Renovation without renoviction: the green redevelopment of a municipal housing estate in Drewitz, Germany

Abstract

In this paper I discuss a case of ‘green’ redevelopment of a social housing complex in former East Germany, and unpack the key elements that have led to its comprehensive regeneration without widespread negative social externalities. In Drewitz, a former GDR housing estate in the Berlin/Brandenburg metropolitan region, it has been possible to preserve existing social housing units, achieve high standards of energy efficiency, expand public green space and provide improved opportunities for education and health. I identify the key factors that have enabled this ‘renovation without renoviction’: 1) redevelopment has been undertaken by a municipal housing company under public control; 2) the scheme has benefited from EU, national and local funding; 3) phased retrofit has made the scheme financially viable, while reducing the incidence of forced relocations; 4) community participation has led to greater acceptance and buy-in of the plan. Based on in-depth interviews with longstanding residents and local stakeholders, I assess the community’s response to the regeneration plan.

Keywords:

• Social housing
• redevelopment
• municipal housing
• energy efficiency
• retrofit
• gentrification

1. Introduction

In rapidly gentrifying cities across the globe, social housing estates count as the ‘final gentrification frontiers’(Lees & Ferreri, 2016), representing some of the few remaining pockets of affordability for low-income residents in large urban areas that are characterized by a sweeping socio-demographic turnover. Most social housing complexes across Europe date back from the era between the 1940s and the 1970s, and the poor physical condition in which many find themselves today is the result of decades of policies of disinvestment and progressive residualization that, although in different measures across Europe, have been ongoing since the early 1980s (see Bernt, 2009; Bernt, Colini & Förste, 2017; Kofner, 2017; Schonig, 2020 with respect to the German context). During the last four decades, the generalized wave of austerity measures and the ensuing cutbacks on public budgets have resulted in local authorities gradually retreating from the provision and management of social housing. The ‘managed decline’ (King, 2008) of housing estates throughout much of Europe has made them ideal targets for low-cost acquisition by private landlords eager to renew them for a profit. Subsequent rounds of privatization and privately-led redevelopment have been subjected to criticism in the scholarly debate for their tendency to foster the development of high-end market-rate housing while encouraging the displacement of longstanding social tenants (Holm, 2013; Lees, 2014; Lees & Hubbard, 2020; Tunstall, 2011). In Europe, the recent incorporation of green-friendly and energy-efficiency measures in the regeneration of the old social housing stock has been a further subject of scrutiny: while the retrofit of non-energy efficient housing, and particularly of large housing complexes, is seen by the European Commission and member states as crucial to achieve climate targets and reduce fossil fuel consumption (European Commission, 2019), the generalized push for a swift energy transition in the housing sector is bound to create additional burdens on households in the lower income brackets, be it homeowners or tenants. In the case of social rented housing, all too often the burden of retrofitting costs is passed on to the sitting tenants (Bouzarovski et al., 2018; Frankowski et al., 2022; von Platten et al., 2022).

More recently, research on ‘green gentrification’ has suggested that the implementation of greening measures within similar regeneration initiatives (through remediation of contaminated areas, restoration of existing natural amenities, creation of new parks, greenways, or greenbelts) can further reinforce patterns of socio-spatial segregation (Anguelovski, 2016; Anguelovski et al., 2019; Jo Black & Richards, 2020). The implementation of greening measures has also been linked to a heightened displacement pressure on low-income communities, due to sweeping changes in property values or rental prices resulting from environmental upgrades, or because of outright demolition of existing housing where costs for ecological refurbishment are deemed to exceed the cost of new green buildings (Lees & Ferreri, 2016; Trabucco & Fava, 2013).

Emerging research is further shedding light on how social housing complexes situated in peri-urban areas that are adjacent to natural amenities (such as woodlands, riverbanks and wetlands) are increasingly being targeted for high-end environmental interventions aimed at extracting land value in sites that were previously considered unprofitable or underperforming. Across Europe and particularly in the UK, developers are targeting suburban social housing estates with unexploited environmental assets, and investing in the remediation of adjacent natural amenities in order to attract affluent classes of environmentally-conscious residents (Busà & Lees, 2023; Busà & Sanchez, 2024; Sanchez et al., 2023).

Today, the available literature on instances of ‘green’ social housing regeneration that have avoided widespread gentrification and displacement, along with investigations into the factors that have enabled these positive outcomes, remains fairly limited. This is why the aim of this paper is to discuss the case of a virtuous ‘green’ social housing regeneration scheme in former East Germany, and to unpack the key conditions that have led to a comprehensive regeneration of the estate without widespread negative social externalities.

Drewitz is a GDR-era housing estate of about 3,000 housing units located on the southern edge of Potsdam, not far from the Capital Berlin, in former East Germany. While its redevelopment started in 2010 and is still currently underway, the first phases of regeneration have shown a remarkable balance between cost-effective energy retrofit, inclusive green public space, and effective measures to protect housing tenure rights.

1.1. Approach

The paper is the result of a 3-year study based on ethnographic fieldwork with visits to Drewitz throughout 2021 and 2022. Empirical data were drawn from 23 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with longtime residents, community representatives, local stakeholders and development officials based or operating in Drewitz. Besides formal interviews, I had various informal conversations with visitors, business owners and their patrons, local council members, and social workers engaged in different local charities. Data from the municipal housing company were used to determine increases in average rental prices for tenants pre- and post-development. Finally, data from the independent tenant organization were used to determine the number of tenants who have been relocated into new housing units in Drewitz after the phased renovation of their old housing blocks. Throughout the paper, pseudonyms have been used to protect the privacy of those interview participants who requested anonymity.

2. The greening of housing estates and the problem with ‘renovictions’

Despite the EU’s lack of legal jurisdiction over housing policy, directives to improve existing buildings’ energy efficiency constitute a crucial area of action for achieving European climate objectives. In 2012, the EU Energy Efficiency Directive has required member states to develop national measures to reduce primary energy use in their building stock (Directive 2012/27/EU, 2012), introducing the deployment of ‘deep renovation’ to reduce energy consumption in residential buildings. More recently, the European Green Deal, aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 (European Commission, 2019), has sparked a legislative firestorm resulting in member states adopting initiatives aimed at drastically reducing emissions deriving from the built environment. In most member states, the integration of environmental objectives into national and local housing frameworks has made the renovation of social housing estates more palatable to local authorities as well as private developers, in a renewed economic landscape in which municipalities and private actors can access structural funds for energy-efficient investments from a variety of EU, state- and local sources (as will be clarified in section 5. with regards to this particular case study). Additionally, investment firms have started specializing in tracking down and investing in the ‘green’ rehabilitation of publicly-owned properties with untapped environmental assets, including publicly owned social housing estates, while on the other hand cash-strapped municipalities in ‘hot’ markets have begun creating registers of underperforming properties and turning to private consulting companies in search of options for monetization of these assets, as in the case of Berlin (Vogelpohl, 2018; Vogelpohl & Klemp, 2018).

While the retrofit of non-energy efficient social housing complexes is seen as a core area of intervention in the climate agenda, research in energy-efficient residential retrofits across Europe has shown that these programs are often associated with negative social externalities, including increased rental costs being charged to tenants, which can result in their displacement or eviction. Pundits have given this phenomenon the name of ‘renoviction’—a portmanteau resulting from the words ‘renovation’ and ‘eviction’, as it refers to the direct or indirect displacement resulting from renovation expenses being passed on to the final user (the tenant). The occurrence of renovictions has been documented in housing estates dating back to the former Eastern Bloc (see Bouzarovski et al., 2018), and more recently in Sweden, where studies have shown how government mandates for greater energy efficiency have enabled housing companies to engage in unnecessarily expensive retrofitting measures to extract higher rents and maximize profits (Polanska & Richard, 2021).

In the German context, Grossmann & Huning (2016) have found documentary evidence of both public and private housing companies and landlords using state-funded energy-efficient renovations as a novel profit-making strategy, one in which ‘owners intentionally use energetic refurbishments to upgrade their housing stock, raise rents in rather large percentages and even intentionally dislocate residents’ (p. 3). More research has documented cases of rents skyrocketing after retrofit, and explains how landlords have often proceeded with costly renovations without the need to show evidence of the actual energy savings achieved—an abusive practice whose end-result has been a generalized increase in housing costs for the general population (Grossmann, 2019). On the basis of this evidence, and drawing on several examples of retrofit-related displacement in Germany, Grossmann questions the legitimacy of energy efficiency directives and mandates, concluding that ‘the state had imposed new norms for energy standards of buildings and left their economic consequences to be solved in the conflicts between housing companies and tenants’ (ibidem, p. 155). Interestingly, however, the research led by Grossmann & Huning concludes that municipal housing companies, as opposed to private developers, have proven to be more respectful of tenants’ rights in their retrofitting practices, due to their implementation of specific safeguarding measures aimed at preventing unwarranted rent increases (2016). They also add that the kinds of abuses mentioned above were more pronounced in hot property markets of major German cities like Berlin, but less likely in weaker housing markets or smaller towns. The following chapters illustrating the case of Drewitz, a social housing neighborhood in the outskirts of the city of Potsdam, in the Berlin/Brandenburg metropolitan region, are further proof of the point the researchers have made.

3. The German social housing system

As of 2022, there were around 1.09 million households living in social housing across Germany, down from almost 4 million in the old Federal Republic at the end of the 1980s (Deutscher Bundestag, 2023). In Germany today, social housing is delivered and administered by an array of different providers, including municipal and private housing companies, private insurance funds, or private investors. What makes housing ‘social’ is a combination of factors: 1) its provision is financed through public subsidies; 2) it is reserved for specific vulnerable households that have applied for a certificate of entitlement, called Wohnberechtigungsschein (WBS); 3) it is rented at significantly below-market rent levels, under specific regulations and obligations that the landlord must observe; 4) rents remains ‘social’ for a fixed period of time, usually 10 to 25 years, sometimes even more, until expiration of the subsidy (Busch-Geertsema & Kofler, 2000). The federal states (Länder) bear key responsibility for the funding of social housing programs. Most municipalities, along with the Länder, are owners or share-holders of local housing companies, and as such they are key players in local housing policy: they have direct control on the development agenda, they can supplement federal and state subsidies with funds from their own coffers, and they are responsible for the delivery and management of publicly subsidised housing. Usually, municipalities hold the majority of shares in these companies, which, despite being administered as private companies, have limitations in their profit-seeking objectives, as they have to fulfil public obligations to provide adequate housing to the most disadvantaged. Municipal housing companies can receive public funding from the federal government or the states, along with favourable loans from the German Public Bank (KfW and other public entities). In return, they are responsible for the provision of a number of affordable rentals to be made available to households that are entitled to assistance through WBS. This mechanism is in place for a period of time (usually 15 up to a maximum of 40 years) dependent on the government subsidy or loan, after which the unit can be rented out and/or sold at market price (Droste & Knorr-Siedow, 2014; Kofner, 2017). In some cases, the housing company can decide to continue to rent out the built stock as social housing even after the expiration of the subsidy. In former East Germany, including in Drewitz, large prefabricated housing complexes which where state owned during the GDR and are now in the property of municipal housing companies, are often still largely used as de facto social housing.

3.1. The collapse of the GDR and the rise of municipal housing companies

Schönig (2020, p.1024) explains how, starting in the early 1980s, a new national paradigm for social housing was established in (Western) Germany, which completely redefined its scope from mass provision of housing for the working class, to a ‘residual segment of the housing market’. This turn was enabled by a cascade of legislations in the early 2000s, and particularly the passing of the ‘Housing Promotion Act’ in 2001, which narrowed down the reach of social housing provision to target almost exclusively vulnerable households unable to support themselves on the market. Further in 2006, the ‘Federalism Reform Act’ basically ended national social housing policy at the federal level, and devolved responsibilities for provision and maintenance of the residual social housing to the local governments or Länder (ibidem, 2020). In the former GDR, housing was in the property of state owned housing enterprises and characterised by a very high security of tenure. After reunification, housing in former East Germany (41% of which was state owned until 1989, see Schönig, 2020) was pushed to conform to the post-fordist market logics of the West German social housing market, through sales to sitting tenants (‘right to buy’), transfer of properties to municipal housing companies, or direct acquisitions by private landlords. In the newly unified housing market, innumerable former GDR housing companies and cooperatives, charged with debts from the selling of the GDR banks to which they had accumulated credits, were forced to dissolve or sell off their housing stock. A first wave of privatisation is tied to the passing of the 1993 Old Debt Assistance Act (Altschuldenhilfegesetz), which established that ex-GDR housing companies could have their debts exceeding DM 150/m² waived if they privatised at least 15% of their housing stock by 1999, preferably to the sitting tenants (Bernt et al., 2017). However, in many cases tenants showed little interest or didn’t own enough equity to purchase their apartments (ibidem);it was an amendment of the legislation in 1995 that enabled a new wave of large private competitors to enter the market, allowing the sale of properties to so-called ‘in-between purchasers’. The majority of properties in this phase went in the hands of speculative companies hoping for a quick resale. In general, only between 1993 and 1999 over 280,000 social housing units were sold to private actors in East Germany as a result of conditions laid down by the Altschuldenhilfegesetz (Busch-Geertsema & Kofler, 2000).

By the mid 2000s, the market was ripe for a second round of privatizations, through which properties started flowing into the hands of institutional financial investors (Holm, 2010). This was particularly the case in the capital Berlin, where between 1993 and 2012 over 220,000 out of 370,000 housing units in public property were sold to private purchasers (Holm, 2013). The Hartz IV reforms in the early 2000s further favoured the purchasing of large stocks by speculative investors (Bernt et al., 2017), as landlords saw the opportunity to milk the German welfare system by purchasing whole inventories of housing to be rented to welfare recipients, thus obtaining steady returns guaranteed by the federal state through the basic social security of tenants introduced with the Hartz reforms. This created what came to be known as the Hartz IV-Geschäftsmodell (i.e. ‘welfare aid business model’).

3.2. Muncipal housing in Potsdam after reunification

In Potsdam until 1989, the state owned municipal housing stock was still administered and managed by the GDR’s non-profit VEB Gebäudewirtschaft created in 1972 (Hagenau, 2020). In 1990, right after reunification, GEWOBA mbH (Gemeinnützige Wohn- und Baugesellschaft) was created as a for-profit limited liability housing company, and was given the administration of the state owned housing stock formerly managed by the VEB, including in Drewitz, where over 1,600 housing units were passed on from state ownership to the ownership of GEWOBA (Landeshauptstadt Potsdam, 2015).

In the new economic landscape after reunification, both the newly formed GEWOBA and the municipality were severely indebted. In order to restructure the municipal budget, plans were made to privatise GEWOBA, as the company was burdened by old liabilities and new debts resulting from increasing vacancy rates (see 4.). The way the cash-strapped city managed to consolidate its budget came to be known as the ‘GEWOBA model’, whereby the City basically sold land and real estate to its own municipal housing company. The City proceeded to sell large chunks of real estate worth up to 120 million DM to GEWOBA (Landeshauptstadt Potsdam, 2015). In return, GEWOBA was allowed to sell part of this real estate and to increase rents to finance the amount paid to the city (Kramer et al., 2011).

In 2006 GEWOBA became a 100% subsidiary in the larger municipal company called ProPotsdam Gmbh, an umbrella company involved in the Potsdam housing and development sector. As a municipal housing company, ProPotsdam today functions as a private company but it is 100% in the ownership of the City. The company is controlled by a board of directors headed by the Deputy Mayor and includes members of the Potsdam City Council and industry experts nominated by the Mayor. Around 17,000 of the approximately 85,000 apartments in Potsdam are managed by ProPotsdam, which today is the largest housing provider in the Potsdam housing market. The company secures funding from either the federal and regional government and generates income through the rental of apartments. ProPotsdam has a contractual agreement with the city to ensure that at least 50% of the housing in each development is designated as social housing. Housing units that are renovated or built using funds from the Land Brandenburg are required to allocate 70/75% of their capacity to social housing, which must be maintained at affordable rent levels for either 20 or 25 years.

4. A history of drewitz and of the ‘Garden City’ project

Located on the South-Eastern outskirts of Potsdam, Drewitz was among the very last housing developments built in the former GDR. Construction started in 1986 on 37 hectares of former rural land, and the original plan was to cover almost double the area to include 4,800 units. But the fall of the GDR in 1989 halted the development, resulting in an incomplete project. The last blocks were finished only after reunification in 1991, and some of the planned facilities and community venues never saw the light of day. The multi-lane Konrad-Wolf-Allee, a major avenue with parking lots on both sides and a tramway track linking to the city centre, cut through the estate splitting it into two distinct areas. In the initial designs, this disproportionally wide thoroughfare would have served a neighbourhood twice the size of what was eventually built (Figure 1).

At the time, Drewitz contained 2,904 housing units for about 5,900 residents in 10 super-blocks of five‐storey Plattenbauten (prefabricated concrete slab buildings) grouped around large courtyards. Before reunification, the residents’ population was middle-class—a mix of former factory workers and employees in public agencies of the GDRs’ vast state apparatus, such as teachers, doctors and other public employees. As a long-time tenant in Drewitz explains, this social mix was typical of similar developments in the GDR:

We had a professor from the University of Potsdam in the building. There were individuals from the city’s top cultural and political echelon. Drewitz was appealing because it offered brand-new homes, and in GDR days, such modern flats were something unique (…) So there was a very interesting social mix… (Iris, in Drewitz since 1989, November 2021)

In the years after reunification, the social stability of the neighbourhood eroded, as well as that of similar estates in former East Germany. Many of those who were employed in government and administrative jobs were laid off; middle-class residents who found opportunities elsewhere started to move out, and their places were taken by lower income families, including new immigrants from the Eastern block and social benefit recipients. The few remaining stores along the Konrad-Wolf-Allee began to close after the opening in 1997 of the Stern-Center, one of the largest shopping malls in the Brandenburg area, in a lot adjacent to the estate’s north-easternmost portion. By the late 1990s, vacancy rates soared and drug abuse, violence and crime increased. In 1995 the city recognized that Drewitz was in dire need of investment to avoid further decline and declared it as ‘urban renewal area’, formally committing to invest in the social and physical regeneration of the area. By the early 2000s, as the estate suffered from a notorious reputation for crime and social distress, Drewitz, along with the neighbouring area Am Stern, became the first Potsdam beneficiary of the Soziale Stadt federal program launched in 1999 to combat social exclusion in deprived neighbourhoods. This funding would be used to launch a series of social programs across Drewitz, but most importantly it contributed to the transformation of the old school into a Stadtteilschule, a district school combined with a multi-purpose community and meeting centre, which over the years would become one of the most powerful catalysts for the social transformation of the neighbourhood (see 6.3).

In 2009, ProPotsdam, owner of more than half of the housing units in the estate, commissioned planners and designers to develop a concept for a complete energy-efficient retrofit of all housing blocks in its property. The idea further evolved into a pilot project aimed at transforming Drewitz into a climate-neutral Gartenstadt (‘Garden City’) by 2050. The ‘Garden City’ concept set out the key planning objectives for urban development, which included the creation of a broad linear park to replace the Konrad-Wolf-Allee, a rerouting of the main traffic into two narrow one-way streets, and the elimination of a small portion of the longest building along the thoroughfare (called die Rolle) to allow for a road intersection (Grunes Kreuz/Green Cross) connecting the North-West and South-East side of the estate with pedestrian walkways through the park. The plan also involved the complete retrofitting of the building blocks to the highest energy efficiency standards. All buildings in Drewitz are Plattenbauten conceived with a serialized technological approach (modular prefabricated concrete slabs), which would make the retrofit process relatively standardized, further reducing costs (IEKK, 2014). As part of the plan, some of the open courtyards were to be closed off by the introduction of new buildings, and some of the central blocks would be topped with additional floors to increase density.

When the initial ‘Garden City’ concept was publicly presented to the residents in 2010, it sparked massive protests. The removal of the main roadway for the purpose of creating a park was rejected by the vast majority of the public. Residents were also outraged at the elimination of parking lots in the district, which would have made their lives more difficult. A long-time resident and member of the residents’ association recalls that 2010 session:

And then came this ominous event where the city invited us residents to have a look at how they would rebuild our neighbourhood (…) There was massive resistance to the planned traffic re-routing, and especially a big fear that residents would lose their parking lots. (Heinz, in Drewitz since 1996, October 2021)

Members of Bürgeraktiv, a community group that had formed in 2009 to advocate for improvements around Drewitz and to have their voices heard in the future redevelopment of the estate, started working on a counter-proposal. Residents did not fear for their homes, as the municipal housing company’s binding agreement with the Land would guarantee the right to relocate to new units at social rent to sitting tenants. Their opposition was mainly geared at the foreseen increased density through additional floors and courtyard closures, the dismantling of the Konrad-Wolf-Allee, and the lack of any participatory strategy in the decision-making process. They also contested the proposed felling of the existing trees, and advocated for the development of participatory mechanisms that would allow the integration of unemployed residents in the realisation of the project. In June 2011, a 15-members residents’ representative body (Bürgervertretung) was formed with formal voting and election procedures—a process unique in Potsdam and in the whole Brandenburg region. At this point the position of the city became more cooperative. Throughout 2011, workshops were held by the City and ProPotsdam with residents to discuss details of the development scheme. Members of the Bürgervertretung were given the opportunity to actively participate in all internal working groups of the City regarding development in their neighbourhood. This slowly started to change public perception around the ‘Garden City’ scheme. Over the following years, the City, ProPotsdam and the residents’ organization have worked in close cooperation with one another, as a spokesperson for the Bürgervertretung explains:

We have a leadership group, a project group, and we always sit at the table in City Hall, so if any decisions are made regarding Drewitz, we know ahead of time and can say ‘pay attention, the residents see this very differently’, and we can convey everything to the residents. (Heinz, since 1996 in Drewitz, October 2021)

The managing director of Propotsdam reflected on lessons learned, and described how a very strong opposition slowly turned into a more widespread acceptance of the plan:

We made a big mistake by not engaging residents in the conversation early on, and we did overwhelm everyone with our vision of the Garden City. We basically came in and said: your street is gone, your parking spaces are gone. The positive is that events have proved that such neighbourhood development can succeed over time (…) we organised over 100 participatory events with all available stakeholders, from the children to the elderly. And gradually, the perception started to shift. The entire idea has received new inputs, and the park, including every single object in it, from the benches to the climbing wall to the playing areas, has been designed with the involvement of the residents over a two-year period. People continued to complain, but when the park opened in 2013, for the first time there was favourable feedback. (Gregor, October 2021)

In 2013, the approaches from the master plan and the original ‘Garden City’ concept were bundled with an agenda for emissions reduction into an integrated ‘Energy and Climate Protection Concept’ aimed at making the district green and emissions-free by 2050. The first phase of the regeneration, which is to be concluded by 2025, includes the complete retrofitting of all housing blocks to the highest energy efficiency standards (including a CO2-free district heating system) and the provision of 300 additional units in new buildings, of which 230 are now under construction in Drewitz’s southernmost block. From a social sustainability standpoint, the development pursues a zero-displacement target, meaning that no resident should be displaced because of the regeneration. As explained in 5., an effective retention of the longstanding residents has been successfully achieved, as the largest portion of the renovated units in the first three phases of development have remained at social rent levels as per agreement between ProPotsdam and the Land Brandenburg. Social service programs supported by the Soziale Stadt program have also contributed significantly to the neighbourhood’s social stability, through the establishment of an independent tenant counselling, the provision of subsidies to cover residents’ moving expenses, and the delivery of temporary accommodations in Drewitz itself or in the adjacent district Am Schlaatz during construction phases.

The appearance of the old prefabricated housing blocks has radically changed with new insulating facades and claddings of different colours and designs. Heating systems have been overhauled, as well as all electrical systems, water and sewage systems. Elevators have been installed in each stairwell, and broader balconies, with a depth of approximately 1.70 metres have been added in most housing units. The facades, basement and staircase walls and ceilings have been insulated, and all window fixtures have been renewed. The improvements of the buildings’ thermal envelopes and the installation of energy efficient heating equipments are meant to provide economic returns through energy saving: according to the master plan, these retrofit strategies and those yet to be implemented in the coming years (including ‘green district heating’ and ‘green electricity’) will reduce 87% of CO2 emissions by 2050 (Masterplan Gartenstadt Drewitz, 2014).

By rededicating the large traffic artery to a green multifunctional area, traffic congestion has decreased significantly, and the park has created new recreational opportunities in a largely improved green space with trees, bushes, playground areas, benches, fountains, and a café operated by volunteers of the German Red Cross. Both the park and the so-called ‘Green Cross’ route crossing through it connect the residential areas in the North-West and South-East sides that were previously separated. By 2020, 854 housing units across Drewitz had been refurbished, for a cost of around 97 million euros (StadtSpuren, 2020) (Figure 2).

5. Public financing and retention of existing residents

Drewitz today has around 5,300 residents living in about 2.904 housing units. Of these, 1,645 are in the property of ProPotsdam. Other landlords in the area are government agencies, housing cooperatives, the private housing company Semmelhaack, and a few individual private owners (owner-occupied units).

By the end of 2025, the total investments in the retrofit of the housing blocks owned by Propotsdam will have reached an amount of about 300 million euros (Heilmann, 2020). The bundling of different levels of funding from EU, federal, regional and municipal programs has been crucial for the redevelopment of Drewitz. Overall, ProPotsdam has contributed for a quarter of the financing, while the remaining share came from public sources. The design of the park was financed by the City of Potsdam and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) along with additional funding from the Soziale Stadt program. The Climate Concept was financed for 66% by direct funding from the public development bank KfW. The retrofit of all existing blocks and new constructions received 20% of funding by ProPotsdam, 50% direct funding from KfW and 30% from the Land Brandenburg. Additional funds from the Soziale Stadt program for neighbourhood management also allowed to finance the new district school and community center. Finally, funds from the state Brandenburg allowed for the socially sustainable renovation of the housing units, enabling rental prices to remain at social levels (5.50 eu or 7 eu/qm): this applies to 70/75% of all renovated housing units in Drewitz, while the remaining units are rented closer to market rate (8.50 to 12 eu/qm). Through the contract with Land Brandeburg, rents in the social housing units will be capped at social level for 20 to 25 years. This is what in the German welfare system is called Objektförderung (benefit bound to a particular housing unit), as opposed to Subjektförderung (benefit bound to the income levels of a particular household). This business model works well in a country with a strong benefits system like Germany, as social tenants’ rents are guaranteed to be covered by subsidies from the state or the federal government, which makes investment in social housing a viable business. The system encourages the municipal housing company to operate with a social target and to keep investing in its housing inventory, as the only downside to financial viability is represented by a stock that is undesirable and that suffers from high vacancy rates.

As part of the further development of the district, an increase of approximately 300 apartments is planned, which will be subjected to the 70/75% social rent/market rent split mentioned above. The quota of units for rent in the free market, as well as the creation of a broader range of apartment typologies, are intended to make Drewitz attractive to a broader range of households and age groups, including economically stronger residents. By 2023, redevelopment has been completed for three blocks in the property of Propotsdam, plus one block immediately adjacent to Drewitz in the neighbouring area of Am Stern. These amount to a total of 534 housing units, of which about 70% (370) are units subsidized through WBS (ProPotsdam GmbH 10.03.2022), and represent about one-third of housing units owned by ProPotsdam in Drewitz. According to figures provided by the independent tenant counselling, the retention quota of longstanding residents in the first three phases of the project was at around 90% (Mieterberatung Drewitz & Brümmer 2020). During conversation with residents, it was apparent that fears of displacement were generally not preponderant. Some respondents recounted instances of individuals who opted to move away because they had found a better home in another neighbourhood, or of others who had left because they couldn’t stand the strain of construction works around them for such a prolonged period of time. For a subsection of the tenants interviewed, however, rent increases were a matter of concern. A private tenant who recently moved into a new building block explained the hurdles faced by households who live on unemployment or other basic income benefits:

The apartments became a bit more expensive after the renovations. And if the renter does not pay it himself, they must consult with the government to determine whether the price is reasonable enough to be covered by housing benefits. (Rosalie, since 2002 in Drewitz, October 2021)

In those situations where housing benefits are tied to the housing unit for a defined time frame, concerns were raised about potential changes that may occur years down the line, as explained by another respondent:

Some are afraid of how this will develop over the next 15 to 20 years, because rent controlled units are dependent on the subsidy. In other words, what will happen when the subsidy expires? We will have to see how the rent index in Potsdam continues to develop, and how politics will keep enforcing forms of rent control. (Katja, July 2021).

That being said, the most notable demographic shifts in Drewitz during the past decade have been predominantly driven by an above-average influx of new households with an immigration background that are eligible for WBS support, particularly refugees from war-torn countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine (see 6.5). In the words of Propotsdam’s managing director, rather than undergoing gentrification, Drewitz may be instead on the brink of becoming a neighbourhood of concentrated poverty, by keeping attracting an overwhelming number of socially disadvantaged households:

For years, people have worried that redevelopment would bring gentrification, but the reality is that, since we are redeveloping using State subsidies, we allocate 75% of the housing to people on social benefits, so the danger is rather that this may create new social segregation (Gregor, October 2021)

6. Voices from drewitz

6.1. The park and the greening

The focal point of the Garden City project is the brand new Konrad-Wolf-Park. The elimination of the old Konrad-Wolf-Allee has created a multi-purpose gathering space that attracts individuals and families also from the neighbouring areas of Schlaatz and Am Stern. What just a few years ago was seen as the most threatening element in the development scheme, is now a source of pride in Drewitz, as confirmed by a representative of the Bürgervertretung:

Suppose we asked someone ‘Would you want the road back?’ People would think we are crazy! And yet, ten years ago things were different … (Karl, since 1989 in Drewitz, July 2021)

Others emphasize how the park offers a unique gathering spot for the community, allowing residents to spend their leisure time outdoors and live a more communal life, in stark contrast with the broad thoroughfare of old times:

When I walk through the park in the summer, I just look at this beautiful space and think back at the times when the very idea of a park was opposed so vehemently. Now there are people of all walks of life who meet up, who watch their children play, who simply enjoy drinking a coffee or eating a piece of cake… (Ethel, worked since 1988 in Drewitz, November 2011)

People from adjacent neighbourhoods and from other areas of Potsdam are more often coming to Drewitz. Most come in the morning to bring their children to the District School, many others just come for a walk in the park. Drewitz’s image has changed radically after the regeneration, and this is causing a ripple effect in neighbouring areas: there have been talks of similar redevelopments (centred around large, multi-purpose parks) that may be coming in the adjacent social housing areas of Schlaatz and Am Stern, and even of a ‘green belt’ connecting the three neighbourhoods:

When I moved to Drewitz, it still had the reputation of being a ‘ghetto’ (…) And now you hear more and more neighbors who say ‘we also want a park, we also want something like that!’ (Karl, since 1989 in Drewitz, July 2021)

Even so, a few respondents had contrasting views with regards to the new greening. A resident bemoaned the felling of over 150 grown-up trees that were removed to make space for the new park. The felling of healthy trees to prepare the ground for new roadworks or even for the creation of newly designed green space highlights the limits of public engagement in the decision-making around the management of the urban forestry, which in most cases still remains an exclusive prerogative of the planners and the technical staff (Heydon, 2020; Zagato, 2022). Another resident felt that the new greening, while visually appealing, has more of an ornamental function, and was concerned about the loss of biodiversity in the neighbourhood:

The yards are hot in the summer, they need shade. And if we want to have biodiversity here, and not only flies and mosquitoes, then we need big trees (…) We used to have flocks of swifts circling here over the summer, and black birds, a very big colony… and now barely a quarter has remained … (Ute, since 1990 in Drewitz, February 2022)

Although a collective community garden exists (see 6.3), some residents saw the scarcity of green patches to be fully managed by the residents as a drawback of the new development. Other respondents expressed frustration about the inability of doing informal gardening projects in the common yards, with the upkeep and maintenance of the green space now being centrally managed. Many of the informal actions that were taken by good-will residents to make these spaces their own seem to have become a daunting task, as emphasized by a long-time tenant: ‘there is all this bureaucracy. We are no longer in a position to say whether we can build a birdhouse or install a faucet in the yard’ (Johnny, since 2000 in Drewitz, December 2021). These comments reflect a certain degree of emotional unhoming (Davidson & Lees, 2010; Shaw & Hagemans, 2015; Stabrowski, 2014) resulting from the challenges of adapting to the disruption of daily habits and familiar social dynamics in a transformed environment.

6.2. Revolution in transportation

Cars driving across the area are now constrained into two narrow lanes running in both directions. This creates problems particularly in the case of delivery vans having to unload items, or when residents need to stop the car to unload groceries. In addition to the extreme narrowing of the main thoroughfare, the loss of parking space has been the most controversial aspect of this redevelopment, whose aim was not only to create new green space where none before existed, but also to forcefully direct the population away from car use and towards a larger use of public transit and bike mobility. Parking lots close to home are allocated through a points-based system to those who need them the most (the elderly, women with young children, the disabled etc.), which is of help, but doesn’t solve the issue for many:

You find no parking. And if one wants to even give a neighbour a little help with shopping and so on, has to stand second row, and before he knows it, he gets a parking ticket, or has his car towed away. (Johnny, since 2000 in Drewitz, December 2021).

From interviews it became apparent that the lack of parking options, scarce for residents, but even scarcer for visitors, contributes to reinforcing the social isolation that some residents feel, like this long-time resident in one of the old blocks explains:

It makes me really angry, because I am afraid every time my son-in-law or my daughter comes and stays a little longer, they will find a ticket. (Verena, in Drewitz since 2001, February 2022)

Some of the proponents of the regeneration took these protests as overstated, considering the benefits that new green space is bringing in terms of health and safety, especially for the younger generations:

Here, children grow up in an environment where it is common to leave the house, hop on your bike, and ride to the city. (Karl, since 1989 in Drewitz, July 2021)

Parking pricing strategies and radical street redesign are all parts of the environmental toolbox to discourage car dependency and move towards alternative forms of transportation like bike lanes or public transit (OECD, 2021). The transition towards a new car-free regime doesn’t come without drawbacks, however, and research confirms how similar intervention can encounter conflicting reactions among different groups of residents with different objectives and interests (see Goetting & Jarass, 2023; Sweere, 2022). In the case of Drewitz, it is especially longstanding social tenants who are the most dependent on the use of their cars. Given the prescriptive nature of the project, some are gradually getting accustomed to using their car less frequently, while recently arrived residents simply know from the very beginning that Drewitz is no longer a car-friendly district, as this interviewee explains:

New tenants coming here, either they are ok with living without a car and using public transit, or they don’t come. (Rosalie, since 2002 in Drewitz, October 2021)

Undeniably, this is a very different place from what it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s. The street and the parking lots may be gone, but there is a new connection with the natural amenities in the surroundings:

Now you see families heading out to fly kites and do other activities together (…) It hasn’t been like this in a long time, at least not since the 1990s and 2000s, when you hardly ever saw anyone outside, and people just sat in front of the television, and there was a lot more social isolation. (Ethel, worked since 1988 in Drewitz, November 2011)

6.3. Investments in the social infrastructure

Drewitz has a population of workers, pensioners, carers, single parents, and unemployed. It is still a very poor district, with above-average local rates of unemployment and long-term unemployment (Landeshauptstadt Potsdam, 2022). In 2019, about 7% of the population between the ages of 15 and 65 was unemployed (against 4.2% citywide), and 15.2% was on SGB II (basic income for job seekers) against a citywide 6.8% (Tätigkeitsbericht Soziale Stadt, 2020). The number of single-headed households represents over a third of the households in Drewitz. A large number of families is stuck in working poverty, as highlighted by the Chair of the local redevelopment agency:

People here have very little money, and many jobs. So there are relatively few unemployed, but many who have two or three mini-jobs to make ends meet. (Kathrin, July 2021)

Many children in the neighbourhood are in poor health and live in troubled households, and the stay-at-home rules during the Covid-19 lockdowns didn’t help, with five cases of children that were taken away from their families, as reported by the former chairman of the day care centre (Ingo, November 2021). The director of the district school explained that ‘child neglect, child endangerment, child poverty and educational poverty are all major issues in Drewitz’ (Katja, July 2021).

The gradual establishment of a publicly-funded social infrastructure started in 1999 with the inclusion of Drewitz in the Soziale Stadt program. The most significant investment has been the development of a facility that serves as a shared space for both the elementary school and the community centre. Opened in 2013, this new district school integrates a modern multi-purpose community hub (the Oskar) which provides a large auditorium, multimedia rooms, cooking studio, garden and workshops, and offers a wide range of cultural and social events. It is a meeting place for residents of all ages, from children to the elderly, and provides services for individuals and households in need, including social counselling and free breakfast for deprived children. Space and opportunities are given to volunteers who want to organise events, launch social or community projects or engage in self-help groups. Since it is located in the same building as the district school, parents who bring their children to school are informed daily about the services and activities provided. Education scholars have long suggested that ‘reinforcing the link between public schools and neighbourhoods is not only good education policy, but also good community-development policy and practice’ (Chung, 2002). Referring to the situation in the US, Good (2022) claims that neighbourhood schools create ‘important latent potential for anchoring community development’. Good’s call for a major integration of neighbourhood schools in community development strongly resonates with the experience of Drewitz, whose model of school and community centre under one roof has gained broad recognition, as explained by the school director (Katja, July 2021):

We had international delegations that were interested in this model, especially because of the fact that, through the children, we are able to reach out to the parents. And the fact that no rooms remain unused after school.

Many residents highlighted the role of the school and community centre as crucial relational hubs, where connections are established, fostered, and sustained:

People network with each other. They come here, and then they talk outside. And, over time, somehow everyone knows everyone. And if you’re in a situation where you need help, you will find help very quickly. (Karl, since 1989 in Drewitz, July 2021)

The cultivation of local relational networks also crosses over ethnic and cultural boundaries, like during the cooking and dining events. The community centre has an open kitchen that can be used when needed:

One day we said: ok, we have 30 euros, we are 30 people. Let’s go shopping now and we will prepare dinner for all of us…. Then a family from Romania went home and came back and brought lots of tomatoes and rice, they baked the tomatoes and boiled the rice, and it turned out to be a great dinner for all. These possibilities exist when you have a community kitchen inside the school. (Ethel, worked since 1988 in Drewitz, November 2011)

As mentioned above, the Oskar also works as a source of social support for families who are in need of social and labour counselling, and where teenagers can learn about apprenticeships and job opportunities. For people with immigrant background, the Oskar offers language and integrations courses. For people in deep distress, it offers free food. Finally, the Oskar has a key function in promoting activities in contact with nature, for instance with the project Wendeschleife, a shared community garden with vegetables patches. This has been particularly successful during the Covid-19 lockdowns when social distance limited contacts in indoor space, and enabled people to socialise while gardening (interview with Johanna, August 2022).

6.4. Engagement as an antidote

Breaking the cycle of welfare dependency can be challenging for the long-term unemployed, as the availability of subsidies can discourage individuals from seeking independency and becoming self-reliant. This issue has been extensively debated in labour economics literature (Schneider & Uhlendorff, 2004; Shroder, 2012) as well in psychological research, which indicates a heightened emotional strain in adapting to work routines for long-time benefit recipients (Danziger et al., 2001; Mecca et al., 1989). It is not rare to witness this phenomenon in Drewitz as well, as the Chair of the local redevelopment agency notes:

The big problem is, for people who have been unemployed for a long time, you just have to learn to have a daily structure again. I think that is a very difficult situation (…) This affects all people here, German families as well as families with a migration background. (Kathrin, works since 1996 in the area, July 2021)

The former director of the District School also emphasized the significance of hands-on engagement and active participation as the most powerful antidotes to the feelings of disengagement or impotence that chronic unemployment can bring:

There are so many new ways to act and engage in the process that is unfolding here. Character is formed via engagement, a desire to collaborate, and the acceptance of responsibility. And you can’t always say, ‘The state provides me with Hartz IV and is responsible for my well-being. No, it is each individual’s responsibility to care for themselves and their community. (November 2011)

Individual agency and collective initiative are fostered through the availability of funds that can be utilized for a number of community projects, ranging from gardening programs to block parties. Many engage in voluntary work through their own initiatives, like a long-standing tenant couple who helped neighbours in need during the Covid times with an impromptu food aid:

During lockdown, my wife and I put together food bags for parents or families we knew were in a challenging situation, carried the food home, and organised some little activities for their children. (Ingo, since 2015 in Drewitz, November 2021)

While new links are forged through these newfound opportunities for engagement, other bonds are the legacy of a shared past. A resident explains:

Here, we are all former GDR residents. This togetherness is a legacy of the GDR times. And thank God we have this; it’s rare these days. (Ingo, since 2015 in Drewitz, November 2021)

Throughout the ethnographic research, a pronounced sense of belonging was noticeable among those residents who have spent most of their lives in former Eastern Germany. This bond has been explained as the shared experience of having lived through a very particular socialization pattern under communism (Andrews, 2003), one in which concerns for socio-economic status didn’t play a significant role. Another resident elaborated on this with greater clarity:

What was good back then? That didn’t necessarily have to do with Drewitz, but with the time in the GDR. There wasn’t so much envy and resentment, because nobody had much (…) In this simplicity in which we lived, there was much more contact and willingness to help. (Iris, in Drewitz since 1989, November 2021)

6.5. Refugees and their integration

Foreign residents with a migration background have increased in recent years and amounted to 21.7% of the Drewitz population in 2019, against 14.1% citywide (Soziale Stadt, 2021). Over the last ten years, particularly asylum seekers from Syria and Afghanistan, and more recently from Ukraine and the Russian Federation have found a home in Drewitz, which today counts over 20 different ethnicities. As the owner of over half of the housing units in the district, ProPotsdam adheres to City guidelines for the accommodation and integration of refugees, as explained by ProPotsdam Managing Director:

The percentage of people applying for WBS who are coming from abroad has increased a lot since 2015, now also Ukrainians can apply for WBS, and therefore many of the new rented flats are also rented to people coming from foreign countries. (Gregor, October 2021)

Many of the initiatives backed by the Soziale Stadt program are indeed targeted at the integration of newly arrived migrants in the community. They also provide ways to combat social isolation by creating opportunities for involvement that can be of value for all residents. Most of the residents interviewed showed sympathy towards the new incoming populations, and some told stories of bonds that have formed across cultural and ethnic barriers. At 84 years, the mother of an interviewee offered to help tutoring a Vietnamese child she had met at the local grocery store to help him with his homework. This tutoring developed into a friendship, and slowly she became part of the child’s extended family (interview with Iris, in Drewitz since 1989, November 2021).

The integration of immigrants in Drewitz has not been without drawbacks, however, particularly because of their rapid increase in numbers within a relative short period of time. In 1997, the proportion of citizens with non-German background in Drewitz was very sparse at 2% (Becker, 1998), while today this percentage has increased tenfold. In some interviews, a sense of bewilderment with the demographic changes taking place in Drewitz emerged:

Sometimes one has the impression that the foreigners almost predominate (…) probably because the foreign residents are very much more active outdoors than the Germans. (Rolf, since 1992 in Drewitz, August 2022)

While the challenges of providing housing and services to meet the needs of the growing immigrant households are being addressed through a strong welfare system, the local impacts on social cohesion, community relations, and intergroup dynamics in the neighbourhood are nuanced. While a majority of residents interviewed have expressed a welcoming attitude towards the newcomers, some respondents have voiced their frustrations regarding the apparent reluctance of recent immigrants to fully integrate in the district’s community life. Despite Drewitz being predominantly a left-leaning district, political parties with contrasting views on immigration are on the rise, and have achieved above-average results (25% compared to the citywide average of 13%) in the 2019 State election (Landeshauptstadt Potsdam, 2019).

7. Discussion: a noteworthy example of renovation without ‘renoviction’

Since the mid 2000s, the ripple effect of the massive gentrification waves in neighbouring Berlin (Helbrecht, 2017; Holm, 2013) has forced many to find a home in the surrounding Brandenburg Metropolitan Region, in towns like Brandenburg-an-der-Havel, Wittenberg, or Potsdam. In Potsdam, nestled 27 km and a 25-minutes train ride away from central Berlin, this pressure has been felt since the mid 2000s (Gellner, 2018; Zschieck, 2018), but has escalated particularly after the financialized reshaping of the rental housing markets that has hit the Capital after the global financial crisis of 2007/08 (Fields & Uffer, 2016).

Given this unsettling context, the example of Drewitz inspires optimism. Drawing on the redevelopment phases concluded between 2010 and 2024, the ‘Garden City’ project has so far achieved a remarkable balance between energy-efficient retrofitting, provision of state-of-the-art green public space, and successful measures to safeguard social cohesion and stability. No signs of gentrification have been observed within the district, and there was no evidence suggesting the displacement or forced relocation of residents or businesses. In the following points, I summarize the key elements that have made this ‘renovation without renoviction’ possible in Drewitz:

1. The strength of the national benefits system, with provision of guaranteed subsidies from the state or federal government to cover social rents. This encourages local housing companies to operate with a social target and to keep investing in their housing inventory, as the main downside to financial viability is represented by a stock that is unappealing and plagued by high vacancy rates;

2. The direct involvement of the local municipal housing company. Being publicly-owned, ProPotsdam has an obligation with the City to ensure the availability of substantial quotas of social housing. Because of the nature of this housing development being led by the municipal housing company with funding by the Land, the vast majority of the renovated housing units in Drewitz have remained at social rent levels (see 3. And 5.).

3. The use of retrofitting instead of demolition and rebuilding has enabled the elimination of the costs associated with demolition (including disposal fees for waste materials) and new construction. From a social sustainability standpoint, phased retrofitting has ensured minimal disruptions to residents, as temporary relocations were relatively brief and did not discourage tenants from returning (see 5.). The preservation of the character and heritage of the buildings in Drewitz has also played a role in maintaining existing social and communal ties and ensuring a sense of continuity in the neighbourhood;

4. The involvement and engagement of the local community. The outcomes of regeneration in Drewitz would have been different if it wasn’t for the strong involvement of residents, particularly after the failure of the earliest consultations in 2010. The establishment of a local representative body (Bürgervertretung) and its dedicated advocacy have effectively positioned residents as stakeholders at every stage of the development process (see 4.). This has contributed to building trust between the community and the development actors, leading to greater acceptance and buy-in of the plan.

The qualitative research conducted in Drewitz also suggests that positive community-building processes can be ignited in the midst of large redevelopment plans, as long as residents are guaranteed in their ‘right to stay put’ (Hartman, 1984). Despite initial fears and opposition, individual and collective engagement has enabled most households to quite successfully navigate changing social and cultural dynamics in a renewed environment. Most respondents have consistently expressed their appreciation for the new park, and recognized the school and community center’s crucial contribution in enhancing social bonds and promoting engagement. Among the drawbacks of the plan, however, many interviewees have criticized the normative approach to traffic rerouting and street redesign, which they perceive as a top-down imposition. A minor subset of respondents has further expressed concerns about the growing number of new immigrants and their perceived reluctance to integrate into the broader community (see 6.5). A certain dissatisfaction regarding the loss of ‘spontaneity’ in the use of public space in the new Drewitz was also expressed by a segment of the community interviewed: some participants conveyed their frustrations about a perceived loss of emotional ownership of the place (see 6.1), even in the absence of physical and spatial displacement (Davidson & Lees, 2010; Shaw & Hagemans, 2015; Stabrowski, 2014).

8. Conclusion

This paper has offered critical insights to inform and expand our understanding of some of the key mechanisms that can foster a sustainable regeneration in large social housing neighbourhoods. The case of Drewitz also provides a compelling counter-argument to the increasing reliance on extractive private finance models of social housing regeneration that have recently been gaining momentum in the US and the UK. These models ensure the preservation of existing social housing units through cross-subsidies generated from the construction and sale of newly built market-rate or luxury homes within the footprint of the estates themselves (Thompson & Hepburn, 2022), like in the case of Woodberry Down in London (see Busà & Lees, 2023). This latter case is of particular interest due to its unique financing structure, which relies almost exclusively on a private ‘self-financing’ model which comes at no costs for the taxpayers, as opposed to the public-funded approach we observed in Drewitz. As such, it reflects a very different political and economic environment, one in which public authorities constrained by budget limitations are actively on the lookout for innovative ways to attract private capital and monetize public assets. This indicates how a potential replicability of the Drewitz model in different geographical contexts is contingent not only on overall local political and legislative factors (social housing regulations, planning rules, and tenant rights), but even more importantly, on the available financing landscapes, whether public or private, whether local or extra-local. While different countries in- and outside the EU may have their own public funding mechanisms for mass housing development and/or energy retrofit, it is evident that few can match Germany’s largesse and strong benefits system. When public funding is tight, private investors will tend to come barging in with innovative financial schemes for the redevelopment of council estates—this will most likely be the case in ‘hot’ property markets where such investment can maximize yields—and this may occur not without drawback in terms of their impacts on longstanding tenants (Beswick et al., 2016; Beswick & Penny, 2018; Thompson & Hepburn, 2022). When public funding is indeed available, the experience in Drewitz teaches how forging strategic partnerships among local authorities, regional governments, and national funding bodies will be crucial to leverage the capital, expertise and capabilities necessary to undertake complex and often long-drawn-out large-scale regeneration projects that will impact hundreds, if not thousands of residents. Finally, as the Drewitz case emphasizes, whatever the financing mechanism may be, it will be crucial to actively engage residents and local stakeholders since the earliest stages of the planning process, and to promote effective participatory platforms throughout the different planning stages, so as to provide real opportunities to influence decision-making by taking into account the unique needs, cultural and social challenges of the local community.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to all the key informants who participated in the interviews and provided their valuable time and insights. The author is thankful to Laura Colini, who provided critical support during the drafting of the early manuscript, and to Loretta Lees and Matthias Bernt, who provided important feedback in the early writing stage. The author would also like to acknowledge the anonymous referees for their constructive comments and feedback and the editorial team for their assistance throughout the publication process.

Disclosure statement

The author reports there are no competing interests to declare.

Funding

This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 837749.

Figure 1. Drewitz in 2012. © Ulf Böttcher/ProPotsdam GmbH.

Figure 2. Drewitz in 2016. © Adam Sevens/ProPotsdam GmbH.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 837749.

Notes on contributors

Alessandro Busà

Alessandro Busà worked as a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Global Research Fellow at the SGGE of the University of Leicester, UK between 2020 and 2023. His MSCA GF project ‘SUSTEUS’ explores the socioeconomic impact of environmentally sustainable redevelopment plans on communities housed in social housing estates in EU, UK and US cities. Alessandro holds a PhD in Theory of Urban Planning from the Technical University of Berlin. He has been a fellow at the TGK Transatlantic Graduate Research Program Berlin – New York of the Center for Metropolitan Studies and a visiting scholar at GSAPP of Columbia University. His book titled ‘The Creative Destruction of New York City - Engineering the City for the Elite’ was published by Oxford University Press in 2017.