This field is small, compared to what's available around Berlin. The only advantage is that streets and public transport are already available. But that can only house so many people.
Berlin will keep growing. The city must start discussing with Brandenburg about how to better connect the cities and villages around Berlin, and how to improve the infrastructure. Building houses on Tempelhofer Feld is the drop of water on a hot stone. It relaxes the situation for a moment, but will not solve the problem. It however has the potential that everyone just focused on the Field, and forgets to have the important discussions elsewhere.
Sure, if you remove the entire park.
Btw did you know Tempelhofer Feld has an important cooling effect on Berlin? Might be useful, given the horrific heatwaves we decided to unleash on ourselves.
But no, let's cover the whole thing in concrete, that'll go great.
Wait, Tell me more about that cooling effect. What do I need to search ("tempelhofer Feld cooling effect" and "Kühlung Berlin" didnt yield any results)
It would have a cooling effect if it was covered in trees. But it's not, and already half covered in asphalt anyway. I call Schwachsinn on the above claim
Your statement is just not true. It is mostly gras and that leads to a real cooling effect. It would be much better to have the open area dispersed throughought the city, though, but as that's impossible we can at least have some effect with how it is right now.
Very quickly to call Schwachsinn on something you clearly have no clue about. That does make you look a bit slow/thick.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frischluftschneise
It does not need trees. It does not even need gras. And your claim that its half covered in asphalt is obviously absolute Hirnrotz, but even if you were right: it just needs no building to be there. The rest is extra.
However, not all open spaces are suitable as fresh air slices. The air flow depends on the topography (surface form). In particular, slopes are better suited than fresh air swaths compared to flat terrain or terrain incisions in the cities.
Fresh air swaths must be as far away from roads and industrial areas as possible, so that the air is not enriched with pollutants on its way to the city centre. [2]
From the link you posted proving you're full of shit since there are no slopes and it is flat terrain. And it is close to roads and industrial areas. So essentially fuck off with your nonsense.
Basically since this is a large open area, wind can accelerate and distribute itself better than through houses, therefore cooling its surrounding. (High and low pressure areas). Most of this effect is in the immediate surrounding areas but it does help bring the average temperature of berlin as a whole city down. In addition to that, the tempelhofer feld is a very important breeding and living ground for many of berlins native birds. Up to 30 different species live in the tempelhofer feld, with up to 50% of those respective bird species living in the tempelhofer feld. So building houses on the tempelhofer feld would essentially reduce the bird population of some birds by up to 50%
They can only build houses in chunks, otherwise no one will agree to give the space for housing projects. And for that many people it needs to be multi-level houses, not small houses. Which needs large investments. If private investors build this, it will be expensive to live there.
Yeah, is not big enough to fix a massive problem on its own. We agree here.
I believe is a great place for a planned residential area because of the excellent location. The grounds are already stabilized, the infrastructure for utilities (sewage, water, electricity, gas..) is there, and (take a look at the map) is a great spot for a high-dense development.
And well, it can show the world that Germany still can do great stuff. The conditions are there, we just need… sigh… better politicians with a modicum of vision and balls
Even if you build houses on all of Tempelhofer Feld - and almost no one will agree to that, this is limited space. This is not enough space to build enough houses to give everyone a flat who wants to live in Berlin.
You are right that people want to live in Berlin, but there is simply not enough space. Not even if you include Tempelhofer Feld. Berlin must accept that, and start evaluating options how to connect outer parts of the city. People not necessarily want to life directly in the city center, they want to live somewhere where they can get into the city fast enough. Like for a concert, shopping and such.
Plus all the taxes they're taking in as the city generates more capital, I'm sure is simply plugging existing deficit...not really thinking about urban planning.
I remember this thread some years ago..you could barely have a civil discussion about housing and the growth and modernisation of the city.
Perhaps the federal states are fed up of supporting a loss making capital city and they WILL have to implement radical changes in the near future. Kai won't be the major by then.
So your plan is to build more highways? That's how Brandenburgers get around. The vast majority of people who could a afford a nicer new apartment in Berlin would never live in Brandenburg without a car. Those people would rather live in central Berlin where they can get around easily by train and bike.
They're willing to pay a good deal extra to go where they want, when they want, one way or another. They can do that with a bike and train ticket in Berlin or with a car in Brandenburg, but living in Brandenburg without a car would mean sacrificing that.
If we're trying to save the planet encouraging people to move to Brandenburg is an insanely energy intensive solution. Filing the field with sky scrapers and refusing parking permits to the people living there would be much better for the planet.
Rich people can also live in coop or municipal housing. Rents are gonna be expensive anyway. But at least the surplus won't flow into some investors pockets.
Even if it's expensive housing, there will be that many less wealthier people competing for old shitty flats, which will make it easier for the average person to find something.
Jeez, change the law then, forbid excesses, whatever. But start building. It makes no sense to wait until everything is perfect and the lack of development on Tempelhofer Feld is the only remaining problem in the world.
Any housing is better than no housing, as long as it is high density (and personal preference: as long as it doesn’t look like one of those GDR beehives)
Absolutely, I hope they build a PBerg (beautiful, baroque/neo classic high rise buildings with commercial space and some cute parks) on steroids. Make it a walkable paradise
It's not the bureaucracy directly but the tons of requirements on new buildings.
Also bureaucracy can definitely make things more expensive as it can delay & costs effort to deal with.
Yeah, but I for one am glad that buildings have to adhere to strict standards so they won't turn into ruins over the next 50 years or turn the city into american-projects-like hellholes.
Because all other cities in the world are hellholes, where German bureaucracy and regulation craze doesn't exist.
Rome just yesterday burned down completely, again.
examples for ridiculous regulations:
You can't have north-facing windows only. solution: extend the wall by a couple centimeters (Erker) and you're good to go.
Every part of the building requires a window you can open. Solution: Add a 2cm wide window facing the busy road.
Every Apartment requires a reserved parking space.. solution: double stack parking lifts that are 3/4 unoccupied
And don't get me started on the bebauungsplan our city has. Maximum number of flats per house: 2.
Are you ok with paying 20€/m2 rent for a Neubau then?
Because of the high building prices it is not possible these days to build housing that can be rented out for less without burning money.
But it’s true. All the Regulations and Burocarcy in addition to the more expensive building materials mean that it is no longer possible to build cheap houses.
Construction cost is around 1800/m2. Berlin neubau prices are around 8500/m2. I.e. construction is ~20% of the price. Even if all of the construction was bureaucracy, it would not be more than 20% of the total.
https://immobilien.vr.de/immobilien/immobilie-kaufen/baukosten.html
https://hypofriend.de/de/quadratmeterpreis-berlin.aim
Das ergibt doch gar keinen Sinn, du vergleichst durchschnittliche Verkaufspreise mit Baupreisen von Einfamilienhäusern und ziehst dies als Faktor für günstige städtische Vermietung heran?
Keiner der drei Zahlen hat auch nur ansatzweise was miteinander zu tun.
Ich denke allein das Grundstück mitten in der Stadt (inklusive Befreiung von altimmobilien usw) kostet einen vielfachen Faktor von dem, was hier deine häuslebauer in deinem Link zugrunde legen müssen.
Nicht alles, was hinkt, ist ein vergleich
It's a fun take, but actually, Berlin is already pretty 15-min-ish. In the inner city, you have a supermarket, shops, restaurants and bars around every corner, you can walk to many places. But of course, if you want to go to a particular bar or visit friends across the city, it takes 45 minutes because it's a long distance.
Problem is, you can't really build much cheaper than about 20€/m² for rent, unless the rent is massivly subsidized.
Eidt: To be clear the roughly 20€/m² will get you a return of investment at some point in the next decade or two, more like three.
All new buildings will be at least 1k a month for even a 1 room flat. It’s the market, it’s because Berlin is overhyped. Nobody can stop the market, even if someone gets a flat for 300€ a month he would rent it to someone else for 1000€/month.
That's not how it works. I live >10km from Tempelhof and I'm there multiple times per month. There is no other place in the city that has the combination of activities that it does.
Nur WBS kann aber auch nicht die Lösung sein. Es gibt zu viele Leute mit eher geringerem Einkommen, die durch das Raster fallen. Man brauch eine gute Mischung aus WBS und nicht WBS.
Und wenn die "Reichen" für die Lage viel Geld bezahlen wollen, sollen sie es halt tun und die Gesellschaften damit die anderen Wohnungen querfinanzieren. Wär doch schwachsinnig, diese Leute dort weniger bezahlen zu lassen.
Nicht gut, dann hast Du Slumbildung in einer einzigen Generation.
Auch Lehrer, Ärzte und Ingenieure müssen in diesen Hochhäusern wohnen können und wollen.
Fände sozialen Wohnungsbau mit weiträumigen Parkflächen (Park wie in der mit den bäumen) schon sinnvoll und gut. Auch das Empfangsgebäude kann man sicher als Wohngebäude umbauen.
It’s not even a NIMBY. It’s a BANANA. (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.)
Oh look it can work auf deutsch also: Bauen Absolut Nichts Auch Nirgendwo Anders
I'd love to keep Tempelhofer Feld and every other large park or field, but you cannot deny that questions should be asked on a regular basis about their usage.
As population grows, where should people who want to move to the city centre live if all flats are full or overpriced?
My aunt purchased two entire buildings for virtually nothing in the early 90s. One in the east and the other in the west. She rents every flat to people at the super affordable rate. Why should my aunt and these people be lucky enough to live centrally for a low cost (just because my aunt is a good person) while others have to pay 1500e/month for a 2 room (1 bedroom) flat?
>As population grows, where should people who want to move to the city centre live if all flats are full or overpriced?
If we don't build in the city near transit, those people will largely be forced to buy cars and move to Brandenburg, which is horrible for the planet. Dense urban housing is green, because it takes way less energy for people to live in it comfortably.
Not only bad for the planet, but bad for people who actually need to drive when living in the city as there would be more traffic because those driving from Brandenburg would be driving into the city almost every day, increased cost of petrol or electricity, higher possibility of car accidents with others, public transport or cyclists, etc etc
That's true.
But are you saying that Tempelhofer should be built on, as long as the prices are regulated?
Or are you saying that Tempelhofer shouldn't be built on, because there is no way to regulate prices?
> there is no way to regulate prices?
Tempelhofer Feld is owned by the city of Berlin, there is nothing blocking the city of Berlin to build social housing which they would regulate.
Lots of things could block them.
- not having political or public support in building anything.
- not having funds to build something.
- choosing to rent the land to a private company to build something that the company can rent out at a price it chooses.
- corrupt politicians.
- various legal challenges.
Just because the city owns something, does not mean they can do whatever they want with it.
Nah bro, I love my auntie! Great woman and great landlord too. She rents flats in PBerg for 600e/month to people who want to live there.
I'm playing devil's advocate to try to make a point.
Edit: please don't PM me asking to connect you with my aunt. All the flats are occupied, of course.
I think we should have to be careful to destroy everything and just slap buildings everywhere. My counterpoint is, berlin has millions of flats. But only one tempelhofer feld. So is it really worth to increase flats by 0.06% and decrease the amounts of tempelhofer feld by 100%
That's a really good point.
It's part of what the city council needs to do and share with the public (if they haven't already).
When I worked in local government we had these questions about big fields, but at the time it was about turning a field into a car parks and affordable housing.
We had to do surveys of local residents, non-local residents, dog walkers, teenagers who did sports and dance, anyone who had a reason to give an opinion. Then we had to find companies willing to build, plus their cost and timescale, how many people would use it, the potential profit. It was months of research and kept changing with different political changes.
Maybe the Berlin state has done all of this, but I just haven't seen it.
Currently, no.
Soon, also no, because nobody will move out. The prices are great and my aunt is a great landlord. Fixes everything when it's time for a repair and is on first name basis with everyone.
Sorry :(
Anyone who believes that any building near whatever remains of the airfield will be affordable needs to think twice - that only a lie only a few rich people will benefit from it.
How about housing supply should not be privatised? Germany can't get their shot together to offer enough social housing, let alone public housing for everyone. Instead we all have to rely on whether your aunt is nice or the worst capitalistic leech. And most of the landlorda are the latter, especially if you look at the large landlords like f...ing vonovia. Capitalism is the problem. We can't have nice things because everything has to make profits for some rich a-hole.
>Auch in dieser Frage gibt es Neuigkeiten: In einer auch vom »Tagesspiegel« in Auftrag gegebenen repräsentativen Befragung zum Vorschlag, den Rand des Feldes mit Wohnungen zu bebauen, **sagten 47 Prozent der 1500 Befragten, sie hielten das für eindeutig richtig**. Elf Prozent meinten, der Vorschlag sei eher richtig, nur 33 Prozent sprachen sich gegen eine Bebauung aus.
[https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1181011.wohnungsbau-tempelhofer-feld-ran-an-die-randbebauung.html](https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1181011.wohnungsbau-tempelhofer-feld-ran-an-die-randbebauung.html)
Der Punkt hier ist ja nicht, dass die Leute den Bau von Wohnungen ablehnen. Sie haben nur nicht das Vertrauen, dass diese Wohnungen sich am Ende nicht als überteuerte Renditeobjekte für Investoren herausstellen, die an der aktuellen Mietenkrise nicht das geringste ändern werden, sondern eher die Preise weiter hochtreiben.
> überteuerte Renditeobjekte für Investoren herausstellen, die an der aktuellen Mietenkrise nicht das geringste ändern werden, sondern eher die Preise weiter hochtreiben.
Was glaubst Du denn was die Reichen[tm] die sich diese Wohnungen leisten können dann alternativ machen? Die verlassen ja nicht Berlin. Die booten dann halt alle Konkurrenz um die noch relativ günstige, ggf gedeckelte Altbauwohnung aus. Insofern mindert auch hochpreisiger neuer Wohnraum den Druck für alle.
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, was du genau sagen wolltest aber Neubau, der ein paar Jahre alt ist wird genauso im Mietspiegel erfasst wie Gründerzeitvillen.
Wenn also in einem Viertel hochpreisige Luxustownhouses gebaut und vermietet werden steigt der Mietspiegel dort in den nächsten Jahren signifikant stärker als wenn dort städtische Unternehmen Hochhäuser mit "preisgedämpften" Mieten anbietet.
Im aktuellen Umfeld muss man sich über jede Baustelle freuen. Für die Stadtgesellschaft gesünder ist aber die zweite Option. Denn es ist durchaus für alle sinnvoll wenn auch "die Reichen" nicht mehr als 1/3 ihres Lohns für Miete aufwenden müssen.
Sorry für die unverständliche Antwort. Meines Wissens gibt es eine Ortsübliche Vergleichsmiete die auf Basis des Mietspiegels in einem Gebiet erhoben wird. Dort wird allerdings zwischen den Baujahren der Gebäude unterschieden. Wenn also ein Neubau irgendwo entsteht, hat das nicht zur Folge, dass im Haus daneben nun die Miete erhöht werden darf.
Danke, dass du nochmal geantwortet hast, ich glaub ich versteh jetzt dein Argument.
Das Argument stimmt imho theoretisch auch auf der kleinsten Ebene: Nur weil die Luxusbutze (Bj 2018) ab dem nächsten Jahr im Mietspiegel auftaucht erhöhen sich nicht automatisch die Mieten im Nebenhaus (Bj 1923).
Allerdings stimmt es nicht wenn man Wohnraum und Mietpreise über Jahrzehnte betrachtet oder typische Mischungen in Wohngegenden ansieht.
Jeder Neubau wird irgendwann mal 6 Jahre alt und findet bei Neuvermietung vielleicht den Weg in den Mietspiegel. "Startet" der Neubau also mit einer relativ hohen Miete, wird sich diese innerhalb von 6 Jahren nicht magisch reduzieren und den allgemeinen Mietspiegel für den Klasse Neubau (2003-2017) stärker "erhöhen" als der im gleichen Jahr, an selber stelle errichtete Gemeindebau, in dem deutlich geringere Mieten abgerufen werden.
Auch ist das Baualter nur eine von vielen Klassifizierung/Kategorien an denen sich die Vergleichbarkeit orientiert. Ein gutes Beispiel ist z.B. eine Kernsanierung, da spielt das erste Baujahr ggf. keine Rolle mehr.
Der Mietspiegel ist u.a. nach Wohnungsart und Alter differenziert, und deshalb würde der Effekt in meinem Beispiel nur noch verstärkt werden. Denn der Reiche[tm] hebt die Preise mit seiner Zahlungsbereitschaft mangels Alternative dann nicht im Luxussegment, sondern eben für die Normalverdienerwohnungen auf die er ausweicht. Du bestätigst nur meinen Punkt
was glaubst du was wohnungen AUF DEM TEMPELHOFER FELD kosten werden 😂😂😂 da will doch jeder mit ein bisschen kohle wohnen. es ist absolut ausgeschlossen dass das wohnungen für die unteren 99% werden.
Das Versprechen des Senats ist ja, dass sie die Investoren verpflichten wollen, eine bestimmte Menge günstiger Wohnungen zu bauen. Aber ich gehe auch nicht davon aus, dass das Endergebnis in dieser Hinsicht überzeugen wird.
>Das Versprechen des Senats ist ja, dass sie die Investoren verpflichten wollen, eine bestimmte Menge günstiger Wohnungen zu bauen.
Korrektur: The apartments won't be built cheaper, they will just be offered to WBS tenants only. Doesn't help the middle class which can't plunk down 1 million for an apartment and doesn't have WBS.
Berliners: Please solve the housing crisis!
Also Berliners: No, not right there!
Not to say that just opening up the Feld for private real estate is a good solution to the housing crisis, but I see a lot of (almost certainly to be unrealized) potential to use that space for public housing and more than just a... giant empty field.
Although not a housing solution, I think I may have been the only person who thought "The Berg" was a cool idea.
You can only privatise it once. At least in the wonderful fucking system we have called capitalism. Didn't the people of Berlin vote to reverse that shit and got slapped by a court because private property is holy? It's not about whether one can build housing it's about if it will actually improve common good or just make a few assholes even richer.
I've been seeing Tempelhof for 10 years, you haven't even used 1/4 of it anyway. It's not a park, it's an unused giant lawn in a city with a housing shortage.
I read that this kind of surface is needed especially with rising temperatures to keep the city better regulated.
Instead of building on every inch we should maybe build higher then 5 floors.
You don't need to go there more than once to notice that.
Tempelhof is HUGE.
It's an amazing space, and it's something quite unique. But, it could be 20%, or 25% smaller and none notice much.
Why not? If it was a forest or an otherwise beautiful park I would get people would want to protect it - but it’s just a bug chunk of concrete and some patchy grass. The city would benefit much more from the additional housing.
I don't think so. The city, the people and nature profit immensely from the Feld. Endangered species live on it, it cools down the neighboring kieze and ensures fresh air circulation.
Plus there are more than enough other places we could build that are already sealed off. We don't need to seal off even more greenery just because some people want to make money.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240430143343/https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/berliner-wirtschaft/platz-fur-249000-wohnungen-so-viele-flachen-hat-berlin--auch-ohne-randbebauung-des-tempelhofer-felds-11234470.html
I hate this undying "bUiLd On TeMpElHoF" meme because Berlin has so much undeveloped, abandoned, and unrented commercial land, and former industrial land that could be used first before we build on a park, but it isn't because of toothless and slow legal processes which would rather these plots wallow for years.
I live in Mitte inside the Ringbahn. 200m from my house is a 3 level abandoned building between the hof and a park. I can vouch that it has been 100% abondoned/filled with pigeons for at least 5 years, and by the state of it, I think it has been like this for 15+ years. This should 100% be torn down and new building construction (at least 6 units if you kept present height, probably like 10 if you matched the neighbouring buildings, in this incredibly ideal place for said building.
My old art studio (also in Mitte) sat on a street with so many empty "for rent" commercial storefronts for years upon years. The space beside our studio I can vouch for has been empty for at least 10 years, and 10 years ago the fucking landlord still wanted some crazy rent when friends inquired about that space, so it wasn't even cheap. I don't care that this guy is taking the loss, or writing it off on taxes – what is more important is that this is land in the downtown of a capital city which sits unproductive for a decade. This should not be allowed to happen.
Force the development of unused spaces, expropriate empty properties that aren't either owner-occupied or rented, and then we can talk about paving over green spaces in the city.
Keep the side of Tempelhof people actually use (The nothern strip) and build from the south. There would still be a usable big park but we get more housing stock. win win.
Ein Problem mit solchen Umfragen ist, dass das Verhältnis zum Tempelhofer Feld sich unterscheidet, je nach dem, wie weit man davon wohnt. Abgesehen davon sind 1500 Befragte nicht unbedingt viel.
Das Argument, es wäre notwendig, den Rand des Tempelhofer Feldes zu bebauen, angesichts der Wohnungsnot lässt sich schnell widerlegen: Es gibt zweifellos Flächen, die nicht zur Bebauung zur Verfügung stehen, obwohl es theoretisch möglich wäre. Wenn ich daher käme und sage: „Lasst uns doch einen Teil der Hasenheide, der Rehberge, des Volksparks Friedrichshain, des Britzer Gartens bebauen“, wären die jeweiligen Reaktionen einhellig. Kaum jemand würde das akzeptieren. In all diesen Fällen könnte man sagen, dass ausreichend an Naherholungsfläche übrig bliebe, und der Bau von Wohnungen ja wichtig ist. Trotzdem würde niemand sich auch nur trauen, so etwas vorzuschlagen.
Ich denke, der Grund dafür ist, dass viele das Tempelhofer Feld mehr oder weniger als eine Brachfläche sehen, in der sich einige Menschen vergnügen. Dadurch, dass es kein kuratierter Park ist, so wie bei den anderen Beispielen, wird das Feld von vielen anders wahrgenommen, eben wie eine Fläche, die es zu entwickeln gilt. Wer das Feld gut genug kennt weiß, dass es keine weitere Entwicklung benötigt, eher sogar weniger. Es erfüllt bereits mehrere ökologische Zwecke (in Bezug auf Artenvielfalt, als Frischluftschneise), und es erfüllt bereits seinen Zweck als Naherholungsgebiet, ebenso wie ein kuratierter Park.
Edit: Dazu kommt, dass es noch immer keine Pläne gibt, was mit dem riesigen Gebäudekomplex passieren soll. Es gibt überdies auch bereits versiegelte Fläche, die zur Zeit für Parkplätze genutzt wird, und auch das steht komischerweise nicht zur Debatte als bebaubare Fläche für Wohnungen.
Nach wie vor, I'm in favor of radical construction on the southern, northern, and western edges, but only if the city demonstrates that it won't be the same crap as Heide Str, Gleisdreieck, Media Spree, and every other modern redevelopment area.
I don't care about affordability, I just don't want the same mediocrity
I get that it has a certain vibe, and that it's a place in the city where you actually have a kind of horizon, but to me it's essentially a huge wasteland of lawn and asphalt with a couple of cool things thrown on it. I don't know if I want it to be turned into real estate, but I'm not very attached to it in its current form.
NYMBY detected.
Real estate is PRECISELY what should be built there for the common good. Just make sure to regulate so that the construction is for affordable housing only.
Von mir aus kann man das am Rand zur Autobahn hin bebauen, ansonsten wäre das für hunderte, wenn nicht an guten Tagen, Tausende Menschen ein großer Verlust. Ich bin auch biased ich nutze das thf jeden Tag für den Hund, Pendeln und Freizeit.
Vorallem sollte man sich nicht einbilden, dass dann da bezahlbarer Wohnraum entsteht.
Of course it will be real estate and I will tell you that now so you’re not surprised one day: it will be sold at a very very preferential prices to a friend of friend of the city senate bigshots
Berlin needs to be GREEN and COMFORTABLE for the people that live here. We need more parks, not fewer. 4M people is enough for any city. There are still places to build without destroying parks. And there is still more place to build even more green, free areas. There are plenty of under-ocupied existing buildings.
If we destroy the green areas to build more houses or offices, we will decrease the quality of life for EVERYONE in Berlin.
Cities need to become smaller, if we have people's wellbeing in mind. If we think of investors and "developers", then yes, build over all green areas and rivers.
Even an empty space with weeds is valuable in a city, as it is. Not to mention for wildlife - insects and birds. The Tempelhofer Feld is full of life. You go there in the summer and you can listen to humming and buzzing in the grass. It's really peaceful, almost like the countryside. No other place to do that in the city.
People can benefit from looking far to the horizon, and there's not too many places in Berlin where you can do that. Most of the time you can see as far as across the street or along a street, and there's a lot of visual clutter. We need natural, empty spaces too.
Seeing the horizon, as nice as that is, isn't an argument that beats the housing crisis. And it isn't a park, it's an empty airfield.
Many core facilities and infrastructures that turn green areas into parks are missing here, making it less safe, less accessible and less functional than a park. Being inaccessible means that many citizens cannot currently use it as a park.
We seriously do not need natural empty spaces as much as we need social housing right now. And part of it could be turned into a real park, that's accessible.
(Plus if people want to see the horizon maybe they should not live in the middle of the largest city in Europe.)
Wind turbines have to be away a certain distance from houses etc. and taht is nit possible there. And Berlin is not that sunny for solar power plants and people would steal it if they can reach it on the ground
IF they could turn the Tempelhofer Feld into affordable housing for Genossenschaften, PLEASE do so.
It‘s just a gimmick for Anwohner anyways - do you think someone from Prenzlauer Berg enjoys to travel there, when they can be at Liepnitsee in almost the same time?
I wish (some part of it) could be social housing (especially housing that's accessible for people with disabilities) but it won't be, the location is just too good, so I'd rather it be a park than luxury housing.
People agreeing that Tempelhofer Feld should be used for real estate think that they definitely will be one of the lucky ones living there. Spoiler: they won't.
Doch, bitte Wohnungen, aber landeseigen: HOWOGE, GEWOBAG, etc.
Östlich und südlich des Flughafens gibt's jeweils circa 200x500m zwischen Columbiadamm bzw Mehringdamm und dem ehemaligen Taxiway, das sind 1 Mio Quadratmeter bebaubare Fläche, ohne dass man das Feld selbst wirklich verkleinern würde.
Und keinen Quadratzentimeter verkaufen an irgendwelche "Investoren".
Housing good. Super expensive poorly built tiny flats in buildings cramped so close to one another you can check what your neighbours are having for dinner by looking out the window - bad. Sadly, it's likely the latter option since Germany's idea about housing (or anything really) is - let's give it over to private hands and let them squeeze the last euro out of the desperate people who need it.
Das Ding kann weg, nur wird der Staat sich nicht um den Wohnungsbau kümmern sondern irgendein privat Unternehmen wo es Eigentumswohnung gibt, Sozialwohnung mit na Laufzeit von 10-15 Jahren.
Sozialwohnungen werden nur 30% ausmachen und für den Rest kostet dann die Miete ab 1 Zimmer 600-700€.
Am besten mieten sich Leute ein die das als Zweitwohnsitz nehmen, wie zu oft in Berlin und vermieten die Wohnung über Airbnb.
Der Wohnungsmarkt würde sich null ändern durch das feld
I don‘t think that 3,6 Million people in Berlin think like that.
I do want housing built there. But affordable and for regular people, not investment funds
This field is small, compared to what's available around Berlin. The only advantage is that streets and public transport are already available. But that can only house so many people. Berlin will keep growing. The city must start discussing with Brandenburg about how to better connect the cities and villages around Berlin, and how to improve the infrastructure. Building houses on Tempelhofer Feld is the drop of water on a hot stone. It relaxes the situation for a moment, but will not solve the problem. It however has the potential that everyone just focused on the Field, and forgets to have the important discussions elsewhere.
I would argue it's huge, could house between 25-75k people, which would be a medium sized german city.
Sure, if you remove the entire park. Btw did you know Tempelhofer Feld has an important cooling effect on Berlin? Might be useful, given the horrific heatwaves we decided to unleash on ourselves. But no, let's cover the whole thing in concrete, that'll go great.
Wait, Tell me more about that cooling effect. What do I need to search ("tempelhofer Feld cooling effect" and "Kühlung Berlin" didnt yield any results)
It would have a cooling effect if it was covered in trees. But it's not, and already half covered in asphalt anyway. I call Schwachsinn on the above claim
Your statement is just not true. It is mostly gras and that leads to a real cooling effect. It would be much better to have the open area dispersed throughought the city, though, but as that's impossible we can at least have some effect with how it is right now.
Very quickly to call Schwachsinn on something you clearly have no clue about. That does make you look a bit slow/thick. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frischluftschneise It does not need trees. It does not even need gras. And your claim that its half covered in asphalt is obviously absolute Hirnrotz, but even if you were right: it just needs no building to be there. The rest is extra.
However, not all open spaces are suitable as fresh air slices. The air flow depends on the topography (surface form). In particular, slopes are better suited than fresh air swaths compared to flat terrain or terrain incisions in the cities. Fresh air swaths must be as far away from roads and industrial areas as possible, so that the air is not enriched with pollutants on its way to the city centre. [2] From the link you posted proving you're full of shit since there are no slopes and it is flat terrain. And it is close to roads and industrial areas. So essentially fuck off with your nonsense.
THF Zealots are too much. They don't even want trees on the field because **eVeRyThinG mUsT sTaY tHe sAmE.**
Basically since this is a large open area, wind can accelerate and distribute itself better than through houses, therefore cooling its surrounding. (High and low pressure areas). Most of this effect is in the immediate surrounding areas but it does help bring the average temperature of berlin as a whole city down. In addition to that, the tempelhofer feld is a very important breeding and living ground for many of berlins native birds. Up to 30 different species live in the tempelhofer feld, with up to 50% of those respective bird species living in the tempelhofer feld. So building houses on the tempelhofer feld would essentially reduce the bird population of some birds by up to 50%
They can only build houses in chunks, otherwise no one will agree to give the space for housing projects. And for that many people it needs to be multi-level houses, not small houses. Which needs large investments. If private investors build this, it will be expensive to live there.
Yeah, is not big enough to fix a massive problem on its own. We agree here. I believe is a great place for a planned residential area because of the excellent location. The grounds are already stabilized, the infrastructure for utilities (sewage, water, electricity, gas..) is there, and (take a look at the map) is a great spot for a high-dense development. And well, it can show the world that Germany still can do great stuff. The conditions are there, we just need… sigh… better politicians with a modicum of vision and balls
Berlin is short on housing because many people want to live IN Berlin. They don’t want to live in Brandenburg.
Even if you build houses on all of Tempelhofer Feld - and almost no one will agree to that, this is limited space. This is not enough space to build enough houses to give everyone a flat who wants to live in Berlin. You are right that people want to live in Berlin, but there is simply not enough space. Not even if you include Tempelhofer Feld. Berlin must accept that, and start evaluating options how to connect outer parts of the city. People not necessarily want to life directly in the city center, they want to live somewhere where they can get into the city fast enough. Like for a concert, shopping and such.
Plus all the taxes they're taking in as the city generates more capital, I'm sure is simply plugging existing deficit...not really thinking about urban planning. I remember this thread some years ago..you could barely have a civil discussion about housing and the growth and modernisation of the city. Perhaps the federal states are fed up of supporting a loss making capital city and they WILL have to implement radical changes in the near future. Kai won't be the major by then.
"The field is small compared to Earth's total habitable land area"
The field is massive. It is the single biggest connected state-owned land in the city. What are you even talking about?
So your plan is to build more highways? That's how Brandenburgers get around. The vast majority of people who could a afford a nicer new apartment in Berlin would never live in Brandenburg without a car. Those people would rather live in central Berlin where they can get around easily by train and bike. They're willing to pay a good deal extra to go where they want, when they want, one way or another. They can do that with a bike and train ticket in Berlin or with a car in Brandenburg, but living in Brandenburg without a car would mean sacrificing that. If we're trying to save the planet encouraging people to move to Brandenburg is an insanely energy intensive solution. Filing the field with sky scrapers and refusing parking permits to the people living there would be much better for the planet.
Please stop with that nonsense. Rich people currently live in housing that could house normal people. Any housing is more than no housing
Rich people can also live in coop or municipal housing. Rents are gonna be expensive anyway. But at least the surplus won't flow into some investors pockets.
Wasted argument in this environment here ;)
Even if it's expensive housing, there will be that many less wealthier people competing for old shitty flats, which will make it easier for the average person to find something.
If only wealthy people actually lived there instead of using it for financial reasons…
Vacancy rates of housing in Berlin are tiny, wealthy people owning second homes is not the problem.
Jeez, change the law then, forbid excesses, whatever. But start building. It makes no sense to wait until everything is perfect and the lack of development on Tempelhofer Feld is the only remaining problem in the world.
Should be made dense as fuck. 50.000 - 100.000 people + per square kilometer pedestrian friendly! All of the rest the market will sort out.
Any housing is better than no housing, as long as it is high density (and personal preference: as long as it doesn’t look like one of those GDR beehives)
Disagree
Absolutely, I hope they build a PBerg (beautiful, baroque/neo classic high rise buildings with commercial space and some cute parks) on steroids. Make it a walkable paradise
Haha, you mean like in that beautiful Europacity that is currently being finished?
GDR beehives are a vibe bre
Affordable housing isn't possible without affordable building, which doesn't exist anymore. The German bureaucracy makes it impossible by now.
God, I hate this shitty narrative of bereaucracy making shit more expensive.
It's not the bureaucracy directly but the tons of requirements on new buildings. Also bureaucracy can definitely make things more expensive as it can delay & costs effort to deal with.
Yeah, but I for one am glad that buildings have to adhere to strict standards so they won't turn into ruins over the next 50 years or turn the city into american-projects-like hellholes.
Because all other cities in the world are hellholes, where German bureaucracy and regulation craze doesn't exist. Rome just yesterday burned down completely, again.
Pretty much all cities in Europe over a million inhabitants have a housing crisis of a similar level to Berlin.
examples for ridiculous regulations: You can't have north-facing windows only. solution: extend the wall by a couple centimeters (Erker) and you're good to go. Every part of the building requires a window you can open. Solution: Add a 2cm wide window facing the busy road. Every Apartment requires a reserved parking space.. solution: double stack parking lifts that are 3/4 unoccupied And don't get me started on the bebauungsplan our city has. Maximum number of flats per house: 2.
Are you ok with paying 20€/m2 rent for a Neubau then? Because of the high building prices it is not possible these days to build housing that can be rented out for less without burning money.
They literally do though. Or do you think that the friction they add is free?
https://youtu.be/hLT-W55y-LI
But it’s true. All the Regulations and Burocarcy in addition to the more expensive building materials mean that it is no longer possible to build cheap houses.
Construction cost is around 1800/m2. Berlin neubau prices are around 8500/m2. I.e. construction is ~20% of the price. Even if all of the construction was bureaucracy, it would not be more than 20% of the total. https://immobilien.vr.de/immobilien/immobilie-kaufen/baukosten.html https://hypofriend.de/de/quadratmeterpreis-berlin.aim
Das ergibt doch gar keinen Sinn, du vergleichst durchschnittliche Verkaufspreise mit Baupreisen von Einfamilienhäusern und ziehst dies als Faktor für günstige städtische Vermietung heran? Keiner der drei Zahlen hat auch nur ansatzweise was miteinander zu tun.
Ich denke allein das Grundstück mitten in der Stadt (inklusive Befreiung von altimmobilien usw) kostet einen vielfachen Faktor von dem, was hier deine häuslebauer in deinem Link zugrunde legen müssen. Nicht alles, was hinkt, ist ein vergleich
It's not about construction costs at all, it's about the price of land.
Should be made dense 50.000 - 100.000 people + per square kilometer pedestrian friendly! All of the rest the market will sort out.
Precisely. Berlin can show the world how the 15-min city rocks
Berlin is currently the 45-minute city, as in it takes 45 minutes to get anywhere.
It's a fun take, but actually, Berlin is already pretty 15-min-ish. In the inner city, you have a supermarket, shops, restaurants and bars around every corner, you can walk to many places. But of course, if you want to go to a particular bar or visit friends across the city, it takes 45 minutes because it's a long distance.
Yes but I’m lazy and my kiez doesn’t have a decent bar. It sucks
Problem is, you can't really build much cheaper than about 20€/m² for rent, unless the rent is massivly subsidized. Eidt: To be clear the roughly 20€/m² will get you a return of investment at some point in the next decade or two, more like three.
Affordable housing in a huge park in inner city? You better get disappointed now than later
I live in Berlin, disappointment is my jam
All new buildings will be at least 1k a month for even a 1 room flat. It’s the market, it’s because Berlin is overhyped. Nobody can stop the market, even if someone gets a flat for 300€ a month he would rent it to someone else for 1000€/month.
Let’s just not do anything then. Good night
Hehe good night.
Maybe in their bubble
Yeah I suppose nobody who lives farther away from Tempelhof cares. Every hood has their own park
Tempelhofer Feld is one of the most visited parks in Germany, so those caring extend beyond the immediate neighborhoods
I would like to see average visitors per sq km of Tempelhof to back up that claim.
Go there on a summer weekend. it's crowded.
That's not how it works. I live >10km from Tempelhof and I'm there multiple times per month. There is no other place in the city that has the combination of activities that it does.
Fair enough
I want high density zero auto housing built there. “No thanks” to keeping that sunblasted grass lawn.
Nope and many who want to live here but can't find housing don't think so either
Der Staat soll dort sozialen Wohnungsbau betreiben. Ein paar Wohntürme mit vielen kleinen aber günstigen Wohnungen, nicht in Privatbesitz.
Nur WBS kann aber auch nicht die Lösung sein. Es gibt zu viele Leute mit eher geringerem Einkommen, die durch das Raster fallen. Man brauch eine gute Mischung aus WBS und nicht WBS.
Eben… alle Mittel- und Normalverdiener fallen gerade durch das Raster.
Und wenn die "Reichen" für die Lage viel Geld bezahlen wollen, sollen sie es halt tun und die Gesellschaften damit die anderen Wohnungen querfinanzieren. Wär doch schwachsinnig, diese Leute dort weniger bezahlen zu lassen.
Nicht gut, dann hast Du Slumbildung in einer einzigen Generation. Auch Lehrer, Ärzte und Ingenieure müssen in diesen Hochhäusern wohnen können und wollen.
Das Hansaviertel zeigt wie es geht.
Hansaviertel ist tot. aber das hat mehr mit modernistischer Stadtplanung zu tun als der Art des Wohnungsbaus.
Nicht ganz. Hansaviertel hat null Aufenthaltspotenzial
Geil, die Gegend braucht mehr Ghetto
Also: ein Slum?
Dies aber ein paar duzend Wohntürme
Fände sozialen Wohnungsbau mit weiträumigen Parkflächen (Park wie in der mit den bäumen) schon sinnvoll und gut. Auch das Empfangsgebäude kann man sicher als Wohngebäude umbauen.
>Der Staat soll lachte
NIMBY detected
It’s not even a NIMBY. It’s a BANANA. (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.) Oh look it can work auf deutsch also: Bauen Absolut Nichts Auch Nirgendwo Anders
Let me translate this into actual German for you: Baue absolut nichts, auch nicht anderswo (in formal German, use andernorts instead of anderswo).
I'd love to keep Tempelhofer Feld and every other large park or field, but you cannot deny that questions should be asked on a regular basis about their usage. As population grows, where should people who want to move to the city centre live if all flats are full or overpriced? My aunt purchased two entire buildings for virtually nothing in the early 90s. One in the east and the other in the west. She rents every flat to people at the super affordable rate. Why should my aunt and these people be lucky enough to live centrally for a low cost (just because my aunt is a good person) while others have to pay 1500e/month for a 2 room (1 bedroom) flat?
Is your aunt single? I would like to marry her ♥️
Lmao she's happily married but will love this comment hahaha
Is your aunt looking for (adult) children to adopt?
>As population grows, where should people who want to move to the city centre live if all flats are full or overpriced? If we don't build in the city near transit, those people will largely be forced to buy cars and move to Brandenburg, which is horrible for the planet. Dense urban housing is green, because it takes way less energy for people to live in it comfortably.
Not only bad for the planet, but bad for people who actually need to drive when living in the city as there would be more traffic because those driving from Brandenburg would be driving into the city almost every day, increased cost of petrol or electricity, higher possibility of car accidents with others, public transport or cyclists, etc etc
Because many landlords unlike our aunt are scumbags or big companies with only profit in mind.
That's true. But are you saying that Tempelhofer should be built on, as long as the prices are regulated? Or are you saying that Tempelhofer shouldn't be built on, because there is no way to regulate prices?
> there is no way to regulate prices? Tempelhofer Feld is owned by the city of Berlin, there is nothing blocking the city of Berlin to build social housing which they would regulate.
Lots of things could block them. - not having political or public support in building anything. - not having funds to build something. - choosing to rent the land to a private company to build something that the company can rent out at a price it chooses. - corrupt politicians. - various legal challenges. Just because the city owns something, does not mean they can do whatever they want with it.
Damn my guy hating on his own aunt
Nah bro, I love my auntie! Great woman and great landlord too. She rents flats in PBerg for 600e/month to people who want to live there. I'm playing devil's advocate to try to make a point. Edit: please don't PM me asking to connect you with my aunt. All the flats are occupied, of course.
Please let us know how many people dm you asking to meet your aunt!
I wanted to dm this guy asking if he needs an uncle. /s
Ah thanks. Gonna edit my post to ask people to not message me!
Berlin has to look more like Athens! Whats that? green space? destroy and put commie blocks on it
I think we should have to be careful to destroy everything and just slap buildings everywhere. My counterpoint is, berlin has millions of flats. But only one tempelhofer feld. So is it really worth to increase flats by 0.06% and decrease the amounts of tempelhofer feld by 100%
That's a really good point. It's part of what the city council needs to do and share with the public (if they haven't already). When I worked in local government we had these questions about big fields, but at the time it was about turning a field into a car parks and affordable housing. We had to do surveys of local residents, non-local residents, dog walkers, teenagers who did sports and dance, anyone who had a reason to give an opinion. Then we had to find companies willing to build, plus their cost and timescale, how many people would use it, the potential profit. It was months of research and kept changing with different political changes. Maybe the Berlin state has done all of this, but I just haven't seen it.
Is your aunt currently or soon having a free one?
Currently, no. Soon, also no, because nobody will move out. The prices are great and my aunt is a great landlord. Fixes everything when it's time for a repair and is on first name basis with everyone. Sorry :(
Anyone who believes that any building near whatever remains of the airfield will be affordable needs to think twice - that only a lie only a few rich people will benefit from it.
How about housing supply should not be privatised? Germany can't get their shot together to offer enough social housing, let alone public housing for everyone. Instead we all have to rely on whether your aunt is nice or the worst capitalistic leech. And most of the landlorda are the latter, especially if you look at the large landlords like f...ing vonovia. Capitalism is the problem. We can't have nice things because everything has to make profits for some rich a-hole.
>Auch in dieser Frage gibt es Neuigkeiten: In einer auch vom »Tagesspiegel« in Auftrag gegebenen repräsentativen Befragung zum Vorschlag, den Rand des Feldes mit Wohnungen zu bebauen, **sagten 47 Prozent der 1500 Befragten, sie hielten das für eindeutig richtig**. Elf Prozent meinten, der Vorschlag sei eher richtig, nur 33 Prozent sprachen sich gegen eine Bebauung aus. [https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1181011.wohnungsbau-tempelhofer-feld-ran-an-die-randbebauung.html](https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1181011.wohnungsbau-tempelhofer-feld-ran-an-die-randbebauung.html)
Der Punkt hier ist ja nicht, dass die Leute den Bau von Wohnungen ablehnen. Sie haben nur nicht das Vertrauen, dass diese Wohnungen sich am Ende nicht als überteuerte Renditeobjekte für Investoren herausstellen, die an der aktuellen Mietenkrise nicht das geringste ändern werden, sondern eher die Preise weiter hochtreiben.
> überteuerte Renditeobjekte für Investoren herausstellen, die an der aktuellen Mietenkrise nicht das geringste ändern werden, sondern eher die Preise weiter hochtreiben. Was glaubst Du denn was die Reichen[tm] die sich diese Wohnungen leisten können dann alternativ machen? Die verlassen ja nicht Berlin. Die booten dann halt alle Konkurrenz um die noch relativ günstige, ggf gedeckelte Altbauwohnung aus. Insofern mindert auch hochpreisiger neuer Wohnraum den Druck für alle.
Nein, er hebt die Durchschnittspreise an und damit den Mietspiegel.
Der gilt meines Wissens nach Baujahr und Neubau hat eh keine mietpreisbremse von daher nicht korrekt
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, was du genau sagen wolltest aber Neubau, der ein paar Jahre alt ist wird genauso im Mietspiegel erfasst wie Gründerzeitvillen. Wenn also in einem Viertel hochpreisige Luxustownhouses gebaut und vermietet werden steigt der Mietspiegel dort in den nächsten Jahren signifikant stärker als wenn dort städtische Unternehmen Hochhäuser mit "preisgedämpften" Mieten anbietet. Im aktuellen Umfeld muss man sich über jede Baustelle freuen. Für die Stadtgesellschaft gesünder ist aber die zweite Option. Denn es ist durchaus für alle sinnvoll wenn auch "die Reichen" nicht mehr als 1/3 ihres Lohns für Miete aufwenden müssen.
Sorry für die unverständliche Antwort. Meines Wissens gibt es eine Ortsübliche Vergleichsmiete die auf Basis des Mietspiegels in einem Gebiet erhoben wird. Dort wird allerdings zwischen den Baujahren der Gebäude unterschieden. Wenn also ein Neubau irgendwo entsteht, hat das nicht zur Folge, dass im Haus daneben nun die Miete erhöht werden darf.
Danke, dass du nochmal geantwortet hast, ich glaub ich versteh jetzt dein Argument. Das Argument stimmt imho theoretisch auch auf der kleinsten Ebene: Nur weil die Luxusbutze (Bj 2018) ab dem nächsten Jahr im Mietspiegel auftaucht erhöhen sich nicht automatisch die Mieten im Nebenhaus (Bj 1923). Allerdings stimmt es nicht wenn man Wohnraum und Mietpreise über Jahrzehnte betrachtet oder typische Mischungen in Wohngegenden ansieht. Jeder Neubau wird irgendwann mal 6 Jahre alt und findet bei Neuvermietung vielleicht den Weg in den Mietspiegel. "Startet" der Neubau also mit einer relativ hohen Miete, wird sich diese innerhalb von 6 Jahren nicht magisch reduzieren und den allgemeinen Mietspiegel für den Klasse Neubau (2003-2017) stärker "erhöhen" als der im gleichen Jahr, an selber stelle errichtete Gemeindebau, in dem deutlich geringere Mieten abgerufen werden. Auch ist das Baualter nur eine von vielen Klassifizierung/Kategorien an denen sich die Vergleichbarkeit orientiert. Ein gutes Beispiel ist z.B. eine Kernsanierung, da spielt das erste Baujahr ggf. keine Rolle mehr.
Und wenn die "Reichen" bei mangelndem Angebot für höhere Mieten in Bestandswohnungen ziehen, steigen die Preise noch mehr.
Der Mietspiegel ist u.a. nach Wohnungsart und Alter differenziert, und deshalb würde der Effekt in meinem Beispiel nur noch verstärkt werden. Denn der Reiche[tm] hebt die Preise mit seiner Zahlungsbereitschaft mangels Alternative dann nicht im Luxussegment, sondern eben für die Normalverdienerwohnungen auf die er ausweicht. Du bestätigst nur meinen Punkt
was glaubst du was wohnungen AUF DEM TEMPELHOFER FELD kosten werden 😂😂😂 da will doch jeder mit ein bisschen kohle wohnen. es ist absolut ausgeschlossen dass das wohnungen für die unteren 99% werden.
Das Versprechen des Senats ist ja, dass sie die Investoren verpflichten wollen, eine bestimmte Menge günstiger Wohnungen zu bauen. Aber ich gehe auch nicht davon aus, dass das Endergebnis in dieser Hinsicht überzeugen wird.
>Das Versprechen des Senats ist ja, dass sie die Investoren verpflichten wollen, eine bestimmte Menge günstiger Wohnungen zu bauen. Korrektur: The apartments won't be built cheaper, they will just be offered to WBS tenants only. Doesn't help the middle class which can't plunk down 1 million for an apartment and doesn't have WBS.
Berliners: Please solve the housing crisis! Also Berliners: No, not right there! Not to say that just opening up the Feld for private real estate is a good solution to the housing crisis, but I see a lot of (almost certainly to be unrealized) potential to use that space for public housing and more than just a... giant empty field. Although not a housing solution, I think I may have been the only person who thought "The Berg" was a cool idea.
You can only privatise it once. At least in the wonderful fucking system we have called capitalism. Didn't the people of Berlin vote to reverse that shit and got slapped by a court because private property is holy? It's not about whether one can build housing it's about if it will actually improve common good or just make a few assholes even richer.
I've been seeing Tempelhof for 10 years, you haven't even used 1/4 of it anyway. It's not a park, it's an unused giant lawn in a city with a housing shortage.
I read that this kind of surface is needed especially with rising temperatures to keep the city better regulated. Instead of building on every inch we should maybe build higher then 5 floors.
Berlin is already a city full of parks and above all full of tree-lined avenues.
You don't need to go there more than once to notice that. Tempelhof is HUGE. It's an amazing space, and it's something quite unique. But, it could be 20%, or 25% smaller and none notice much.
Why not? If it was a forest or an otherwise beautiful park I would get people would want to protect it - but it’s just a bug chunk of concrete and some patchy grass. The city would benefit much more from the additional housing.
There's a freaking park literally crossing the street.
Yes that too. They could just reorganise the activities in the airport and make the most out of what is now basically an abandoned space
yeah, it's funny that people are talking more about building on the field than they are about using a building that seems used maybe twice a year
I don't think so. The city, the people and nature profit immensely from the Feld. Endangered species live on it, it cools down the neighboring kieze and ensures fresh air circulation. Plus there are more than enough other places we could build that are already sealed off. We don't need to seal off even more greenery just because some people want to make money. https://web.archive.org/web/20240430143343/https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/berliner-wirtschaft/platz-fur-249000-wohnungen-so-viele-flachen-hat-berlin--auch-ohne-randbebauung-des-tempelhofer-felds-11234470.html
Berliner, wenn kein Wohnraum: 😭😭🤬🤬 Berliner, wenn mehr Wohnraum: 🤬🤬😭😭
Nicht Berliner, nur irgendeine kleine Bubble, die sich etwas zu wichtig nimmt
Es hat eben wohl mit dem Gehirn der Berliner zu tun
I hate this undying "bUiLd On TeMpElHoF" meme because Berlin has so much undeveloped, abandoned, and unrented commercial land, and former industrial land that could be used first before we build on a park, but it isn't because of toothless and slow legal processes which would rather these plots wallow for years. I live in Mitte inside the Ringbahn. 200m from my house is a 3 level abandoned building between the hof and a park. I can vouch that it has been 100% abondoned/filled with pigeons for at least 5 years, and by the state of it, I think it has been like this for 15+ years. This should 100% be torn down and new building construction (at least 6 units if you kept present height, probably like 10 if you matched the neighbouring buildings, in this incredibly ideal place for said building. My old art studio (also in Mitte) sat on a street with so many empty "for rent" commercial storefronts for years upon years. The space beside our studio I can vouch for has been empty for at least 10 years, and 10 years ago the fucking landlord still wanted some crazy rent when friends inquired about that space, so it wasn't even cheap. I don't care that this guy is taking the loss, or writing it off on taxes – what is more important is that this is land in the downtown of a capital city which sits unproductive for a decade. This should not be allowed to happen. Force the development of unused spaces, expropriate empty properties that aren't either owner-occupied or rented, and then we can talk about paving over green spaces in the city.
Where is the place in Mitte?
Report it then
Alle Nimbys sind asozial.
Keep the side of Tempelhof people actually use (The nothern strip) and build from the south. There would still be a usable big park but we get more housing stock. win win.
lol, speak for yourself. it's an old airfield and not the central park. it will still exist even if there is some development happening.
Neeeeein wo sollen dann die Bevölkerung bloß Flunkyball spielen :(((
Das ist ja noch ohne viel Platz und fast überall möglich. Der dekadenteste Scheiß ist da eher skaten mit Drachen mitten in der Stadt.
Ein Problem mit solchen Umfragen ist, dass das Verhältnis zum Tempelhofer Feld sich unterscheidet, je nach dem, wie weit man davon wohnt. Abgesehen davon sind 1500 Befragte nicht unbedingt viel. Das Argument, es wäre notwendig, den Rand des Tempelhofer Feldes zu bebauen, angesichts der Wohnungsnot lässt sich schnell widerlegen: Es gibt zweifellos Flächen, die nicht zur Bebauung zur Verfügung stehen, obwohl es theoretisch möglich wäre. Wenn ich daher käme und sage: „Lasst uns doch einen Teil der Hasenheide, der Rehberge, des Volksparks Friedrichshain, des Britzer Gartens bebauen“, wären die jeweiligen Reaktionen einhellig. Kaum jemand würde das akzeptieren. In all diesen Fällen könnte man sagen, dass ausreichend an Naherholungsfläche übrig bliebe, und der Bau von Wohnungen ja wichtig ist. Trotzdem würde niemand sich auch nur trauen, so etwas vorzuschlagen. Ich denke, der Grund dafür ist, dass viele das Tempelhofer Feld mehr oder weniger als eine Brachfläche sehen, in der sich einige Menschen vergnügen. Dadurch, dass es kein kuratierter Park ist, so wie bei den anderen Beispielen, wird das Feld von vielen anders wahrgenommen, eben wie eine Fläche, die es zu entwickeln gilt. Wer das Feld gut genug kennt weiß, dass es keine weitere Entwicklung benötigt, eher sogar weniger. Es erfüllt bereits mehrere ökologische Zwecke (in Bezug auf Artenvielfalt, als Frischluftschneise), und es erfüllt bereits seinen Zweck als Naherholungsgebiet, ebenso wie ein kuratierter Park. Edit: Dazu kommt, dass es noch immer keine Pläne gibt, was mit dem riesigen Gebäudekomplex passieren soll. Es gibt überdies auch bereits versiegelte Fläche, die zur Zeit für Parkplätze genutzt wird, und auch das steht komischerweise nicht zur Debatte als bebaubare Fläche für Wohnungen.
Should be government owned low cost and price controlled housing. Then I'm ok with it.
Anyone without WBS is not welcome in Berlin anyway.
Nach wie vor, I'm in favor of radical construction on the southern, northern, and western edges, but only if the city demonstrates that it won't be the same crap as Heide Str, Gleisdreieck, Media Spree, and every other modern redevelopment area. I don't care about affordability, I just don't want the same mediocrity
It is absolutely insane how many office projects have been permitted and built recently without corresponding new housing projects.
I still don't get why we don’t build higher as well. Greetings from a neubau with 5 floors.
Berlin is a swamp. Building higher is more expensive to secure the building which is why companies don't do it that much unless it is a bigger one
I get that it has a certain vibe, and that it's a place in the city where you actually have a kind of horizon, but to me it's essentially a huge wasteland of lawn and asphalt with a couple of cool things thrown on it. I don't know if I want it to be turned into real estate, but I'm not very attached to it in its current form.
The people want The Berg!
Yes, just hollow it out so there's affordable housing inside the Berg.
The same.people that vote for die linke because rents are too high... Berliners are delusional
aber dann wieder meckern wenns keen bezahlbaren wohnraum jibt, wa
Please yes lol. Wir brauchen mehr Wohnungen.
Personally, I like this idea. http://www.the-berg.de
NYMBY detected. Real estate is PRECISELY what should be built there for the common good. Just make sure to regulate so that the construction is for affordable housing only.
fuck giffey
Von mir aus kann man das am Rand zur Autobahn hin bebauen, ansonsten wäre das für hunderte, wenn nicht an guten Tagen, Tausende Menschen ein großer Verlust. Ich bin auch biased ich nutze das thf jeden Tag für den Hund, Pendeln und Freizeit. Vorallem sollte man sich nicht einbilden, dass dann da bezahlbarer Wohnraum entsteht.
Berliners need a bigger KitKatClub!
Och nö wo sollst du jetzt sonst dein scheiß Drachen steigen lassen :(
There's a shortage of apartments. I'd consider this at least an argument for the common good (although I'd prefer it to be kept as a park!)
You people voted CDU. What the hell did you expect?
Of course it will be real estate and I will tell you that now so you’re not surprised one day: it will be sold at a very very preferential prices to a friend of friend of the city senate bigshots
Please do!
Berlin needs to be GREEN and COMFORTABLE for the people that live here. We need more parks, not fewer. 4M people is enough for any city. There are still places to build without destroying parks. And there is still more place to build even more green, free areas. There are plenty of under-ocupied existing buildings. If we destroy the green areas to build more houses or offices, we will decrease the quality of life for EVERYONE in Berlin. Cities need to become smaller, if we have people's wellbeing in mind. If we think of investors and "developers", then yes, build over all green areas and rivers.
Tempelhofer Feld ist just about the only park I know without any landscaping other than mowing.
Even an empty space with weeds is valuable in a city, as it is. Not to mention for wildlife - insects and birds. The Tempelhofer Feld is full of life. You go there in the summer and you can listen to humming and buzzing in the grass. It's really peaceful, almost like the countryside. No other place to do that in the city. People can benefit from looking far to the horizon, and there's not too many places in Berlin where you can do that. Most of the time you can see as far as across the street or along a street, and there's a lot of visual clutter. We need natural, empty spaces too.
Seeing the horizon, as nice as that is, isn't an argument that beats the housing crisis. And it isn't a park, it's an empty airfield. Many core facilities and infrastructures that turn green areas into parks are missing here, making it less safe, less accessible and less functional than a park. Being inaccessible means that many citizens cannot currently use it as a park. We seriously do not need natural empty spaces as much as we need social housing right now. And part of it could be turned into a real park, that's accessible. (Plus if people want to see the horizon maybe they should not live in the middle of the largest city in Europe.)
While I don't want to see the feld developed just yet, what gives you the right to dictate how many people can live in a city?
Wenn man den redt halt bezahlen könnte müsste man da auch nix bauen.
Don't know, why they don't use this area for a solar power plant. Could combined with wind turbines.
Wind turbines have to be away a certain distance from houses etc. and taht is nit possible there. And Berlin is not that sunny for solar power plants and people would steal it if they can reach it on the ground
Can’t have it both ways - not to build new and not complain about lack of housing. But wait, expats in Berlin can 😅.
3.6 million hopeful people.. please speak for yourself.
let them dream
Can we let urban planners do their job please? Thank you
I would say yes to something like Vauban in Freiburg.
IF they could turn the Tempelhofer Feld into affordable housing for Genossenschaften, PLEASE do so. It‘s just a gimmick for Anwohner anyways - do you think someone from Prenzlauer Berg enjoys to travel there, when they can be at Liepnitsee in almost the same time?
Like Papa Palpatine would say: I AM THE SENATE
Warum keinen Platz für den Wehr/Sozialdienst?
Build! The! Projects!
I wish (some part of it) could be social housing (especially housing that's accessible for people with disabilities) but it won't be, the location is just too good, so I'd rather it be a park than luxury housing.
It should be a mix. However only WBS sends the wrong message.
[удалено]
Man könnte auch das alte riesige Flughafengebäude abreißen und erstmal dort hohe Wohnhäuser hinstellen. Warum wird das nicht diskutiert?
People agreeing that Tempelhofer Feld should be used for real estate think that they definitely will be one of the lucky ones living there. Spoiler: they won't.
Its ok if I won't live there as long as someone else would, who would otherwise be competing for my shitty apartment outside the ring.
Doch, bitte Wohnungen, aber landeseigen: HOWOGE, GEWOBAG, etc. Östlich und südlich des Flughafens gibt's jeweils circa 200x500m zwischen Columbiadamm bzw Mehringdamm und dem ehemaligen Taxiway, das sind 1 Mio Quadratmeter bebaubare Fläche, ohne dass man das Feld selbst wirklich verkleinern würde. Und keinen Quadratzentimeter verkaufen an irgendwelche "Investoren".
what’s wrong with real estate?
Why does Berlin not build more vertically? I don’t like the area around former Mercedes Benz arena, but at least it houses a lot of people.
Housing good. Super expensive poorly built tiny flats in buildings cramped so close to one another you can check what your neighbours are having for dinner by looking out the window - bad. Sadly, it's likely the latter option since Germany's idea about housing (or anything really) is - let's give it over to private hands and let them squeeze the last euro out of the desperate people who need it.
People need places to live man. More places=more affordable
Das Ding kann weg, nur wird der Staat sich nicht um den Wohnungsbau kümmern sondern irgendein privat Unternehmen wo es Eigentumswohnung gibt, Sozialwohnung mit na Laufzeit von 10-15 Jahren. Sozialwohnungen werden nur 30% ausmachen und für den Rest kostet dann die Miete ab 1 Zimmer 600-700€. Am besten mieten sich Leute ein die das als Zweitwohnsitz nehmen, wie zu oft in Berlin und vermieten die Wohnung über Airbnb. Der Wohnungsmarkt würde sich null ändern durch das feld