So it likely the same situation as San Francisco: a significant portion of renters enjoy a privileged rent price and aren't affected by rising housing costs. While people in non-rent controlled cities like Seattle accept development, people in rent controlled cities oppose development because they don't want their neighborhood to change and they are insulated from rising rents.
  - camillomiller 8y ago
    The situation in both Seattle and San Francisco is effed-up big time, and that's because of Big Tech. There's no comparison yet with Berlin, and Berliners simply showed that social cohesion still counts. It's a fight against tone deaf giants that can't see themselves doing any harm ever in the name of progress. What happened to Google in Berlin was the best possible outcome.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      The situation in San Francisco is mostly due to NIMBYism and a refusal to build housing. Tech jobs don't magically make housing prices rise - shortages of housing make housing prices rise. Seattle is handling this better than SF, in large part because SF had messed with the natural interaction of supply and demand. Given what the above commenter wrote, Berlin looks like it is in the same situation as SF: trying to solve a housing shortage by discouraging demand rather than increasing supply.
mkirklions 8y ago
It is too soon to declare this was a 'good idea'. Historically investment in a city has benefited a city. This is the opposite. I wonder who was behind the protest, was it the established tech players and wanted to keep competition out? This seems like a mild form of isolationism, and again, if we use history, this seems like a bad idea.
chobeat 8y ago
It's also that Berlin is heavily radicalized and can radicalize even the worst STEMlord. So after moving here it's not rare to get into politics and understand that, on a local scale, your decisions matter.

simonh 8y ago

Though presumably not financial gains? Gentrification usually implies skyrocketing property valuations, so early movers should stand to win big from the trend. I used to know someone that bought a flat in Soho, central London, in the mid-90s. She sold it when she married 8 years later and made over half a million quid. No idea what it would be worth now.

detaro 8y ago
People generally do not own their flats in German cities, its almost entirely a rental market. Can't find entirely up-to-date numbers, but <20 %, probably closer to 15 % in Berlin (including people owning single-family homes in the periphery)
thomasz 8y ago
Germany in general, and Berlin in particular has a very low percentage of home owners. Therefore, financial profit from gentrification goes to a small elite, maybe the upper 15%.
ben_w 8y ago
Berlin has a very different attitude to all of this than the UK. Rent control; graffiti isn’t property damage; very low rates of property ownership; city centre anarchist camps (at least, I think that’s what I saw); blurred Google Street View images all over the place… I have recently moved here from the UK and it feels like much I have barely scratched the surface of the differences. I doubt the concept of gentrification translates as well as a dictionary might suggest.
woodpanel 8y ago
It's gentrificators that become anti-gentrification activists once they secured their gain. The "gain" in this case is: 1) Getting to transform a neighbourhood (that you weren't a part of before) however it fancies you, while simultaneously prohibiting those that come after you from doing the same. 2) locking in the low rents you have to pay. While keeping supply of housing artificially low you're thus increasing the rent-gap between what you have to pay and those that move in after you. As the other commenters noted, Germany has a low home-ownership rate (good thing IMO but a whole different story). Because of strict laws on how to increase rents, gentrificators can secure themselves the low rents from before gentrification. It is not uncommon that one neighbour tenant in the same house pays two times your rent.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  > It is not uncommon that one neighbour tenant in the same house pays two times your rent In the US, it is not uncommon that one neighbor homeowner next door pays two times your mortgage. I would be interested in your story about home-ownership, but difference in pricing due to time of arrival doesn't seem like a differentiator between renting and buying.
  - woodpanel 8y ago
    if I get you right, you want to know the reasons why I‘m in favor of low-ownership rates. On top of my head: - Economics of scale: housing companies provide more quality/ € than your landlord that owns one flat or even what most owner-occupiers can reasonably provide for themself. - Real Estate is a Commodity, yes. Owning that is an investment, yes. But living in one isn‘t. It’s a product that you use. We should stop telling people otherwise. A house is not your retirement. - Austria, Germany and Switzerland are the countries with the world‘s lowest home-ownership rate. Putting them in that order, you also get their GDPs (Switzerland being the richest) as well as the lowest ownership-rate. That clarifies some myths: a) that low rate has anything to do with WW2 (it doesn’t) b) that high ownership rates benefit the people (it doesn’t, Third world countries have ownership rates topping 90%)

camillomiller 8y ago

This makes no sense. Berlin is a rent city, not a ownership one. So what’s the incredible gain to lock?

woodpanel 8y ago
Please see my other comments. But building on the idea, that because Germany/Berlin being a tenant place there are no gains to lock in - that logic would then conclude that there can't be gentrification at all. Which is of course nonsensical. Gentrificators don't need to be property owners, in fact gentrification theory explicitly states the opposite: that it's usually new tenants that change poor/working-class neighborhoods and spark the gentrification process. Those tenants are so called "pioneers", usually high educated, creative class, affluent and thus able to buy property even after the gentrification process has started.
manfredo 8y ago
Berlin has extensive rent control. So it likely the same situation as San Francisco: a significant portion of renters enjoy a privileged rent price and aren't affected by rising housing costs. While people in non-rent controlled cities like Seattle accept development, people in rent controlled cities oppose development because they don't want their neighborhood to change and they are insulated from rising rents.
- camillomiller 8y ago
  The situation in both Seattle and San Francisco is effed-up big time, and that's because of Big Tech. There's no comparison yet with Berlin, and Berliners simply showed that social cohesion still counts. It's a fight against tone deaf giants that can't see themselves doing any harm ever in the name of progress. What happened to Google in Berlin was the best possible outcome.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    The situation in San Francisco is mostly due to NIMBYism and a refusal to build housing. Tech jobs don't magically make housing prices rise - shortages of housing make housing prices rise. Seattle is handling this better than SF, in large part because SF had messed with the natural interaction of supply and demand. Given what the above commenter wrote, Berlin looks like it is in the same situation as SF: trying to solve a housing shortage by discouraging demand rather than increasing supply.

mkirklions 8y ago

It is too soon to declare this was a 'good idea'. Historically investment in a city has benefited a city. This is the opposite. I wonder who was behind the protest, was it the established tech players and wanted to keep competition out? This seems like a mild form of isolationism, and again, if we use history, this seems like a bad idea.

chobeat 8y ago

It's also that Berlin is heavily radicalized and can radicalize even the worst STEMlord. So after moving here it's not rare to get into politics and understand that, on a local scale, your decisions matter.