[HN Gopher] Berlin rent cap overturned by Germany's top court ___________________________________________________________________ Berlin rent cap overturned by Germany's top court Author : tavrin Score : 145 points Date : 2021-04-15 08:12 UTC (14 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.dw.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.dw.com) | unixhero wrote: | Here goes nothing. Bye bye Berlin. This is going to be painful | for many. | that_guy_iain wrote: | It shouldn't be overly painful. There were already laws in | place restricting the price of rent. It's just a few months ago | nearly everyone got a rent decrease. Mines was about 150 euros. | With this decision it may be possible that the landlords ask | for back rent that they didn't charge because of this law. And | our rents go back to what they were. I considered my rent | pretty cheap in the first place so I am not overly concerned | about the rent hike. I am going to be annoyed about paying back | rent in a lump sum for something that really wasn't anything to | do with me. | Tenoke wrote: | If you only got 150e then indeed your rent was pretty cheap | (close to the cap). In my case, for example, the difference | is 500e. | throwaway85858 wrote: | The Berlin senate knew the Mietendeckel was on the balance of | probabilities unconstitutional, but they went ahead with it | anyway. Not a single new apartment was built with this law. Total | and utter waste. | mousetree wrote: | Per another comment in this thread, this isn't true. Many | apartment buildings are indeed being built: | https://taz.de/Mehr-Baugenehmigungen-in-Berlin/!5706294/ | throwaway85858 wrote: | you should review the latest statistics, that article is from | august 2020, the number of baugenehmigungs in 2020 went down | in comparison to 2019. https://www.statistik-berlin- | brandenburg.de/pms/2021/21-03-1... | | and AFAIK MietenWoG didn't fund or support the new housing | developments. | bellyfullofbac wrote: | Hah, how to quote statistics and ignore everything else | (like a worldwide pandemic) to back up your arguments. | varispeed wrote: | Not sure how it is in Germany, but in my country (UK) the housing | problem seems to be completely artificial. If you are an | individual you cannot just buy land and buy a house - it is | impossible to go through all the red tape and even if you do, | local council for reasons known to them will unlikely to approve. | So the market is really in hands of a couple of huge development | companies who mostly build shoeboxes that they call homes and | don't build enough so that there is space for everyone and if | they do it's too expensive for anyone anyway. These flats are | more like a storage of value for foreign rich people. I think | this is because those millionaires can corrupt any politician and | get their way, whereas average citizen cannot do anything. | Tomte wrote: | > The court ruling found that since the federal government had | already made a law regulating rents, a state government could not | impose its own law that infringed upon that | | That's somewhat inaccurate, because "infringing" doesn't come | into play. | | The German Constitution clearly delineates things that the | federal government may regulate, things that the state | governments may regulate, and things that both may regulate. | | In the latter case, the state governments may only regulate when | the federal government hasn't done so. | | Here the federal government did, by way of amending the civil | code, so Berlin isn't allowed to. | | The court did not rule on the material issue whether such a rent | cap would be constitutional, if enacted in a procedurally proper | way. | Angostura wrote: | That sounds exactly like 'infringing' to me. In what way is it | not? | nicbou wrote: | Without judging the outcome, here are a few things HN readers | might not be aware of: | | - The supply of rental apartments dropped by 40-60% after the | Mietendeckel came in effect. It became even harder to find an | apartment in Berlin. Landlords were holding their breaths. | | - The supply of housing for sale also dwindled. If I'm not | mistaken, sellers were waiting for the court judgement to | rent/sell. | | - The Mietendeckel also concerned furnished apartments, although | it was largely ignored by landlords on short term furnished flat | platforms like Wunderflats. The platforms turned a blind eye. | | - I know many people who got significant reductions, sometimes | exceeding 20%. | | - In most cases, the new rent contracts with reduced rents had a | shadow rent clause in case the Mietendeckel got repealed. Many | people will have to pay the difference back within 14 days. | | - The Mietpreisbremse, and earlier rent control measure, is still | in effect. It does not include the rent freeze, but it does | include significant rent reductions. Unfortunately, it's not | automatic (no threat of a fine), and often needs to be enforced | in court. The court judgement is retroactive to April 2020. | | This is all I know/remember. | dathinab wrote: | Also, and maybe most important: | | _In the majority(?) of cases it did not work._ | | Landlords found absurd ways to work around it. Many not | necessary fully legal but only in a way that if no one who is | "hurt" by it sues the state can not act. | | There where enough people which where open to pay the de-facto | increased "not so legal" Rent, and as such would definitely not | sure. | | A common trick was to pair the rent contract with Renting some | token furniture for completely unreasonable (and as such | somewhat illegal/moon-) prices. (note: this wasn't the same as | the rent prices for furnished apartments exception thingy | mentioned by others) | | Again if both renter and rentee are happy with it there is | nothing which the state could have done. | | Also more apartments where sold instead of rented out, in turn | decreasing the amount of rente-able apartments while the demand | did change (maybe except due to COVID, I would have to look it | up). Furthermore it's not uncommon that such apartments do not | enter the rent pool again even if the person in question leaves | Berlin (and then illegally perma rents it over RBnB to | tourists, or keeps it empty or resells it or ...) | | Lastly due to majorly increased renovation costs (as far as I | know) and now rent caps it was basically much less likely for | any new apartments to be added to the pool. And even | (potentially necessary) renovations of existing ones was much | less likely done (as far as I have heard from people involved | in that business, through not the very big players, but it | matches the experience other cities which did impose rent caps | had). | | And just to be clear Rents in Berlin reaching a point where | it's problematic for many people from Berlin to pay them IS a | massive problem. Just that this law as far as I can tell would | not have solved it and maybe even made it worse. Also yes Rents | had been unusual low in the past (I'm personally profiting from | this) but now they have gone beyond any reasonable price in | many cases (at least in context what many people earn in | Berlin). | nicbou wrote: | > A common trick was to pair the rent contract with Renting | some token furniture for completely unreasonable | | That's a problem with the Mietpreisbremse, but not so much | with the Mietendeckel, which also sets limits on furnished | flats. You also can't just throw in an IKEA BILLY shelf and | call it furnished (in the words of my lawyer). | throwaway85858 wrote: | - the amount of apartments for sale increased but so did the | prices. | | - furnished aparthotels are something special and they got an | exception from the state (because some providers are state | owned) | [deleted] | EdwinLarkin wrote: | The only way to balance the market is to reduce demand and | increase supply. | | Build more. | nabla9 wrote: | It's better that everything is explicit. | | * If you want cheaper rents: build more housing. | | * If you want more housing, zone more housing. | | * If you want to keep "local vibrant culture" alive. Give direct | cash transfers from the government. Don't try to sneak subsidy | trough private housing. | | * If local government needs more money, tax property. | | Urban economics has real trickle down effect: It does not matter | if you build apartments for the rich or poor, everyone gets | affordable housing if you just keep building enough apartments. | osclarto wrote: | why does society consistently insist on funneling it's wealth to | an unproductive class of elites? i want answers | kdtsh wrote: | The people who drive that wealth redistribution are the | unproductive class of elites and have an interest in and the | means to doing so. | amelius wrote: | If more than 50% of people own their house, then renters are | outvoted. | throwaway85858 wrote: | Here are some examples of ways berlin could have increased the | amount of affordable housing: | | 1. Build more housing on land that is already owned by Berlin | State | | 2. Increase the amount of housing support available to low income | families | | 3. Prevent the migration of social housing units to the private | market by extending existing contracts. | | 4. Close loopholes in the Mietpreisbremse that allowed landlords | to dramatically raise the rent after renovations. | | 5. Block NIMBY movements from preventing the construction of | housing projects | | 6. Fund the court system so cases can be resolved in less than a | decade. | | 7. Increase the minimum number of social housing units in new | developments to 50% | | ... | axiosgunnar wrote: | Only #1, #5 and #6 would actually improve the situation and not | be a zero-sum game, the rest is socialism, just rehashed. | alexgmcm wrote: | Socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of | production not "when the Government does stuff" | | Taxing unoccupied properties could help to ensure existing | properties were actually used and not just held empty by | speculators. | | But yeah, the main solution is building stuff - I think we | need to build residential skyscrapers in the West like they | have in Eastern cities, otherwise the urban population | densities we are arriving to are unaffordable for most | citizens. | varispeed wrote: | > Taxing unoccupied properties could help to ensure | existing properties were actually used and not just held | empty by speculators. | | This won't work, as investors can hire people to live in | the property and it will make it more expensive as a | result, as someone will have to pay for that extra admin. | varispeed wrote: | 7. Why should the other 50% pay more? This is what I am uneasy | about - if you work hard, live a modest life to save for a | place to live, sacrificing hobbies, socialising, happier life | in general and then you have other half who just don't care | because they think they should receive everything from the | state. This is extremely demotivating and make people question | whether they were correct about saving and making sacrifice. I | personally know people who became homeless on purpose as they | found they could get a house much quicker this way rather than | through working their bottoms off. Don't get me wrong - there | are people who genuinely need help and I wholeheartedly support | that, but I don't think the number is 50%. | chakhs wrote: | or change rules for social housing to something like | singapore. anyone who doesn't already own a house is | illegible to buy a social housing unit (paid as rent). but it | requires huge investments. I also don't want to work my ass | off just to end up paying the same % of my salary to the | landlord. | oled10 wrote: | The rental situation is bleak. There's a two class system of | people who got cheap housing 20 years ago and can never move | (like in New York). If they move, they keep the apartment and | sublet it. | | Then there is a massive indiscriminate sellout of property to | very rich foreigners. In some top locations you hear more Russian | than German in the streets. | | Otherwise, in the lower segments there is enormous pressure from | refugees, who get government aid while low income Germans do not. | | The people who decide everything (Red/Green party) most have | cheap apartments that they got 20 years ago. They don't suffer | from their own policies. | nicbou wrote: | Keeping the apartment and subletting it is non-trivial since | the landlord is not forced to accept it, and has no incentive | to. Illegal sublets are common, but more inconvenient. | | The part about hearing more Russian that German doesn't ring | true to me, and reeks of xenophobia. Doubly so for the non | sequitur quip about refugees. | Draken93 wrote: | This will hurt the normal people and benefit big housing | corporations only... | jpxw wrote: | Rent control doesn't work, and never will. It is utterly ignorant | of economic reality. Economists on almost all sides have admitted | this at this point. The only people left clinging on to the idea | are politicians who do it to pander to people for votes. | f6v wrote: | Rent control in Berlin is just trying to fix the problem in a | most ridiculous way. The city is obviously attractive for both | germans, and thousands of expats from Italy, Spain, Poland, | Russia etc. How much housing is being built in Berlin? I don't | know. But I do know that there're no new underground stations | being built, save for that tiny new line in the downtown. No | new stations means the city isn't expanding at all, while more | and more people come to live there. | NicoJuicy wrote: | In Belgium they build a lot of social housing on unique land ( I | think there's a requirement of 20% social housing on every large- | scale building initiative for every city) | | Since it's the government that gives it to private contractors , | the city builds more social housing than giving land for "normal" | housing. | | Creating a continuous loop of more expensive prices for normal | houses and more social houses ( government sponsored) being | build. | | It's ridiculous. | [deleted] | nocobot wrote: | This is a disaster for lots of people who signed a "shadow rent" | contract and now owe their landlords. | | I know quite a few friends who won't be able to pay. | | In many cases this essentially doubles their rent. | nicbou wrote: | I'm scrambling to give these people an action plan, with the | help of more competent people in the industry. There's a senate | meeting on Tuesday to decide how to approach this problem. | | On the bright side, you might still be eligible for the slower, | less universal Mietpreisbremse. There's a lawtech startup that | helps people get that reduction. They keep 5x the monthly | reduction as a fee. | jonp888 wrote: | TBH I struggle to have sympathy for people who signed a shadow | rent contract in the full knowledge that they could not afford | to pay the shadow rent. | hannob wrote: | The interesting thing is how this will influence a referendum | that wants to force expropriation of the largest housing | companies ("Deutsche Wohnen und Co enteignen"). | | When the referendum idea first came up a common argument against | it was "there are milder measures against high rents". Now that's | what was tried and failed. | | I'm almost certain the referendum will get approved. There will | likely be legal actions against it as well, but expropriation in | the public interest is part of the German constitution, so | legally it seems on good grounds. | 29athrowaway wrote: | "Buy land, they're not making it anymore" | | - Mark Twain | [deleted] | jonathanstrange wrote: | This is a catastrophe and very disappointing. | | Here is a little personal anecdote: I used to live in the center | of Berlin Mitte when I was a student, had rented a Penthouse | apartment for 450 Euro/mo incl. additional costs (but without | water, gas, electricity). It was affordable. Then a Bavarian | multimillionaire bought the house from the original owners. I was | already abroad most of the time, so I didn't experience the loud | works his people conducted to get old renters out. However, he | did cut off my telephone cable, something the phone technician | realized when I returned and was able to fix. | | Later he threatened to build a balcony - "and this might take a | long time" - unless I agree to pay a higher rent. The classic | ugly move. I negotiated with him for a while and in the end the | raise was not so bad. However, I realized that I have to get out | anyway - he wouldn't stop until I'd have left, you cannot fight a | landlord with evil intentions in the long run even if you're a | member of renter protection like I was. So I left Berlin and | never returned, not even for a visit. I never asked but would | estimate the same apartment at around 1600 EUR/mo today, with an | ever increasing tendency. | | Now I live in another country, ten years have passed, and the | same happens in the city I live in. Rents are rising | continuously, I've already seen people photographing the houses | in our street, several of them are being totally renovated, new | apartments are _always_ "luxury apartments" as if any local could | afford these (it's a poor country, ca. 800 EUR average income), | and an agent from Sotheby's Real Estate rang my doorbell recently | to ask if I'm the owner of my apartment. | | You cannot escape this trend unless you want to live jobless on | the countryside. I'd buy an apartment like most of my colleagues | if I had the money, but it would mean having liabilities for the | next 20 years and I only have time-limited contracts in Academia. | | It's frustrating to know there is a real risk I'll have to spend | my later years in the most ugly suburbs and slums of an otherwise | beautiful town, even though I have a rather decent salary in | local terms, while most of these houses with unaffordable "luxury | apartments" are bought by foreign investors. By the way, many of | the new apartments are empty, apparently only serve as | investments. | radu_floricica wrote: | This reminds me of the dispute on liberalizing parking space | prices. An uber driver last week was super against it, saying | it's not fair. His main argument? He has a price protected one. | Meanwhile I do the 10 minute parking dance every evening, while | going past paid, reserved and unused parking spots. (Bucharest | btw, and they'll likely stay this way) | varispeed wrote: | For two years I had to drive for 1-3 hours after work each | working day to find space, just because our local authority | decided to make paid parking as a pilot on most streets in | the area and mine was not included, so everyone tried to park | on those limited free streets and I couldn't get a permit for | pilot ones. The paid ones of course were mostly empty and | that put enormous stress on the few free ones. Complete lack | of imagination from people who planned this and residents | were not consulted. | fy20 wrote: | > Now I live in another country, ten years have passed, and the | same happens in the city I live in. | | The same is happening in my city (Baltics) too. We bought a new | apartment 5 years ago in the city centre, at the time we paid | EUR2250/m2 which was quite a lot. Now I'm seeing the standard | price for new apartments being double that. The typical salary | here is around EUR1000/mo[1], so these apartments are | completely unaffordable to most people. | | We were actually looking to upgrade (as we have a 1br apartment | and now a kid), but we wouldn't be able to afford to buy a | bigger apartment. Instead we bought land and are building a | house on the outskirts of the city. We got lucky there too, as | we completed the purchase right before COVID and apparently | land prices have gone up a lot now. | | You can still find barely affordable (usually older) apartments | further out of the city, but if you want to live anywhere close | to the centre you need to be earning a salary a good few | multiples higher than the average. | | [1] Thats for the country as a whole, but salaries vary a lot | in different regions, so maybe for where I am it's higher. | protontorpedo wrote: | Renting a penthouse/dachgeschoss apartment in Mitte costs more | like 2k nowadays. | dna_polymerase wrote: | So, the bavarian investor who upgraded his property is the bad | guy here? While you spend your time abroad, blocking an | apartment in Berlin's city center? Sure, low rents from decades | ago are nice, but there has to be an equilibrium. Houses | depreciate and if the rent is too low there won't be any money | left to pay for upkeep. Unless of course, the bavarian | millionaire has to take a loss and pay for that out of his own | pocket, because eat the rich. | truckerbill wrote: | The op would have sublet presumably at the previous lower | rate. | jonathanstrange wrote: | I was not blocking the apartment but travelling back and | forth while doing my PhD, during one year. I lived there, and | when I was away someone else was taking care of it. The | Bavarian investor was definitely the bad guy, he illegally | cut telephone cables and threatened me with making my life a | misery in a way that was directly against German rent law. I | had to consult with the lawyer from the rent protection | association (Mieterschutzbund) who told me it might be better | to keep an agreement with him since they only pursue lawsuits | in more drastic cases - unfortunately such harassing is | normal, although in the end illegal. | | The rent was not too low, it was perfectly okay for the | previous owners and I can assure you they did not lose money. | They made enough money to pay a company full-time to take | care of the building and relations to the renters. They | merely earned normal amounts instead of seeking a 1000% | return on their investment like the guy from Bavaria. There | are greedy and fair house owners, it's as simple as that. | DangerousPie wrote: | I think it's the opposite. The rent cap (at least in the way it | was implemented) achieved nothing to solve the problems that | exist in the Berlin rental market. It led to a huge decrease in | rental supply. Yes, rent may have been cheap for the few people | who managed to get a place, but it was a lottery with dozens of | applicants for each flat. This mismatch of supply and demand is | exactly the kind of thing that would be solved through pricing | in normal markets. | | And rents rising as a city becomes a more desirable place to | live just makes perfect sense. If you are convinced that this | will happen in your city maybe now would be a great time to buy | a place? | yladiz wrote: | > It led to a huge decrease in rental supply. | | This was artificial though, as landlords were waiting to know | the outcome of this ruling. It's not like the apartments just | vanished from existence. | DangerousPie wrote: | Sure, but I don't think it would have gone back to 100% if | this law hadn't been overturned, since the law made it much | more attractive to keep a property empty in order to sell | it at some point. | llampx wrote: | Empty apartments are more attractive for buyers but if | your intention is to rent it anyway, it wouldn't have | made a difference, as the Mietendeckel ensured you | couldn't rent it for more than what the previous tenant | was paying. | goodpoint wrote: | > This mismatch of supply and demand is exactly the kind of | thing that would be solved through pricing in normal markets. | | The very opposite. The market optimizes for maximum | profitability, not for maximum savings for renters or best | quality of life. | | There's a reason why governments have been building cheap | housing across the last 100 years in most developed | countries. | DangerousPie wrote: | The market is how we find a compromise between tenants' | desire for low rents and landlords' desire for high rents. | I don't think you can say it optimizes for landlord | profitability but it obviously also doesn't optimize for | savings of renters. I agree that this is not perfect, but I | think it's the fairest proxy we got. Attempts at regulating | rents directly usually end up causing all sorts of unwanted | side effects and make things worse for both tenants and | landlords. | | That said, I'm not opposed to the government building cheap | housing. I think that's actually the best solution to an | undersupply of housing. | goodpoint wrote: | > I think it's the fairest proxy we got | | You are simply rehashing the idea that free market is | holy and magic. Instead, housing is inelastic. Also, | apartments are non-fungible goods. | | Furthermore, they have a ton of externalities. (e.g. | access to transportation, shops, workplaces, schools) | | All of this breaks every assumption around free market | theory. Unsurprisingly, governments intervene heavily in | the housing market almost in every developed country. The | only exceptions lead to a combination of slumslords | exploiting the poorest people and gated communities for | the wealthy. | CryptoPunk wrote: | >>You are simply rehashing the idea that free market is | holy and magic. Instead, housing is inelastic. | | Housing is not inelastic at all. Economists have studied | the effects of laws reducing land-use rights, and have | found they impose massive social costs, in the form of | less housing construction, that leads to less affordable | housing. | | https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388 | goodpoint wrote: | > less housing construction, that leads to less | affordable housing | | You mean that decreasing housing supply correlates with | increasing price? | | Because that's exactly what inelastic demand is: | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/inelastic.asp | qayxc wrote: | > If you are convinced that this will happen in your city | maybe now would be a great time to buy a place? | | Did you miss the part were they explained they can't do it | because they only have a temporary assignment? This sounds a | lot like "just be rich". | | The reality is that a lot of people simply cannot afford to | just "buy a place". According to some statistics [0], 40% of | Americans (i.e. a "rich" country), are just one missed | paycheck (or unexpected expenditure) away from homelessness. | If you belong to the 60% that aren't and never experienced | the situation, I understand how foreign the concept might | seem to you. | | [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/40-of-americans-one-step- | from-p... | DangerousPie wrote: | Yeah, that comment was admittedly a bit flippant. But I | would say that OP can't expect to have the flexibility and | low capital requirements of renting but get the benefits of | stability and profiting from price increases that a | property owner would have. There are sacrifices in terms of | work and flexibility (and location) that people make | because they want to buy their property. | hawos wrote: | There are dozens of appicants for each flat anyway, with or | without the cap. | | Not everyone can just buy a place, if rents keep increasing | only rich people will be able to afford living in the city, | you need a lot of non-rich people to actually run the city | though: cashiers, nurses, teachers, firefighters etc. It's | not that easy. | DangerousPie wrote: | I know the market isn't perfect, but in theory if lowly | paid workers can't afford to live in the city anymore | they'll start looking for jobs elsewhere, which will force | their employers to raise wages. | jonathanstrange wrote: | Sorry to be so blunt but that theory is really just | false. There are no jobs elsewhere, the jobs are in the | city. I'm also not a "lowly paid worker", I'm in the | highest quartile of income in my country and work as a | full-time researcher at university. Nevertheless, there | is no cap on the rents in my area and they continuously | increase even for my existing contract. They have | increased sometimes by several hundred percent for new | contracts in my area, so if we ever had to leave our | current apartment, we'd be forced to spend more than 3/2 | of our salaries on rent alone. Even relatively well-off | families will have troubles getting affordable living | space in the foreseeable future, thanks to AirBnB, | hostels, and long-term investments into (right now mostly | empty) luxury apartments. How the average family can do | it in my country is mysterious to me, but I'd wager most | of them only can because they have very old rent | contracts which do not have in-built rent progression. | | The market forces you refer to are fictitious. What | happens in reality is that the middle class is dwindling, | there is an ever increasing divide between land and house | owners and mere renters, and at some point in the more | distant future the whole system will break down. | wrthfl wrote: | You actually made me create a HN-Account to reply to this. | | This is not true. The cap didn't apply to new flats. Which | means that nobody wanted to invest and build new housing, but | instead created artificial scarcity, there are a lot of empty | buildings now because very few people can afford some of the | abhorrent prices. | | So yeah supply and demand totally worked. /s | geezeresque wrote: | Berlin is the emergent Manhattan of Europe, it's cultural (and in | this case, political) hub. It won't be cheaper than Paris, London | or New York. | hnarn wrote: | I'd venture a guess and say I'm very much an outlier in the HN | crowd, because I consider myself a socialist. Even with that | said, I don't really understand the long-term logic behind rent | caps, and I don't think it does much for fighting the old trope | that "socialists are economically illiterate" either. | | If you have a finite supply of something, like housing, it seems | pretty obvious that the reason the price is going up is because | the supply is unable to catch up with demand. Not only do more | people want to live in the city, they're also willing and able to | pay more. The mechanics are obviously more complex because this | is all affected by things like interest rates, influx of foreign | capital and whatever, but I think the basic assumption still | stands: there's not enough housing. | | So if we approach this problem from a "neo liberal" and a | "socialist" point of view, I think there are two ways you'd | normally go about it, none of which include capping rents because | that achieves nothing except make people hoard the commodity that | was previously rare, and is now even more rare because of market | manipulation: | | Neo-lib: The market will take care of it, and poor people being | pushed out is not a problem, they can live somewhere cheaper and | new housing will be built because builders want to make money. | | Socialist: Poor people have a right to live here too, but there | is a lack of affordable housing. We should tax the rich to enable | a wider array of housing financed by the state. | | Regardless of which extreme (or somewhere in between you are) I | still can't understand what rent caps would achieve apart from | being a destructive policy for almost everyone except the ones | who already are lucky enough to have a contract. You don't get | more houses to live in by making the houses a more valuable | commodity through market manipulation. | redmeatforchina wrote: | I don't even live in Germany or Europe, so why am I happy about | this? | nickfromseattle wrote: | San Fran also has rent control. | | Ya know, the same place that YC is located & many of the | current unicorns. | | It's interesting to understand how other cities and countries | are dealing with similar issues to what we face. | Swenrekcah wrote: | Because a better country eventually makes a better world for | everyone, and a worse country eventually makes a worse world | for everyone. | fluiux wrote: | It's not necessarily good news for a lot of people. It's only | good for people who like to speculate with real estate. So why | are you happy about this? | kmmlng wrote: | The issue with an approach like this is that it's merely | fighting the symptoms of the underlying problem. The | underlying problem is that you have more demand than supply | and something is preventing the market from rectifying this | problem. Capping rents can only make the underlying problem | worse, because there is now less incentive to create new | housing. | | Now, of course, you might say the thing that is preventing | the market from rectifying the situation is that there simply | isn't enough space. And that is partially true, there are | real physical limits here. But it's not like Berlin is a | super high density city, so I find it hard to believe that | we're anywhere close to reaching those limits. | pandem wrote: | Also good for people who want to move to Berlin as | mietendeckel made it much more difficult to get an apartment. | Also good for people renting through the gray market of | sublets as it makes it easier for them to get a real | contract. | llampx wrote: | You tell me | grecht wrote: | This is great. I also want affordable housing for everyone, but | capping rents does not deal with the core problem: There's not | enough supply. I am baffled how some people do not understand | this. | | Also, for many people in Germany buying e.g. a single apartment | is an investment for their later retirement. It's not all big and | evil real estate companies. | tootahe45 wrote: | Everybody understands this, except people taking part in | movements hijacked by the wealthy to block any new | developments. Here in New Zealand they are using indigenous | groups to achieve the goal of blocking new builds, in Germany | it's the green movements. | | Something tells me governments are also interested in real | estate prices going up. | throw4738 wrote: | It is unconstitutional because it treats people unequally. New | people will not find any rentable properties, and will have to | stay in hotels paying 10x more. | | It is just another form of xenophobia. | Zardoz84 wrote: | I don't follow you. Why limiting the prices for renting, will | be less rentable properties, the point of this is to make | rentable properties have a price where people can rent a | property to live. | [deleted] | ArgyleSound wrote: | That's why it's bad but not why it was found unconstitutional | vkou wrote: | That is a horrible argument, because the same can be said for | land ownership. Isn't it unfair that when I move somewhere, I | discover that all the land in that area is already owned by | someone else. Why should some old history entitle someone to | exclusive ownership of any piece of land, and the ability to | charge arbitrary rents for it? | | The fact of the matter is, first movers have all sorts of | unfair advantages over latecomers, many of them from luck, or | from circumstances of birth - and I doubt you are seeking to | overturn all of them. | jariel wrote: | " I move somewhere, I discover that all the land in that area | is already owned by someone else. " | | Why do you think that for a moment you have a right to 'go | over there' and posses land currently owned by people over | there? | vkou wrote: | Because of the parent poster's thesis that it's unfair that | the first people to move somewhere get advantages. | | I am just taking that axiom to it's logical, but absurd | conclusion, to argue that the axiom itself is absurd. | throw4738 wrote: | No, this system is more like feudalism or serfdom. When I | move in, you expect me to work on your land, so protected | class does not have to work. | | Young people and foreigners have to pay large taxes and | rents, to subside older people. | vkou wrote: | Young people become old people, serfs don't become feudal | lords. | | Foreigners can naturalize (and most of them have the | freedom to weigh the costs of paying into systems they | don't benefit from, and consider whether or not immigrating | is worth it.) | cbmuser wrote: | No, it's unconstitutional because the Berlin government was | passing a law which conflicted with federal law (BGB) which | regulates rents in Germany. | | Also, the Berlin government was retroactively changing (rent) | contracts which normally invalidates any contract as this will | always put one contract party at an unprecedented disadvantage. | Isn0gud wrote: | Well, it's not like new people will find affordable housing | now... | mschuster91 wrote: | > It is unconstitutional because it treats people unequally. | | Wrong, it was declared unconstitutional because only the | federal government is allowed to pass such a measure. Our | federal construction minister "Voll-Horst" Seehofer is free to | regulate rents any time he wants, but unfortunately all he has | been doing for the last four years is to deny systemic issues | in police all day. | | > New people will not find any rentable properties, and will | have to stay in hotels paying 10x more. | | So what? Without rent control poor people are forced out of the | homes they grew up in, this is certainly worse than tech | hipsters having to pay for hotels. | Tomte wrote: | > Wrong, it was declared unconstitutional because only the | federal government is allowed to pass such a measure. | | That's wrong. States may do it, but only if the federal level | hasn't acted in that field (here: social protection for | renters) | est31 wrote: | The Berlin rent cap is different from rent caps elsewhere, say | SF. The Berlin rent cap includes new contracts, too. | throw4738 wrote: | Not if you stay months in hotel or Airbnb. And that is only | available option. | flohofwoe wrote: | AirBnB is part of the problem btw. There are at least 4 | fulltime AirBnB flats on my building floor (that I'm aware | of). I'm assuming it's AirBnB because there's a very high | "fluctuation" of new people in those flats (few days to 2 | or 3 weeks). Imagine if all those AirBnBs would be | available for longterm renting ;) | HotHotLava wrote: | Since 2014 you need to have an official permission to use | a flat for AirBnb. If you suspect these are illegally | rented out, you can report them to the Berlin government | here: | | https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/wohnen/zweckentfre | mdu... | throw4738 wrote: | It is like saying refugees are part of the problem, | because they are taking flats from the market. People who | rent Airbnb also have a right to be in Berlin. | | And this policy is pushing more flats from normal market | into airbnbs. | flohofwoe wrote: | Dude, the people booking those AirBnBs are not refugees | but well-paid tech-bros and party tourists. Gimme a | break. | inglor_cz wrote: | Berlin with its Red-Red-Green government is hardly a city | governed by xenophobia. OTOH, the German left is even more pro- | immigration and pro-multiculturalism than an average European | leftist party. | | This law was probably meant against big housing corporations | like Deutsches Wohnen, which bought a lot of the housing stock | during previous privatizations, and so have some power on the | housing market. | | IMHO Berlin (just like Prague) needs to lower bureaucratic | hurdles on new construction, but maybe the locals do not want | that. There was a chance to turn the former Tempelhof airfield | into a new neighbourhood, but a local ballot turned it down. | rorykoehler wrote: | Tempelhoferfeld is the best park in Berlin. Parks provide | value too. They should build up instead of sprawling like the | most terrible cities in the world do. | [deleted] | yokaze wrote: | > They should build up instead of sprawling like the most | terrible cities in the world do | | When I was in Berlin, it seemed to me people in Berlin | wanted the impossible combination: | | - Continue to afford to live in the city (ergo more housing | in the city) | | - No sprawl to keep the car traffic down (ergo still more | pressure on housing in the city) | | - Keeping the green spaces (so no denser housing) | | - No higher buildings, or God forbid, high-risers (so no | denser housing) | | Or better said, you would find people, who are dead set | against high-risers and would tolerate building on | Tempelhofer Feld, or who are dead set against using spaces | within the city (Tempelholfer Feld), but would probably | tolerate higher buildings. | | It seems now, higher buildings have won: https://www.berlin | .de/rbmskzl/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2... | rorykoehler wrote: | Yes this is a problem. Berlin is full of people who think | it is their duty to be against everything. | amne wrote: | higher rent can only lead to 10 euro pretzels and 50 euro pizzas. | and then it all collapses and starts all over again. | CryptoPunk wrote: | https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html | | >The Effects of Rent Control | | >Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent | controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists | published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, | 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with | provisos, that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and | quality of housing available."1 Similarly, another study reported | that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled | agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual | political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners | milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the "right" to their | fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of | the Swedish Labor Party's welfare state, on the "left." Myrdal | stated, "Rent control has in certain Western countries | constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by | governments lacking courage and vision."3 His fellow Swedish | economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, "In many cases | rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently | known to destroy a city--except for bombing."4 That cities like | New York have clearly not been destroyed by rent control is due | to the fact that rent control has been relaxed over the years.5 | Rent stabilization, for example, which took the place of rent | control for newer buildings, is less restrictive than the old | rent control. Also, the decades-long boom in the New York City | housing market is not in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized | units, but in condominiums and cooperative housing. But these two | forms of housing ownership grew important as a way of getting | around rent control. | throwaway85858 wrote: | An example of how bad the government in Berlin is would be the | Pankower Tor project: | https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/froschlurch-muss-umgesied... | | 34 hectars (>90 acres) of waste land in a prime location can't be | bulldozed to build 2000 new apartments because a rare species of | toad was found to be living there, which can't be relocated | because no state agency is responsible. The court case has been | running for over 10 years!!! | qayxc wrote: | A few years ago I would've agreed. | | Today I'm leaning more towards - "so what?". | | As long as there's obviously enough space to waste on detached | houses and land speculation in the middle of the city, it can't | be all that bad. | | If it was really such a big deal, "someone" would've paid | "somebody" already to relocate the animals "after business | hours", if you catch my drift. There's more going on behind the | scenes for sure that we just don't know about. | llampx wrote: | It is that bad, but the people who are affected are not the | ones making the decisions. Just like with the Mietendeckel. | The politicians have nice apartments and villas already and | high incomes, same with the ones who want to reduce welfare | payments. They are rarely affected by the policies they | enact. | qayxc wrote: | > It is that bad, but the people who are affected are not | the ones making the decisions. | | It could be argued that they are - both indirectly (by | electing the representatives that do make the decisions) | and directly (by lack of [legal!] activism for their | cause). | | It's a case of pointing fingers instead of lifting a | finger. | | edit: what I mean by that is votes and protests do matter | as does providing reasonable alternatives. I see that | happen way too little in Germany. Try something in France | and they set half of Paris on fire each time; not that I | think that's better, but at least it shows that people | actually care. | corty wrote: | > If it was really such a big deal, "someone" would've paid | "somebody" already to relocate the animals "after business | hours", if you catch my drift. There's more going on behind | the scenes for sure that we just don't know about. | | Doesn't work, the next thing that will happen is the tree- | huggers (B.U.N.D. and others) will get public money to re- | establish the population and impose stricter protection | measures. In Germany, the environment gets far far better | protection than the people. | qayxc wrote: | > In Germany, the environment gets far far better | protection than the people. | | So how come Glyphosat wasn't banned immediately then? How | come nitrate in drinking water goes up [0] and treatment | becomes ever more expensive while at the same time | industrial livestock farming still gets heavily subsidised? | | German politics still bends a knee to industrial farming, | chemical industry, and heavy industry more than the | environment, don't fool yourself. | | There's a reason the insect population has decreased by | over 70% in the last 3 decades [1]. All because the | environment is top priority, I presume. | | The reality is that still no-one cares and the few things | that are being done (tunnels and bridges for wildlife to | cross roads, relocation programs for endangered species, | etc.) are blown out of proportion by critics while the big | picture looks bleaker than ever. | | FYI there's ain't going to be many trees around for the | "tree huggers" to hug in a few years if things continue to | go the way they do [2]. But yeah, it's all to easy with the | us-vs.-them instead of tackling actual roots of the | problems... | | [0] | www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/wasser/grundwasser/nutzung- | belastungen/faqs-zu-nitrat-im-grund-trinkwasser | | [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect- | decline-ger... | | [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.de/umwelt/2021/02/deutsc | her-w... | corty wrote: | Well, yes. Because environmental activism is basically an | instrument of NIMBYism, not anything based on facts, | evidence or logic. Nobody really protests when farmers | spread their poison, because that would be inconveniently | far away, lots of work, etc. But protesting about the | destruction of the neighbouring daisy habitat is an easy | feel-good measure, and if you can NIMBY you way into | higher value of your real estate by scarcer ground for | housing construction, all the better. | qayxc wrote: | And you don't see the contradiction there? On the one | hand you say that the environment is protected more than | the people yet here you argue that it's actually the | people who benefit instead of nature. | | Which is it? | realityking wrote: | Without arguing about the merits of protecting that species of | toads, you can't blame the Berlin government for things that | are governed by federal and EU law. | | Ultimately the owner/investor either has to find a way to move | the toads or apply for an exception. Without an application, | the state government can't act. | throwaway85858 wrote: | well see that's the issue, state won't make an exception and | owner can't move the toads | llampx wrote: | The government in Berlin is hardly an exception. The rot goes | to the top. The entire government is composed of incompetent | Beamter biding their time till their fat pension, stuck in the | good old days when you didn't have to do any work until the | Oberstleutnant gave you an order. | akie wrote: | Well that's very disappointing. | gambiting wrote: | It's not, rent caps are a great idea in principle but in | reality it just massively constrains the supply which means | that yeah, if you find a place to rent you will pay a | "reasonable" rate, but there's 200 people willing to rent any | place so when landlords aren't allowed to compete on price they | compete on everything else. It leads to insanities like | landlords requiring 6+ months of rent upfront, very long | contracts, very strict(boardering on abusive) rental | terms.......since the demand FAR outstrips the supply as a | landlord you can get away with pretty much anything because | there are always more people willing to rent. | | For those downvoting - look at literally any city that has | implemented rent caps and tell me that they are a good idea. | Where the standard became asking for 6 months upfront and | signing a 3-year-no-exit-clause contracts because the demand is | so huge it allows landlords to do that. Is that really a net | benefit to people renting? | crumbshot wrote: | It all depends on how it's implemented. The usual method of | controlling rent is to cap only a subset of properties in an | area - for example, leaving new builds or new tenancies | exempt. Which tends to create a two-tier system that benefits | one set of tenants at the expense of the other, while | discouraging reallocation for downsizing and suchlike. And as | you allude to, without further restrictions on tenancy | contract terms, the private landlords will attempt to extract | their pound of flesh in other ways. | | On the other hand, if rent controls are used as part of a | wider strategy to gradually convert private rental stock over | to social housing - that is, as a stick to encourage private | landlords to sell up to the public sector - along with other | measures including more state investment in building such | housing, large fines for private landlords leaving their | rental properties unoccupied, and so on, then this can be a | long-term positive on the overall housing situation. | | The end goal should be to remove this wholly unnecessary | parasitic landlord class from the housing provision entirely, | rather than tinkering around the edges of the problem, as | this Berlin measure was doing. | codekansas wrote: | In some US cities like Portland the construction costs for | public housing are typically double costs for comparable | private housing. The government has little motivation or | expertise to reduce the cost since the bill is footed by | the public. Seems much more parasitic in my opinion | crumbshot wrote: | That's a separate issue, assuming it really is an issue, | and not just an indication that those private housing | developments in Portland are being constructed with a | cheaper, lower build quality so that their investors can | generate more profit. | inb4_cancelled wrote: | I am happy about it, since I live in Prague (capital of one of | their neighbors) and the local green/left was kinda waiting for | this to go through. | unixhero wrote: | Why? So that investment or people will move eastwards? | | What about the thriving culture which exists in Berlin, and | which is supported by low rent prices. | est31 wrote: | Full text of the court decision (German): | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid... | | Shorter press release (German, too): | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemit... | | It's a classical application of the "federal law breaks state | law" rule, which I think exists in the united states as well. | ketzu wrote: | Basically a note from the press release: | | There are various categories where the states or federal have | the power to enact laws. In this case, it is part of the | competing law section: As long as the federal government has | not provided a conclusive law on the topic, the states may make | their own laws. For renting there is conclusive law, so states | are not allowed to make new laws regarding the topic. | that_guy_iain wrote: | I thought it was more "Federal law has already decided this and | the state can't be more restrictive than the Federal law" | DangerousPie wrote: | You mean "federal law trumps state law"? | est31 wrote: | Yes. That's probably the analogous name from the english | language sphere. In German, the rule is named "Bundesrecht | bricht Landesrecht". I made a more direct translation to make | it more similar to the original German name. | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrecht_bricht_Landesrecht | | The phrase "Bundesrecht bricht Landesrecht" is even part of | the German constitution, as Article 31. | [deleted] | luckylion wrote: | Keep in mind that when they say Berlin's rents are soaring, it's | still comparatively cheap for large cities in Germany. | gryzzly wrote: | That is simply not the case anymore. Neither are the sale | prices low anymore. You will now pay same m2 price as in West- | est west, like at the border with Switzerland. | luckylion wrote: | Please compare Berlin prices with Hamburg, Dusseldorf or | Munich. It's really not close, Berlin is largely still | 10-15EUR/sqm, peaking to 20. | | Similar offers in e.g. Hamburg are 20, peaking to 30EUR/sqm. | And it's been this way for a decade or two. Having lived in | Hamburg, whenever I was with Berlin friends and heard their | complaints, they usually turned into being happy for the good | fortune not to have to pay _those_ prices when they compared | it not with Berlin 10 years ago, but with Hamburg today. | ceilingcorner wrote: | Irrelevant unless compared to local salaries, which as far as I | know, are still lower than the rest of German cities. | [deleted] | luckylion wrote: | Rents are ~30% lower (my estimate based on my experience), | salaries are ~10-20% lower (varies over industries, not | really relevant for large companies). Sounds like you're | still getting a good deal if you live in Berlin. | | Many other things are cheaper as well. Power is -10% in | Berlin for example, compared to Hamburg. Local taxes are also | lower, e.g. business tax rate in Berlin is 410% while it's | 470% in Hamburg. | | I get the impression that it's mostly the citizens of Berlin | not knowing what things cost elsewhere. | cbmuser wrote: | Berlin has less than 1% of empty rental apartments which is | extremely low. | | This means that the rents do actually reflect the real | market. | | And there is simply no right for a cheap apartment in the | center of Berlin. | avh02 wrote: | technically, yes. | | but the reality is that the population is changing. I've | only been here a few years but basically everybody who's | been here longer says "it's not what it used to be" in that | the vibe of the city has changed greatly with it's | increasing attractiveness to foreign (tech?) workers. | | The "original" inhabitants of the city are priced out in | "favour" of expats. The "real market" itself is obviously | both combined, but one segment can afford the higher | prices, and there's an ever increasing number in that | segment that is shifting it for everyone. | | Obviously I see that I'm ironically part of the problem. | luckylion wrote: | > everybody who's been here longer says "it's not what it | used to be" in that the vibe of the city has changed | greatly with it's increasing attractiveness to foreign | (tech?) workers. | | Meh. The people who say that have displaced the people | who lived there before they moved to Berlin. And the | people who lived there before they came also said that | when they arrived. The people complaining about this the | most aren't "original" inhabitants, they moved to Berlin | 10-20 years ago because it was cheap, hip, and had less | rules around things. They've changed Berlin. Now it's | changing again. The circle of change, if you will. | They've done it to others, now it's being done to them. | Sucks every time, but claiming some sort of "the | indigenous population gets removed" is false. | ceilingcorner wrote: | Cities change, often for the worse. Replacing the people | that made a city's culture notable because they can't | afford it is not good for anyone. | | Lower Manhattan is a shining example of this. That area | is built on the memory of artists who can no longer | afford to live there. It's a weird sort of fossilization | and museumification. | luckylion wrote: | > Replacing the people that made a city's culture notable | because they can't afford it is not good for anyone. | | Berlin's attraction in the last 70 years (from the | Western perspective) has been that it's cheap, has kind | of an frontier spirit, laws and rules are much less | strict, and it's being well-funded as an enclave and a | thorn in East-Germany's side (it's still losing money, | and is a drag on the German economy; capitals in | comparable Western countries are typically strong | economic motors in their country [1]). | | For many young men, Germany's draft (or the alternative | civil service) could only be circumvented by moving to | Berlin. | | With the Reunification, Berlin was on track to become the | capital once more. That meant: gigantic amounts of money, | jobs and opportunities, and that in return made Berlin | extremely attractive. Before that happened, Berlin was | actually shrinking. | | With the government moved many large corporations in | Germany, and brought even more money and jobs. They made | Berlin attractive. It wasn't Berlin's night life and | cultural scene, those are a consequence of the | attractiveness and funding, not the other way round. So | it's really not that those who built it are being forced | out. It's that those who were attracted to it have to | share with other people who want to also live there. | Sucks for them, I agree, but there's nothing unfair about | it. It will also happen to those moving there today, and | they'll complain as well. | | [1] https://qz.com/753244/berlin-is-the-only-capital- | city-in-eur... | mytailorisrich wrote: | Rents pretty much always reflect the "real market". There | can be speculation on property but there is no speculative | gain to be made on renting and the demand for rental | properties reflects the actual demand for housing. | | Obviously when more people want to rent than there are | properties available rents go up. | | This is why rent caps do not solve problems. They ignore | and do not address the cause of high rents and they may | make things worse by reducing supply and making tenants | stay put. | | And as you say not everyone can live in the most desirable | areas, which will always be pricey. | DangerousPie wrote: | If salaries were so bad, people would stop moving to Berlin | and rents would fall. The fact that housing is still under | such high demand shows that Berlin is clearly still a | desirable place to live. | ceilingcorner wrote: | I don't think salary is the only or even primary reason | people move to Berlin. | DangerousPie wrote: | Sure, but in the end the market rents will still reflect | the desirability of living in Berlin. Whether that's | because of salaries, culture, transport or something | else. | llampx wrote: | Yes but the only thing keeping the prices halfway reasonable | are the laws and regulations that apply in Berlin. Without | those the situation would be much worse. | dsnr wrote: | Curious, what are those laws and regulations that apply in | Berlin and are different from any other german city? | adrianN wrote: | I wish Berlin would just build more housing instead. For example | when I cross the street there is a supermarket. It's a single | story building with a huge parking lot around it. Why not make it | a multistory building with apartments on top of the supermarket | and skip the parking space or put it underground? Why does the | city give out building permits for such buildings? There could | easily be room for thirty families on that lot. A single parking | spot is like 12m^2, two parking spots and three storys above them | and you have an apartment for two to three people. | kokey wrote: | How things have changed. I remember going to Berlin around 15 | years ago and was surprised how cheap the property was there. | At the time it was a city where the population wasn't growing | for a very long time, but had good infrastructure and more | supply and demand especially to the East. Large apartments in | established neighbourhoods were the norm. There was also not | much in the way of jobs going for working in tech, or else I | would probably have moved there as soon as I landed an | opportunity to do so. The tech jobs and the young talent found | each other there and the rest is history and this spike in | demand keeps luring in more property speculators. It's a | difficult situation to fix, the real fix here is a policy to | increase housing supply dramatically. Unfortunately the | financial incentives against this is very strong, because a | critical mass of people have an interest in even higher prices. | Putting controls on the trade of existing properties (e.g. | making mortgages less accessible) or taxing landlords higher | results in a shortage of rental properties and makes the prices | rise even further. Rent control to try curb this leads to | further shortages. | frereubu wrote: | I imagine this might be implicit in your comment, but it's | politically much easier to bring in a rent cap ("protecting the | hard-working families of Berlin") than hand out building | permits ("overdevelopment!") Issuing more building permits also | takes a long time to have any effect on rents, so by the time | it takes effect the politician who brought it in is likely to | be long gone. More permits will only happen if politicians can | stop bickering amongst themselves and agree that more housing | is the way forward (which it clearly is, compared to rent | controls). | dgellow wrote: | I'm not convinced that it is politically easier, the rent cap | is a very controversial topic (for good reasons, it's really | an extreme measure). A fringe may like that talking point, | but that's not how you do effective policies. | rndgermandude wrote: | In Berlin it is a good talking point. I am not commenting | on whether it is effective or good policy, just that you | can score politically with it (well, until the court now | killed it, I suppose). | | Concerns about being able to afford rent not just now but | in the future is a major concern for a huge chunk of the | population. They look at what happens in other large cities | with rent prices (be it Munich, be it Paris, be it SF) in | fear. | | Berlin itself uses an unofficial slogan of "Arm aber Sexy" | ("poor but sexy/attractive"), coined by a former Berlin | major referring to the budget of the city but adopted by | the population to mean the people living there as well. | They fear that driving out poor people - including | themselves - and turn it into yet another place for the | rich, and/or fear "over-development" will destroy the | character of the city (and the ecological consequences of | such developments; the Green party is big in certain parts | of Berlin). | | I can see that with my sisters, who have been living in | downtown-ish Berlin for a long time while "poor" (think | student, almost-unpaid intern, unemployed), and who | constantly complained about the rents (that my parents and | later welfare paid) and scarcity of available apartments, | but at the same time were e.g. very much against any plans | to develop the large area of the old closed Tempelhof | airport, where all plans to develop that area were | abandoned after multiple public referendums decided that | the area has to remain a "park". That alone is 12km2 of now | entirely unused space close to the heart of the city, space | for about at least 50000 people considering Berlins current | population density of 4118 people per km2. Or develop only | half of it, and leave 6km2 and that's still a ton of new | apartments. But nope. | corty wrote: | In Berlin, rent control isn't a fringe topic. Half of | Berlin was formerly communist (the east) with the non- | conformists being sent out to the sticks. And the other | half has a higher proportion of (partly radical) leftists | due to the federal draft not applying in Berlin (so young, | mostly left-leaning, males moved to west Berlin to avoid | serving in the military). So the general population in | Berlin is rather more friendly to ideas such as communal | property, rent control and generally sticking it to the | evil capitalist man. | that_guy_iain wrote: | They're building housing all the time. There are 3-4 housing | blocks being build near me. One office building being built. | Everyone keeps acting like they can just build new housing over | night. | | To be fair, construction work in Berlin is super slow. | sabjut wrote: | Well in recent months the Tesla Giga Berlin factory has shown | just how fast construction can take place if the people in | power actually want it to happen. Building new housing units | in the city slows the increase in value of existing real | estate, which is why property owners are not rushing to allow | the construction of new structures. Lobbyism is a powerful | force in real estate. | MrBuddyCasino wrote: | This is not the greatest example. There is still no final | permit for the whole thing, only temporary ones. It is | embarrassing and a textbook case of pointless German | bureaucracy, misguided environmentalism and NIMBYism. | corty wrote: | The Gigafactory near Berlin is still on a temporary permit, | meaning that they might have to tear it down again (at | least in large parts) if the bureaucracy finds a nit to | pick. There is still the possibility of more problems due | to environmental protection regulations for the surrounding | forest and the water supply. | | All in all, while some politicians may have suggested that | the Gigafactory is an example of a fast project they made | possible, they no longer do so. Because actually it is a | perfect example of everything being regulated to death, | dog-slow bureaucracy and crazy risks you have to take as a | business if you want things done fast. Where "fast" is | still slow compared to the rest of the world. | | No housing construction will ever go to the lengths Tesla | did in terms of risk for a fast construction. Housing | investment is notoriously risk-averse in any case. | that_guy_iain wrote: | To be fair, it's not he people in power it's the | construction companies. The amount of workers on a building | site in Germany is way lower than in other places. And then | you get the ones where they put 2-3 people for 2-3 weeks | every 6 months. | corty wrote: | Depends. Public construction is very different from | private and industrial construction. As the industry pays | well, on time and demands results, their construction | sites are staffed to the fullest amount possible and | complete astonishingly fast. | | Public construction on the other hand goes with the | cheapest bidder, so doesn't pay that well. Also, the | state will only pay after a lengthy process of | inspections and trying to find something wrong with the | finished building. So lots of companies just avoid public | bids, because they cannot afford to finance all the | materials and work pay for the duration of the build. | Those that can afford it are companies that specialize in | public construction sites, usually designed to be able to | go bankrupt at the first sign of trouble. | | Generally, in a public construction site, all contractors | are lowest bidders. Some do intentionally bid lower than | cost to get the contract. What they then try to do to | recoup their cost is to try to find some problem that | wasn't spelled out in the bidding, or to wait for some | change of plans or regulations. Because they then can | bill a lot more for the additional work and material | necessary to fix the problem, or hold up the construction | site in lengthy court proceedings. Because everyone knows | that something like that will happen at some point, they | intentionally go as slow as possible, waiting for the | order to drop everything and wait for the courts. Because | if they are quick and invest a lot of work and material, | they might not survive the delay. | that_guy_iain wrote: | > As the industry pays well, on time and demands results, | their construction sites are staffed to the fullest | amount possible and complete astonishingly fast. | | In my opinion, compared to other countries things that | would be built within 8-12 months take 2 years. | corty wrote: | Yes, that might be the case. I'm just comparing to the | average German construction site. | pizzapill wrote: | The factory is located somewhere in Brandenburg. There is a | difference in building a factory on farmland vs. a house | block in a large city. | the_gipsy wrote: | Paradoxically, more housing also increases rents. More citizens | in the city leads to higher salaries, attracting even more | citizens that need more housing... | tonyjstark wrote: | Same here. The city itself should build as many cheap rental | apartments as possible, also in more higher-priced areas to | keep the pricing there in check. Building more housing is the | only way out of this soaring pricing. | | EDIT: not only rental apartments of course but more housing in | general. | | A second step would be, to make sure that rental housing is | used for that instead of AirBNB or any other investment. It | would also help to reduce land transfer tax if someone then | lives in the bought flat. Speculators and builders anyway get | around it in the long term by founding businesses that buy | apartment blocks (pay the tax once) and then later only trade | the shares of these businesses. | | And last but not least, they should stop to discuss | dispossessing property. It does not solve anything but wastes | time and energy. | calaphos wrote: | High mandated standards on Fire/Noise Protection, Insulation, | accessibility on new buildings make it really hard to build | "cheap" rental apartments. With the mandated standards in | place there is little to no cost difference between high cost | and low cost residential buildings. | | Those standards obviously have their benefits or are | unavoidable (fire protection) and result in new housing being | high quality. But they make it hard to address housing | shortages in a non long term way. | mattmanser wrote: | So here in the UK, our councils used to build social housing. | 300,000 per year. And then Thatcher made it illegal and said | privately owned housing associations would fill the gap. | | In the 30 years since then, the most they've ever managed is | 30,000. | | It's not in private landowner's interest to build cheap | social housing. It reduces rents, it suppresses property | values. So they don't get built. | | If they do build anything, it's in their interests to build | luxury apartments. They make the most money out of those. I | know little about Berlin's housing, but by any chance would | there be a lot of expensive apartments being built? | | Did something similar happen in German history? You'll | probably find all the big landowners in Berlin and Germany | lobbying very hard to make sure nothing like this ever | happens. | turbinerneiter wrote: | I know of some related things going on here: | | * Typically in Germany, social housing is built with a | time-limit built in: after X years, the house falls out of | the social housing program and can be rented and sold | freely. At the moment, a lot more houses leave the system | then are added. | | * Many cities sold their real estate after the financial | crisis to give the money to the failing banks. I.e. Berlin | is super-broke, in parts because of a big banking scandal | of the previous government. | | * In Munich they have a pretty decent system: anyone who | develops land had to keep to a certain split of social | housing, middle income housing and free market housing. | They use the land they own and their powers over zoning to | enforce that. | luckylion wrote: | Berlin and other cities sold off their public housing to | pay for their budget deficits. Generally, there are housing | cooperatives in Germany, and they have significant amounts | of apartments. Not close to being as big as the largest | private companies, but 3000-5000 apartments aren't rare. | You become a member and buy shares, and their purpose is to | provide housing to their members, they're very affordable | and all around pretty great (not as profit-oriented as the | private companies, not as bureaucratic as the public | stuff). | | I'd prefer those over public housing very much because only | with them, the interests between the renter and the | landlord are aligned, and they're not part of the state and | can therefore not be used (or sold) by political decisions. | raverbashing wrote: | The dichotomy between "cheap housing" and luxury housing | needs to end. | | (I might be wrong but) if I had to bet why councils could | build more places it's that they would have a streamlined | approval process with councils (denying a social housing | project would look bad) while the private developers have | to follow the mood of the deparments and several "appeals" | and "NIMBYs" (same as in the US today) | | But a new "luxury apt" opens a place in a slightly cheaper | property. | killtimeatwork wrote: | At least in Warsaw, there are various kinds of developers. | Some specialize in luxury housing, while others cater to | the mass market, with tall building of small-ish flats, | hundreds of units per flat, built on cheaper land further | away from the city center. There were entire districts | built by such developers in the past 20+ years. Perhaps the | key to this is relatively low regulation in Poland, which | sadly results in somewhat chaotic urbanism and a lot of | missed opportunities for building a city that's nice to | live in, but also allows for shit to get done. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Same thing happens here in Austin, if you don't force them | to also build affordable housing as part of their deal with | the city virtually 0 will be build because the profit | margins are so much more with luxury apartments that are | 500 sq ft and you can fit a ton of them in a high rise. | llampx wrote: | Thatcher has been out of office since decades. If this was | important to the people they would vote for people who | promise to bring it back. | | Or politicians are corrupt and Thatcher is a good excuse. | Take your pick. | mattmanser wrote: | That's not how politics works in the UK. We have first | past-the-post, so individual policies mean very little. | | On top of that, the Conservatives made an election pledge | to build 200,000 starter homes in 2015 election and | apparently failed to build a single one. It's easy to | claim you'll build houses and then do nothing, like it's | easy to claim you'll reduce immigration but it just keeps | going up. | | The last election in 2019 was mainly about Brexit and the | general public's perception that Corbyn was unsuited to | being the Prime Minister. | Tenoke wrote: | I'd take them building more expensive housing (as long as | it's not used purely as an empty investment vehicle as in | London) over barely building anything at all. I know people | who would've paid a bit more for a nicer place but their | options were too limited, so I'd expect some trickle- | up/down effect at least. | kokey wrote: | There is a point when you run out of people who are | willing to spend millions on the empty investment | vehicles so I'm hoping even those properties will help | with supply when the tide eventually do go out. | Unfortunately it could take a very long time before this | happens. | mattmanser wrote: | Isn't it widely used for money laundering and wealth | sheltering? Don't think there's an end to that money. | llampx wrote: | There are millions of chinese and other people who want | safe investment vehicles. If the government does nothing, | land and housing in a big capital can easily be usurped | by investors who then take massive tax breaks. | CryptoPunk wrote: | Investors will profit most by renting out their property. | Allowing the profit motive to work to increase supply is | an effective way to reduce the price consumers pay in | every industry, including the rental market. | | Profit is just an emergent form of social compensation | for addressing a shortage. That society enacts laws to | prevent the profit motive from working, and incentivizing | socially beneficial behavior, is a tragedy. | mattmanser wrote: | This "trickle-up/down effect" is the exact excuse they've | been using to justify it. | | As far as I know, it's a widely discredited theory, never | based on any actual studies. | skohan wrote: | > A second step would be, to make sure that rental housing is | used for that instead of AirBNB or any other investment. | | This is already in place. Berlin is _very_ strict about | apartment usage. Once a unit is designated as a living space, | it 's very difficult to get a permit to use it as an AirB&B. | Also if you own an apartment, it's illegal to leave it | without a tenant for an extended period - I think 90 days is | the maximum. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I think that 90 day limit is great, it would help my city a | lot because of all the speculative market buyers who buy | and hold just as a store of wealth hoping to flip it for a | profit after a few years | dgellow wrote: | The amount of unused space is Berlin is just so massive. Even | in Friedrichstrasse, which is a hype neighborhood with great | amount of activity, you have hundreds of square meters | completely unused, with wild plants growing around and random | waste accumulating. | | From what I understand it is very difficult to do something | with that space, either because people refuse to sell or | because of bureaucratic red tape. | yokaze wrote: | > Even in Friedrichstrasse, which is a hype neighborhood with | great amount of activity, you have hundreds of square meters | completely unused, with wild plants growing around and random | waste accumulating. | | Two things: I think you put too much value to | Friedrichstrasse, and likely Mitte in general. It is the | physical and historic city centre, but that doesn't have the | same meaning as it has in other cities. | | Second, in many parts in East-Berlin, you have a unclear | ownership of houses and ground with competing claims. People | have been disowned by the Nazis, Soviets, or by the GDR. The | families have gone into diaspora and are partly spread over | the world. Random people may have moved in and layed their | own claim. | | The ownership is unclear and spread. And it is a battle to | lay claim to your _part_ of ownership. The ground is gaining | worth over time. All ingredients, which do not expedite the | development of land. | spdionis wrote: | Wild plants growing around in a city, the horror! | corty wrote: | Well, either you build over the growing plants in the city, | or you raze plants in the outskirts. The former gets | complaints because people want greenery in the city, the | latter gets complaints because of sprawl, added traffic and | unnecessary pollution. | southerntofu wrote: | > The amount of unused space is Berlin is just so massive. | | What's wrong with that? Enjoy the little green space you have | left while it lasts. Have a BBQ with friends over there, | maybe? The gentrifiers/developers won't be so long to remove | every last bit of green and freedom in your neighborhood, as | they did everywhere else. | jdasdf wrote: | >What's wrong with that? | | ...The high housing prices. | southerntofu wrote: | High housing prices has to do with treating housing as a | market and not as a basic human need. Prices are | correlated to supply and demand, only if you take into | account that the biggest landlords willingly leave | apartments/buildings empty to drive up the prices | (speculation). | yokaze wrote: | Okay, then the lack of housing. | southerntofu wrote: | If you have statistics, i'm interested, but to my | knowledge there is no housing shortage in Berlin. If | anything, there's more housing than ever before, it's | just trapped in the hands of landlords who want to | speculate on it. | yokaze wrote: | The point is, it wouldn't matter if it is trapped in the | hands of landlords who want to speculate, if there is | enough housing to go around, because they couldn't | determine the market. | | It is illegal to keep an apartment empty for more then | three months. So if you are aware of any empty housing, | feel free to denounce it (https://www.stadtentwicklung.be | rlin.de/wohnen/zweckentfremdu...). In 2018, 1,9% of the | flats in Mitte were subject to an ongoing official | procedure on those grounds. The owner can simply claim, | they are reforming, but I presume there are limits to | that too. | | How many flats are really empty is unclear. | | I've read that according to the Senat, | | - there is an estimated 0.8%-2% of the flats unoccupied | | - down from 3.5% in 2011 | | - ideally, it would be between 2-3%. | | The Taz is not particularly strong on keeping opinion | from facts separated, but that's where I got it from: | (https://taz.de/Spekulativer-Leerstand-in- | Berlin/!5749397/) | ahoka wrote: | I think you wouldn't enjoy your BBQ in a place like this, | which is I think the OP refers to: | https://www.alamy.com/berlin-germany-new-buildings-and- | indus... | southerntofu wrote: | Actually i did quite a few times! I would not recommend | to live in a place like this due to high industrial | pollution, but a brownfield is quite nice to have a | neighborhood BBQ with some music... COVID/police concerns | aside, of course. | Asmod4n wrote: | They are building a massive amount of houses, but they are too | expensive for the average Berlin citizen. | jurip wrote: | I don't know the details of the Berlin situation, but as long | as _someone_ lives in those new apartments (who would have | lived in Berlin anyway), it helps with the housing shortage | and prices. Someone moves to the new, most expensive | apartment in the city, someone else moves to their now vacant | slightly less expensive apartment, etc. At some point in the | chain that means there 's cheaper housing available. | | This is a constant discussion in Helsinki, too. I think it's | better to build expensive if that translates to good | locations and high quality. | wsc981 wrote: | _> Someone moves to the new, most expensive apartment in | the city, someone else moves to their now vacant slightly | less expensive apartment, etc. At some point in the chain | that means there 's cheaper housing available._ | | In The Netherlands there are actually quite a few people | that don't want to upgrade from cheaper social rent housing | to more expensive private rent housing. These people are | called "scheefwoners", which to a Dutch person's ears make | it sound like it's _almost_ a criminal activity: | | _> Scheefwonen is a term that is used in the Netherlands | for the living of people in a rental home despite their | income being too high for that. So the tenants have an | income that is too high for their type of home, so that | they actually pay too little rent. With a given housing | stock, the downside is that there are people who live in a | rented house whose rent is high in relation to their | income, which is undesirable for the residents themselves | and / or socially in connection with the housing | allowance. It can also play a role that the rent is low | compared to the characteristics of the home. The Key | Publication on the Dutch Housing Survey "Living in Unusual | Times", published in April 2013, showed that the number of | households in rental homes with a rent below the | deregulation threshold and an income higher than EUR 33,000 | in 2009 was approximately 790 thousand._ | | Of course these people might have pretty good reasons why | they prefer to keep living in cheap social housing. Perhaps | these people want to save/invest more of their income, | perhaps they like their neighbourhood or perhaps private | rent housing is just too expensive. Either way, I feel it's | wrong to say that these people "pay too little rent based | on their income". That almost seems to suggest a certain | percentage of income should be spent on rent or mortgage, | whether one chooses to or not. | | Again, this problem could be easily solved by just building | more houses, but this is also very difficult to achieve in | The Netherlands, due to ground speculation by municipal | governments and a plethora of rules that a builder has to | conform to when building new houses. This, combined with an | average immigration of around 400-500 migrants a week means | that for the next 15 years or so I don't believe this | problem will be fixed, maybe not even in 30 years, unless | some major policy changes are introduced. This situation is | good for rent-seekers though, they will be able to ask a | premium for a very long time. | | Source: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en& | u=https:/... | phaer wrote: | That's true, but your premises are wrong for most of the | luxury real estate market in European cities (and likely | elsewhere). Most buyers are investors in one way or another | and for them it's good enough if they believe that prices | will continue to rise. | jurip wrote: | But does it matter who owns the place as long as someone | lives there? I mean I assume that the investors are | renting them out. If not, surely they're losing out on a | very nice income stream, and it's hard to believe it's | all that popular. There are probably some empty | apartments -- that's a requirement for a working housing | market, given that people need empty places to move into | -- but the proportion of empty investment vehicles in a | city as large as Berlin can't be that large. | yokaze wrote: | From what I've heard, the problem here is a bit with | expectations. | | Institutional investors have higher expectations of | return of investment and are more likely willing to | forego a small rent in the hope for a larger future rent. | They have more deep pockets. And on top of that, | expectations from an international market, which Berlin | did not match. Investors are expecting that to change in | the long run. And the funny thing, with a limited supply | in housing and an increase of investors with such a | behaviour, it is a self-fulfilling promise. | | The number of empty apartments in Berlin is hard to | guess. Not an expert in that matter, but from a quick | search, the number is anywhere between 0.8% and 2%. | | Yes, it is important to have apartments empty for some | time, so people can actually move, but as I understand, | that is excluded from those considerations/statistics. We | are looking at apartments which are empty for more than | three months (which is theoretically illegal in Berlin). | jurip wrote: | Ah, all right. A significant stock of empty apartments | would certainly be suboptimal in a city like Berlin. I'm | not a big fan of bans on things that don't cause direct | harm to people, but I don't see any reason to not heavily | tax apartments that are kept empty. | yokaze wrote: | Sparked from the the post, I read a bit up on it, and | actually 0.8%-2% is actually on the lower side. 2-3% is | supposedly the right amount for a well functioning market | according to a local government source. | | Keep in mind, what I wrote about investors is what I | heard from people living there complaining about. So more | a reflection of the emotions there, then necessarily | factual. | goodpoint wrote: | > but as long as someone lives in those new apartments (who | would have lived in Berlin anyway), it helps with the | housing shortage and prices. | | > At some point in the chain that means there's cheaper | housing available. | | Not at all: if you tear down a cheap apartment and replace | it with a more expensive one the overall availability of | cheap apartments decreases. | wolfpack_mick wrote: | In Helsinki I'm wondering if building expensive buildings | will make sure the 'bubble' won't break. Banks will just | give people larger loans. Move to a situation like Sweden | where you don't even intend to fully pay it back anymore. | You're just renting from the bank instead of a landlord. | llampx wrote: | Same in Switzerland. The taxation laws and low interest | rates lead to a perverse incentive where people get | million CHF apartments that they never pay off because if | they do pay it off their real tax rate would go up | tremendously. So they just make interest payments on the | debt. | guerrilla wrote: | Who would do that? The same people with an incentive to | restrict supply? Call me cynical but that's how it works | elsewhere. | SiNTEx wrote: | In Prague we have a comparable housing problem to Berlin but | all the politicians tend to balme AirBnB and real estate | investors and they all focus on some kind of market regulation. | Mostly just talking about it because they know any strict | regulation would be unconstitutional. From the technical | perspective the solution is simple. We should just build more | houses in big projects like we did 40 years ago which will | drive down the unit price and also provide all the necessary | infrastructure like public transport and schools. Pretty big | portion (tens of percent) of Prague's housing capacity was | build during the 40 years communist era. If we could | successfully build huge housing projects like Jizni Mesto | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%BEn%C3%AD_M%C4%9Bsto) | during this awful regime whit very limited economic resources | then it's surely doable now and in much higher standard. We | just lack the political will to think longer then next 4 years | till the next elections and to solve the problems instead of | just talking about it and blaming someone else. | lqet wrote: | > Why not make it a multistory building with apartments on top | of the supermarket and skip the parking space or put it | underground? | | That's exactly what they are doing at a few places in my city | (also with a _massive_ housing problem). | | We recently found a new apartment here, the process was as | follows: | | (1) We found the apartment online. It was online for exactly 6 | hours, listed by an estate agent. | | (2) Inside the listing (hidden deep in the description) was a | short sentence saying that any contact made through the listing | website contact form would be ignored and that a secret mail | address had to be used. You had to email an application letter | (preferably with photos), copies of your latest 3 salary | statements, copies of your identity card, proof of your credit- | worthiness ("Schufa-Auskunft" in Germany), proof that you had | liability insurance, and contact information of previous | landlords. This had to be mailed until a deadline the next | morning. If any of this was missing, the application would be | ignored. | | (3) A week later, we received an email telling us that we were | eligible for an appointment to visit the apartment. But we had | to confirm this until the same evening by sending an SMS to a | secret number. | | (4) A few days later, we indeed got a date and time for | visiting the apartment (via SMS). It was a 15-minute slot, but | there were at least 10 other families there, and they did | visits the entire day. When the agent asked us, we indicated | strong interest, told him we could rent the place _beginning | tomorrow_ and left. | | (5) A week later, we got the apartment (of course we now have | to pay 2 rents for 3 months). When we asked him why the process | was so complicated, he told us that they were only 4 people in | the agency, and they didn't have the capacity to read (not | answer!) > 1000 mails of people interested in the apartment. So | they gradually came up with various hoops and obstacles to get | this number down to something manageable (they got it down to | around 50 families who indicated final interest). | killtimeatwork wrote: | I'm always baffled by stories like this. If there's indeed so | much interest in an apartment, why not increase the price to | the point where 90% of contenders lose interest? The owner | must have been in a huge hurry, or doesn't care about money? | lqet wrote: | > why not increase the price to the point where 90% of | contenders lose interest | | Because that's illegal, even without the rent cap in | Berlin. | AlchemistCamp wrote: | A market response to supply and demand is illegal? What | law would do that if not a rent cap? | chillyistkult wrote: | SS 291 StGB Wucher | djbebs wrote: | Rent control prevents from increasing by more than a set | amount every year. Theoretically you can wait for decades | raising the rent every year | cmoser wrote: | There are multiple kinds of rent caps. One is the maximum | annual raise for existing tenants. | | Another one is vague and based on the "Mietspiegel", | which lists appropriate rents according to quality and | location. | | If the rent exceeds this by too much, you can sue for | "Mietwucher" (rent usury). | lqet wrote: | SS556d, 1 of the German civil code. | | https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__556d.html | | It's illegal here to demand a rent more than 10% higher | than the "ortsubliche Vergleichsmiete", which is | approximately the local rent averaged over the last 6 | years (exactly defined in SS558) | | More generally, you cannot simply ask for astronomical | prices for _anything_ in Germany just because you know | that people are in a position where they _have_ to pay | them, that 's "Wucher" (racketeering) and against public | decency, which is generally illegal according to SS138. | | https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__138.html | AlchemistCamp wrote: | Interesting. That sounds a lot like rent control if the | wiggle room is only 10% over a 6 year moving average. | acjacobson wrote: | It is rent control - which basically exists throughout | Germany. Even in SF rent controlled apartments can | increase some % per year, it is just controlled how much. | In Germany this is often done by looking at the region's | average price for similar properties and then fixing some | limited increase against that. This is distinct from the | rent cap that was overturned, which stated no rise in | rent at all for five years. | campl3r wrote: | because, sadly that's illegal in all of germany. | 0xfaded wrote: | Equally, why not build more housing until there is a 4% | vacancy rate? This seems to have worked wonders in SF. | corty wrote: | NIMBYism, environmental regulations, building codes and | lack of money and interest by the state. | | Berlin had the nice example of a few square kilometers of | the Tempelhof airport field being available. Public | demanded to make it a park instead of constructing | housing. | | Almost anything with a tree on it is impossible to build | on, and even if there is a building permit for the | housing, attaching it to public transports like the | S-Bahn or Subway is next to impossible nowadays. | | Building codes in Berlin are not much weirder than in the | rest of Germany, but they also serve to make constructing | housing harder. E.g. there is a strict limit to building | height, which limits buildings to 5 storeys (iirc) even | in high-demand high-density areas. | | Money is especially tight for the state of Berlin, while | they get subsidized with lots of money from the other | states (Landerfinanzausgleich), they still cannot afford | to construct much of the necessary housing or the | associated infrastructure themselves. Private investment | usually will go elsewhere because the political | environment in Berlin is poor. If there is rent control | in Berlin and no rent control in Hamburg, of course money | will go to Hamburg first. | | There is also no political will to fix the above. | e_proxus wrote: | No experience with the building codes in Berlin, but a | least the N story limit makes sense to me. It would | totally destroy the look and feel of many parts of the | city of this wasn't in place. | | What I think is a bigger problem is the countless vacant | lots all over the city. Even centrally there are tons of | them, e.g. with only a one story supermarket or parking | lots (as mentioned above) or sometimes it's just | overgrown. I wonder what the deal are with those. My | guess is that the city already sold them in more dire | times and now owners just sit on them until the real | estate prices makes the time ripe to build something | there. Can't find another explanation for it. | corty wrote: | Berlin has a lot of real-estate with unclear ownership, | due to seizure of property during the nazi time and | communism, sometimes multiple times. Add a few levels of | inheritance and you get real estate that is unusable | because it belongs to a lot of people at once, all in a | decade long court battle with each other. | feuermurmel wrote: | In many places, a landlord can't just decide to raise the | rent. When I signed the contract for my current apartment, | the landlord needed me to sign an official form they had to | send to the city. The form informed me of the rent the | previous occupant paid and stated the applicable laws that | regulated by how much the rent could be raised (based on | inflation, changes in interest rates etc.). What I don't | know, but assume, is that it's easy to fight for the rent | to be lowered to the legal limits even after accepting | signing a contract with rent above the legal limits. | pitkali wrote: | I think I prefer the Swedish queues. | llampx wrote: | Those are great if you can wait years | e_proxus wrote: | Last I looked in Gothenburg those seem a joke. Only about | 50 apartments in the whole city and an average queue time | of 10 years or so. | cbqfund wrote: | And (2) means that privacy oriented persons no longer can get | an apartment in Germany. | | BTW, 10% of these data collecting advertisements on the real | estate websites are from identity thieves. | durnygbur wrote: | I cannot wait for a massive data leak containg apartment | application documents, especially from high demand | locations like Munich or Berlin. People simply send it all | over the place and they contain _everything_. It would | knacker out many people in various ways. | corty wrote: | Actually what they are doing and asking for is illegal. | Asking for credit scores, proof of employment and sensitive | stuff like that is only legal when an offer to rent is | actually being made to that candidate. Just having | everybody send in everything is common, but should never | happen. However, privacy watchdogs are somewhat toothless | and future renters put up with it because they have no | other choice. | mpweiher wrote: | > ... just build more housing instead. | | Exactly. And the Mietendeckel caused new construction to | essentially stop completely. Way to go! | mschuster91 wrote: | This is utterly wrong. https://taz.de/Mehr-Baugenehmigungen- | in-Berlin/!5706294/ | mpweiher wrote: | Nope. Your article was for the first half of 2020. For the | whole year of 2020, the numbers were down again, fourth | year running. | | "16.03.2021: Heute hat das Amt fur Statistik Berlin- | Brandenburg die Baugenehmigungszahlen fur das Jahr 2020 | veroffentlicht. Die Zahl der Baugenehmigungen sank in | Berlin das vierte Jahr in Folge." | | https://www.immobilien-aktuell- | magazin.de/topics/auswirkunge... | | https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2020/11/berlin- | mietende... | | And the effects already started in 2019, when the law was | planned: | | https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2019-11/berlin- | mietendeckel-g... | yladiz wrote: | If it's been happening for four years, how did the | Mietendeckel cause it? | mpweiher wrote: | In 2015, a similar but less draconian "Mietpreisbremse" | was enacted at the federal level. 2016 was the year the | construction trend turned from yearly increases to | declines, and it has been declining consistently ever | since. | | In 2019, in anticipation of the Mietendeckel, the decline | became significantly steeper. | | Several large companies announced that they were halting | all new construction and renovation projects. | | At the same time, inventory has practically disappeared. | So instead of "unaffordable" housing[1] for new tenants, | we now have _no_ housing for new tenants. (Existing rents | were already protected). | | [1] Berlin is still cheap compared other large German | cities and certainly compared to most capital cities of | industrialised countries or places like SF. It's just not | quite as ridiculously cheap any longer. | throwaway4good wrote: | But they won't. What does that tell you about the politicians | promoting this rent control policy? | llampx wrote: | That all they care about is getting reelected by people who | live there and want free stuff, rather than solving real, | hard problems? | FlyingSnake wrote: | Berlin has enough space and I guess the pressure on properties | outside the ring (e.g. Marzahn/Marienfeld) is less. However if | everyone wants to move to Mitte/kreuzolln, then this creates | lots of competition. | southerntofu wrote: | Why build more? There's plenty of abandoned/empty housing | everywhere in big cities? Unfortunately i don't speak german so | i can't give you stats about Berlin, but in Paris alone it's | >200 000 empty housing units according to official statistics. | | Building more is definitely the wrong solution to housing. Just | remove the capitalist vampire landlords making a profit on | basic human needs, and let everybody enjoy free housing for | life! | | EDIT: Corrected stat. | | EDIT2: Funny to see people downvoting without argument. Are you | all against Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human | Rights, stating "Everyone has the right to a standard of living | adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his | family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and | necessary social services" ? | Asdrubalini wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand | gjulianm wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Idealizin | g... | | People can't live without housing so demand is not elastic. | Plus the housing market is special regarding spatial | location. Applying regular market rules as if the housing | market behaved the same as, say, the screwdrivers market, | does not make sense at all. | EdwinLarkin wrote: | In 99% cases it's the government/zoning rules that | prevent increasing the supply of housing not private | investors not wanting to build enough. | gjulianm wrote: | And in many cases it's private investors buying houses | for speculation (either by increasing rent or by using | them for AirBnBs) the ones that drive prices up, not an | increase of supply. | | In any case, my point is that applying market rules to | housing does not make sense, it's not a competitive | market at all and never can be. | goodpoint wrote: | Absolutely not. Investors fight with tooth and nails to | keep the prices up because it's more profitable than | building. | southerntofu wrote: | That's just pro-landlord propaganda but i've never seen | actual evidence of that. I have seen evidence though that | landlords and public powers conspire against the | population to gentrify neighborhoods and drive prices up, | leaving tons of apartments empty so they can make more | money speculating. | vetinari wrote: | It is more nuanced; the private investors want to make | profit as quick as possible, they do not care about long | term development of the area (many politicians either, | they might not be in their position after next election). | | The private investors won't do infrastructure either - it | is expensive - so they want to build where the | infrastructure is already in place. So that's why we see | trying to increase density. | | So the zoning rules are there as a conterweight to this. | pharmakom wrote: | How is it that rents are so high and yet there are empty | housing units? Don't landlords want the money? | gjulianm wrote: | They might think it's more profitable to wait so that they | can sell or rent the unit later at a higher price. | MauranKilom wrote: | Why collect rent when the property price keeps increasing | regardless? Saves you from having to deal with the tenants | and saves you tons of worries/busywork like: | | - How tedious will it be to find suitable tenants (do you | want to go through 1000 emails)? | | - Will they make a mess of the place? | | - Will they call you at random times to complain about | neighbors? | | - Will you have to organize and deal with mechanics when | e.g. the heating breaks? | | And so on. If property prices go up x% per year, buying | housing is a great investment even if you leave it empty. | And yes, this is a serious problem in larger cities, where | investors (domestic or even foreign) just buy up housing | without any intention to let people live there, | exacerbating the problem. | | To be clear, I am just a tenant, but the above incentives | for investors are straightforward to see. | pharmakom wrote: | > Why collect rent when the property price keeps | increasing regardless? | | Because then you get the property price gains and the | rental income on top! | | I don't doubt this is happening, I'm just trying to wrap | my head around it. | southerntofu wrote: | As an individual person with a heart, it's hard to wrap | one's head around. But the problem is landowners are | usually very rich and soulless, when not actual | corporations who have nothing human at all. To them, an | empty apartment is just a line in a spreadsheet that will | bring them money sooner or later. Renting the apartments | would be more trouble for them, despite bringing in a | little more money. | pharmakom wrote: | Seems like a market opportunity. Take on the rental risk | and management costs for some fraction of the rent | payments. Insurance can be used to hedge against damages. | southerntofu wrote: | Many companies are doing that already, and it's not | working as a strategy for housing people (despite making | some people very rich). The problem is that housing is a | market to begin with. Basic commodities like housing | shouldn't be subject to speculation and other capitalist | nonsense. | [deleted] | southerntofu wrote: | > How is it that rents are so high and yet there are empty | housing units? | | Rents are so high BECAUSE there are empty housing units. If | all available housing units went on the market, rent prices | would collapse along with the real-estate speculative | bubble, which is precisely what landlords are trying to | avoid. | artwr wrote: | Just curious, would you happen to have a reference for Paris | handy? | southerntofu wrote: | You can find an article on paris.fr website claiming 17% | empty housing in Paris (and rising) in 2019 : | https://www.paris.fr/pages/le-saviez-vous-17-des- | logements-p... | | So my bad for giving a wrong number the >1 million is in | fact 3 millions for the whole of France (~8%). For Paris | it's "only" ~240000 (according to 2019 paris.fr numbers) | which is on the scale of one empty apartment in the heart | of Paris for every mishoused person ("sans domicile fixe") | in the whole of France, according to official statistics | (which may be too optimistic on the number of mishoused | people). | | https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3572856 | | According to INSEE (official statistics), between 1990 and | 2015, population has grown 0.4%, housing units have grown | 1%, while abandoned housing units grew 2.8%. Now may be a | good time to say that secondary housing (vacation houses | for the privileged elite that can afford it) is NOT | abandoned housing according to these stats. | flohofwoe wrote: | That's already happening with two Edeka markets in my | neighbourhood, they teared down the old markets, and replace(d) | them with new buildings with the market on the bottom floor, | and flats on top. Drop in the bucket though I think. | | I don't think the city is giving out _new_ building permits for | this type of stuff, and many of those markets have either been | there "forever", or have been built after the reunification | (and in the 90's city planners were expecting that the city | would shrink further, not grow). | llampx wrote: | You hit on the major problem. That it's hard to build in the | city. So many ugly buildings under Denkmalschutz, so many | empty concrete spaces and people still want to live where the | facilities are, not in the outskirts if they have the choice. | yftsui wrote: | Because the road and other related infrastructure may not be | ready for the increased FAR ratio yet? | adrianN wrote: | The supermarket in question has a bus stop right in front of | it and is in walking distance from a train station and an | underground station. The city center is a 15 minute bike ride | away. It's not a neighborhood where you need a car. | llampx wrote: | Sounds a bit like concern trolling if this is used to stop or | delay building new apartments that people would love to move | into. | raverbashing wrote: | Compared to other capitals in Europe, they are doing it. It's | of course a slow process, but it exists. | mschuster91 wrote: | > I wish Berlin would just build more housing instead. | | The problem is: Berlin _can 't_. There is not much free space | for new construction in Berlin proper, with the exception of | "Nachverdichtung" such as you propose with apartments over | parking lots - and these have the downside that they are | horribly expensive, simply because it costs potential | developers a lot of money to acquire the land! | | The solution would be to build out internet connectivity and | public transport in the suburbs in Brandenburg so that | employers don't all concentrate in Berlin. | inglor_cz wrote: | Has Berlin built over all its brownfields? If so, very | commendable. | | Here in Prague we have quite a few brownfields that could be | home to at least 50 thousand people (Rohansky ostrov, Bubny, | Kolbenova), but the development is extremely slow. | southerntofu wrote: | > Has Berlin built over all its brownfields? If so, very | commendable. | | Well having some undeveloped space is actually quite nice | to enjoy in a city. We don't have to live packed narrowly | on top of one another. | | But more specifically, brownfields (previously-industrial | spaces) are usually highly polluted. Some are full of heavy | metals and chemicals that you really don't want to displace | into the air by digging into the soil... Some people are | doing it, but it either costs billions of euros in | depollution, or greatly affects the health of nearby | population, and often both. | inglor_cz wrote: | Where I was born (Ostrava, a heavy industry city), there | was a giant, massively polluted brownfield right next to | the city centre. | | It required several years of sanation works to clean up, | but now it is built over and serves the needs of the | population. [0] | | I believe that this is a reasonable use of public money, | even though private developers profit from it. Or | possibly finance it through a Public-Private Partnership | project. | | The alternative is to let poisoned land within borders of | a big city stay poisoned forever. Which does not sound | either people- or environment-friendly. | | [0] https://www.ostrava.cz/en/podnikatel-investor/real- | estate/br... | pantalaimon wrote: | What about Tempelhofer Feld? What about all the | Kleingartenkolonien inside and by the Ring? | adrianN wrote: | Please no suburban sprawl while Berlin still has such low | density compared to other cities. There are still lots of | fairly central areas with single family homes. Just upzone | them and let people get rich selling their land to | developers. | mschuster91 wrote: | > Please no suburban sprawl while Berlin still has such low | density compared to other cities | | A city should be worth it to live in and provide enjoyment | for the citizens, not be a glorified chicken coop for | people. | adrianN wrote: | That is EXACTLY what you get by building dense housing. | You leave room for the important things that a city | offers: services, events, jobs, greenery all in walkable | or bikeable distance. | | Otoh sprawl development leads to dead neighborhoods, car | dependence and long commutes. It also uses space that | could be left to nature instead. | oytis wrote: | Have you been to Berlin? We have amazing public | transportation network, I never had a car living here for | 5 years already, and never felt I need one (at least not | before the pandemic). And also coming from a country with | dense housing (Russia), I really appreciate we are not | sitting on each others heads here. | mschuster91 wrote: | "Dense housing" is code for "chicken coops" with the only | space people have for themselves being 40 m2 for a family | of four. Seriously, thanks but no thanks. | | There is a middle way between US-level sprawl and Japan- | style chicken coops - and I definitely hope we don't go | the Japan route. | adrianN wrote: | No, "dense housing" is code for multistory buildings in a | mixed-use neighborhood (like you already find in many | parts of the city!). It doesn't matter very much whether | those apartments are 30 or 200m^2, the density is several | times better than in a neighborhood of single family | homes as you find them just a few km outside of Berlin's | city center. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Japan style housing, just like British, is "dense" in the | sense of buildings being physically close. It's not what | the post is about - it's about building buildings with | higher number of storeys. | Slippery_John wrote: | There's plenty of space. I've walked by countless empty lots | and abandoned buildings that could easily fit dozens or | hundreds of new apartments. I'm sure there's plenty of | ridiculous legal challenges to actually building on those | spots, but that doesn't mean that there's no land available. | oleganza wrote: | My impression of Berlin (living there for the last 2 years) is | that there's plenty of space, plenty of new housing already | built and plenty of new construction still going. SF, NY, Paris | and London are way more crowded and under-housed in comparison. | Shitty one-story supermarkets are really just a sign of | abundance of space and not enough demand (yet). Among big | European cities the rent seems low. You can buy an super-duper- | lux apartment for ~$1M in the very center of the city that in | the next 10 years can easily go for $5M if Berlin is to | continue to grow the way it does. | frereubu wrote: | Surely a rent cap is a clear sign that there _is_ demand | though? | oleganza wrote: | I think the discussion of the rent cap is more complex. In | every city there's some distribution of wealth and there | are plenty of people who are sensitive to rent. Then, gov | orders businesses to shut down, a lot of people lose money, | then gov starts playing games with various ways to buy love | of voters, rent cap is one of those things. | | Similarly, minimum wage is typically bumped after inflation | already made its way, so most of the people are over the | threshold anyway and won't be thrown out of their jobs. And | those who will -- are valuable voters who can be made | highly dependent on state unemployment programs. | southerntofu wrote: | A rent cap is a clear sign that the capitalist system is | broken and we need a better system to match the housing | needs and supply without feeding into heartless vampires | who'd rather have empty apartments than rent them at a | reasonable price. | EdwinLarkin wrote: | Quite the opposite actually.Increase capitalism and | reduce government control and you get more housing. | crumbshot wrote: | That's not how it turned out in the UK. As this graph | illustrates, when the local government authorities were | prohibited from building more housing, from the 1980s | onwards, the private sector didn't pick up any of the | slack: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MmJ5N.png | | The capitalists instead decided to optimize for steadily | increasing the price of housing by restricting supply, so | these are now primarily seen as an investment with | nearly-guaranteed returns, rather than places for people | to live. | southerntofu wrote: | Another piece of data, from the Netherlands, where office | space vacancy has significantly increased since making | squatting illegal back in 2010: | https://en.squat.net/2016/05/27/netherlands-housing- | crisis/ | UncleSlacky wrote: | > an investment with nearly-guaranteed returns, rather | than places for people to live. | | Or "magic coin-shitting machines", as Charlie Brooker so | pithily put it. | southerntofu wrote: | Yes, as we can see from the very great examples of where | this approach worked perfectly. Now every one is | perfectly housed in decent conditions and for cheap in | United States or South Korea. We all know the dozens of | thousands of homeless folks in San Francisco and around | really want to live in slums or on the streets, and their | situation has nothing to do with speculation, | gentrification and AirBNB. /s | EdwinLarkin wrote: | Are you South Korean? What do you know about South | Korea's real estate? | | Either way I would say housing in Japan (considering all | the constraints) seems to work great. | southerntofu wrote: | > Are you South Korean? What do you know about South | Korea's real estate? | | No. Very little. Just read articles over the years saying | they are facing similar issues of real-estate bubble and | speculation and that prices in Seoul are getting close to | those of New York. | llampx wrote: | And what does that have to do with the price of tea in | China? | llampx wrote: | Berlin needs much more new housing. I keep an eye on the | market both for buying and for renting , and the prices for | buying have exploded upwards at the same time as the number | of flats for rent has steeply declined. | | Empty ugly spaces (not Parks or Public squares) are a symptom | of a lethargic bureaucracy, not a healthy thing. | corty wrote: | Berlin is also full of empty spaces for historical reasons. | Previous rulers intentionally built some things big and far | apart for their capital, WW2 left even more unused spaces | after the rubble was cleared and during the cold war only | some parts got rebuilt. So even compared to most smaller | German cities, Berlin has a low density overall. | dbspin wrote: | Not enough demand for high priced apartments != not enough | demand for affordable accommodation. In fact, they're | literally in opposition. | rorykoehler wrote: | It seems like covid will solve the Berlin housing problem. My | building in Schillerkiez is slowly emptying out. | andreiursan wrote: | Any specific reason why is emptying out? | rorykoehler wrote: | Can't enjoy the cultural offerings of the city if | everything is closed and banned. | corty wrote: | How does that work, I don't suppose residents are dying away? | Does unemployment force them to move out? | rorykoehler wrote: | Move to the countryside probably. Others move back home. | The one person I spoke to was moving his family to a house | for more green space | daptaq wrote: | Will this affect people who have started living in Berlin under | the rent cap-system? I hope they won't have to move out all of a | sudden, facing sudden, higher rents. | danielatc wrote: | It's worse. Many (most?) Landlords already established so | called shadow rents months or years ago in case the rent cap | wasn't legal. This allows them to _retroactively_ collect the | difference of the past rents. So a lot of tenants will now have | to pay massive sums to their landlords. | avh02 wrote: | most contracts drawn up during the "the law is being | challenged" period have a "shadow rent" where you agree to pay | the difference to what the rent is without the cap. | | I.e: "it's x euros _now_, but if/when it's repealed, you'll pay | y euros, and the difference between the two" | rndgermandude wrote: | It will affect them. | | The court overturning the cap means that renters will have to | pay whatever they agreed to in their rental contracts, even if | much higher than what they had to pay when the cap was active. | Even worse, the landlords may request you pay back the | difference you "saved" between the time the cap came into | effect and now. | | If you entered a new renting agreement post cap, the landlord | might have kind of written the cap into the terms as "shadow | rents" [other commenters mentioned]. Read your contract very | carefully. But even if you're good there, the landlord may try | to have the contract invalidated by a court (probably not going | to happen), or legally cancel the contract (after the normal | notification period required by law) and offer to make a new | contract with higher prices. | nicbou wrote: | This is correct, but only if your rent contract included a | higher "shadow rent". | | I am very fortunate to have a rent contract that included | lower rent frozen for 5 years, but without any conditions. In | my case, I get to keep my cheap rent. | | If your rent is about to go up, don't forget that the | Mietpreisbremse is still in effect. You can still get your | rent reduced this way, either alone, with a tenants' union, | with Wenigermiete, or with a regular lawyer. | FlyingSnake wrote: | Important to note here is that while the Mietendeckel (rent cap) | has been overturned, the Mietpreisebremse (rental price control) | is still active. This is a very interesting development though. | nicbou wrote: | Correct. Unfortunately, the Mietpreisbremse is not as | "automatic", because there is no fine tied to it. This means | the landlord will not reduce your rent unless you do something | about it. It also brings a lower reduction than the | Mietendeckel. | | Unfortunately, many rent contracts had a "shadow rent" clause - | a higher rent they'd have to pay retroactively if the | Mietpreisbremse was repealed. A lot of people are about to get | a really big invoice they have to pay within 2 weeks. | | Fortunately, the Mietpreisbremse is retroactive back to April | 2020, so you can start the process now and get a refund later. | | Your action plan should be the following: | | 1. Use a Mietpreisbremse calculator to check how much you are | paying | | 2. Contact your landlord, either alone or with the help of a | tenants' union (Mieterverein) | | 3. If that fails, use a lawyer, or a service like Wenigermiete. | If it get this far, the resolution will generally take around a | year. This is the average resolution time. | | I have worked directly with Wenigermiete. They explained the | situation to me just last week, but they expected the court to | resolve the case in July, perhaps even later. | FlyingSnake wrote: | Thanks for putting it nicely. This sums it really well. | nicbou wrote: | I will write a longer practical guide for Berliners | affected by this. It should go live today or tomorrow on | allaboutberlin.com. | FlyingSnake wrote: | Ah thanks, that site is a goldmine of info for Expats in | Berlin | throwaway85858 wrote: | Mietpreisbremse for Berlin wasn't renewed, so there is now no | upper limit on Miete except the federal 20% every 3 years. (I | think) | durnygbur wrote: | Housing situation in Germany for anyone born after 1980 is so | fucked. | amelius wrote: | Yes. Since we have two levels of living costs, we should have | two numbers of inflation! :) | | This makes me wonder: is inflation calculated based on averages | or based on medians? | hef19898 wrote: | Depends where you live, I guess. Gentrification is a problem, | so, I agree. | durnygbur wrote: | It doesn't matter where you live. The jobs are in Munich, | Berlin, Wolfsburg, etc. | hef19898 wrote: | And a job in these cities usually pays the rent. Unless, of | course, you work blue collar at smaller companies. Or are a | long time resident. Then it sucks. | | That being said, I'd say the situation sucks _especially_ | for older folks not owning their apartments. The generally | higher educated post 1980 generation has it comparatively | good. | | I just take issue with such general blatant statements, | things are never that simple. | nicbou wrote: | It's the jobs that support the locals that don't pay | enough. While the skilled workers might be able to afford | the local rent, other residents progressively get pushed | out. | hef19898 wrote: | Couldn't agree more. Being one of the skilled workers, I | hate that development. That's why I also think the rent | cap being overturned is a bad idea. | kuu wrote: | Housing situation in Germany is so fucked | | Housing situation in London is so fucked | | Housing situation in Spain is so fucked | | Housing situation in Canada is so fucked | | .... | | I'm not an expert, but I see a pattern there... | stareatgoats wrote: | Sweden too. Not an expert either, but isn't the privatization | of housing all over the industrialized world at the root of | this, coupled with the currently ubiquitous need to crowd | together in the cities? People have been able to buy | properties in the city centers at fantasy prices, because of | low interests and favorable mortgage arrangements and with | the expectation that the prices will go on rising forever. | | Which - spoiler ahead - they won't. Cities will within a | decade or two have lost their luminosity, with the giant | shift towards remote work that is about to take place, in | parallel with the wiping out of brick-and-mortar businesses. | Prices will reflect this, sooner or later. | amelius wrote: | > Which - spoiler ahead - they won't. Cities will within a | decade or two have lost their luminosity, with the giant | shift towards remote work that is about to take place, in | parallel with the wiping out of brick-and-mortar | businesses. Prices will reflect this, sooner or later. | | That's the question as those in power wouldn't want to | suffer the consequences. | mjevans wrote: | Add the USA to that list. | | Housing needs to not be an investment. | avh02 wrote: | I used to live in Dubai - i got there at almost peak | rent/real estate... I look at rents now, and they're just | under half what i was paying. Sometimes tides turn the other | way too. | dukeyukey wrote: | The way I understand it, investment is pouring into real- | estate in countries thought to be long-term stable, mostly | by investors in less-stable countries. The UAE has a lot | going for it, but geopolitical stability isn't one of them. | romanovcode wrote: | Yeah but who wants to live in Dubai anyway. The only reason | to be there is to not pay income tax. | durnygbur wrote: | I would prefer location where my chance to find female mate | is greater than 0, and where I will not be on the hook for | saying, writing, or doing something trivial and then | persecuted under pretext of consuming alcohol. | avh02 wrote: | That's a completely different story - and there are | obviously many reasons I left Dubai. | | But Dubai is not _entirely_ that repressed (believe it or | not, you may date someone. (but technically, no sex | outside marriage - didn't know anyone caught on that one | though)). There were many caveats and "watch outs" for | sure - the _general_ rule was "don't be a stupid drunk", | "don't publicly insult anyone", "no overt PDA in public" | and you were fine. Obviously that's not to everyone's | taste and wasn't always uniformly applied. | patrickk wrote: | The whole Anglosphere seems to have issues with housing, in | addition to those places you mention. It seems to be a common | cultural issue where people gamble on property like crazy. | I'm from Ireland, and this is true there (in the desirable | urban areas where semi-decent jobs exist), it's true in the | UK[1], it's true in the US, Canada, Australia and New | Zealand. | | New Zealand banned foreigners from buying property[2]. | | Among Brits, there's a (small) trend of retirees going off | and buying a French Chateau and doing it up, because the cost | of doing so will be the same or cheaper than buying a very | modest place in many urban areas in the UK. This is spurred | on by a popular TV show[3] | | I'm not sure what the answer is. More construction, rent | controls and banning foreigners from owning property, none of | it seems to really fix the problem. Construction is often too | slow, rent controls can put in place conditions for landlords | neglecting properties, and banning foreigners will bring | other problems too. | | [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/comments/lvx0xg/ | pro... | | [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/new-zealand-bans-most- | foreig... | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_to_the_Chateau | corty wrote: | All the western countries go through urbanisation, and have | been for the last few decades. Back in the days, industry | would build a factory in a smaller country town with a few | thousand inhabitants and employ half the population there. | Nowadays, this rarely happens anymore, only big cities get | any industrial development of larger scales. All the | office-based parts of the economy also gravitate towards | larger cities (often unnecessarily). | | So demand for big-city-housing is rising permanently. This | wasn't as much of a problem in the last decades. But then, | central banks flooded the market with cheap money, making | most "safe" investments unviable. Therefore the only "safe" | investment left is real-estate which also drives up prices | in addition to the increase in demand. | | And here we are. | | How do we fix it? Get central banks to stop printing cheap | money. No idea how that will work out, because it also has | other consequences beside the housing market. And stop | urbanisation, make the countryside more viable for | industry, commerce, office space. Improve transport around | the countryside and suburbs. Curb speculation by promoting | home-ownership (for the home you live in, not the 20 you | rent out) through tax incentives and other measures | (currently, in Germany, you pay lower taxes when renting | out a property than when living in the same property, | because when renting it out the mortgage payments are | "business expenses"). | JoeAltmaier wrote: | This has to change, with the diminishing birth rates. | Growth will stop then reverse. Housing maybe become an | issue of dealing with empty buildings and abandoned | neighborhoods. | patrickk wrote: | Even with declining birth rates, there is still the | global urbanisation trend, and the best paid jobs in | knowledge sectors tend to cluster together. So while | rural areas, and even entire countries (like some of the | former USSR states) are emptying out, the cities where | the best jobs are will keep rising in importance, and | presumably, rental costs unless something drastic | changes. | unixhero wrote: | Yup, same in my country. I was able to buy a home recently, but | my method of accumulating capital enough is just about mission | impossible for normal peeps. It is really unfair. Government | regulation and control of housing prices is the solution. | Darmody wrote: | If it is the solution, why doesn't it work wherever they have | tried? | qayxc wrote: | Because people are good at gaming the system. | Darmody wrote: | What about investors not wanting to invest a single cent | into building new estate because it is not economically | viable anymore? Is that gaming the system? | qayxc wrote: | "Economically viable" must not be confused with | "extremely profitable". Housing is economically viable as | soon as revenue is positive in the mid- to long term. | | Extremely profitable on the other hand is much more | attractive to investors than economically viable. It | promises short term ROI with great revenue and very low | risk in overheated markets. | | There's a balance to be struck here and thinking in | extremes just isn't helpful. | | And yes, I do consider buying up land and just letting it | sit there until housing crisis becomes severe enough that | developing luxury housing becomes profitable to be gaming | the system. | | It's funny how quick investors are to complain about | something not being economically viable and praising the | free market and its power to innovate, while at the same | the cost of developing houses goes up and up and up. | | Where's the innovation there? How come a portable | supercomputer can be bought brand new for the equivalent | of a day's worth of work today, while at the same time | fewer and fewer people can afford to own a home? | | Why hasn't the increasing demand for affordable housing | spurred innovation in that sector and why is nobody even | asking that question? | amelius wrote: | It's like joining a game of Monopoly after a few rounds have | already been played. | llampx wrote: | EXACTLY. This is how I feel as a millennial who hasn't | started on the ground floor and doesn't have rich parents who | did. | taurath wrote: | Housing in all winner-take-all cities are fucked. Here's hoping | remote work can start to really spread things around with | intentional communities trying to bring specific types of | people together. | timdaub wrote: | I've been protected by this rule. I live in the north of Berlin. | It saved me roughly 100EUR a month. I found it fair for the | appartment I rent. I can't say much about other cases. | | Since I have to pay back the cummulative savings to my landlord | in case the law is overturned(which happened today), I saved | 100EUR extra each month. | | It's likely that I'll now have to increase my rent payment by | 100EUR and pay back roughly 1000EUR to my landlord. | | I'm happy I prepared for this situation. It's OK for me. However, | I'm worried about friends that may haven't prepared... | Tenoke wrote: | 100e is pretty good. For me it was 500e less, and it made it | even less possible for me to move to a smaller place which I've | wanted to do since breaking up with my ex. | | >It's OK for me. However, I know others that will likely lose | their flat now. | | They won't just lose their flat. If they can't backpay the rent | (thousands in some cases) their Schufa will be ruined which | will make it even harder if at all possible to get a new place. | timdaub wrote: | > They won't just lose their flat. If they can't backpay the | rent (thousands in some cases) their Schufa will be ruined | which will make it even harder if at all possible to get a | new place. | | Damn, I didn't consider this but it's true. Usually, | landlords also want a Mietschuldenbescheinigung to check if | you have rent debt with previous landlords. | | What upsets me about the situation is that I feel like some | people are experimenting with my property/contract/living | condition. I'd prefer if they could just leave me alone. It | makes me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. | nicbou wrote: | There's still the Mietpreisbremse, which many people could try | to apply. It's not as straightforward, but it's not a contested | law. | | Unfortunately, this takes time, and people will be asked to | give the money back NOW. | f6v wrote: | Berlin is a weird place. If you're an art student working as a | barista, I don't think you can expect to live in a hip | neighbourhood. Certainly not 15 minutes away from | Alexanderplatz(city centre). And you certainly can't expect that | if the city is a self-proclaimed "startup capital", with | thousands of tech workers who enjoy 80k+ salaries. | durnygbur wrote: | > 80k+ salaries. | | Last time I intensively job searched in Berlin there was a | clear salary ceiling at 70-75k EUR annually for software roles. | yladiz wrote: | I'm not sure how long ago you looked, but that definitely | isn't the case, both from research and personal experience. | pitkali wrote: | While 80k is above a median for a senior software developer, | it is not unattainable, as far as I know. | goodpoint wrote: | Can you provide sources? | f6v wrote: | The only one I know https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/ | u/0/d/13p6Hr9kSZuVKbQgO... | ewindal wrote: | Amazon Berlin has >EUR80k for entry level roles. | Tenoke wrote: | FAANG typically pay more than everyone else. | | Also sites like glassdoor report 70k for the _average_ | Berlin Amazon Software Engineer Salary. | | https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Amazon-Software- | Development... | [deleted] | durnygbur wrote: | I was interviewed onsite at Amazon's Berlin office. The | breathless technical marathon ensured me they're place for | toxic assholes and the only motivation for going through | the process could be above the market salary. Having given | up on trying during the process I truly regret the time I | wasted on dealing with them. | jashmatthews wrote: | Startups with no money yes but places like Zalando pay ~100k | total comp. People working for places like Microsoft or | GitHub more like ~150k. | | https://www.levels.fyi/Salaries/Software-Engineer/Berlin- | Ger... | durnygbur wrote: | I was pulled through so many hopeless recruitment | processes, tests, take home assignments, teasing sessions | that I simply have no reason to believe these amounts. No | promise will make me sacrifice even an hour more. Like | literally - email me already an employment contract with | this amount on it. | f6v wrote: | I mean, I don't do whiteboard coding interviews either. | But Amazons, Zalandos and Wayfairs pay that. | jashmatthews wrote: | https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering- | sala... | bellyfullofbac wrote: | Good old gentrification... "Look at that hip area with the art | students working as baristas, let's live there.". | | A few years later, the neighborhood cafe is just full of tech | workers coding the frontend framework for the next food | delivery app and you wonder where the soul went. | llampx wrote: | Yeah, millennials coding apps are the problem. Not the ones | owning the cafe, the building it resides in and the | apartments everyone lives in. | durnygbur wrote: | You hate us cause you ain't us. No worries we don't pass | through the apartment applicant selection either. Now you | need to be young attractive woman with a partner, Western | sounding names and surnames, both employed with high salary. | All documented. | Tenoke wrote: | What? Non-Germans have it much harder finding a place here | even if their names are western. | f6v wrote: | Tech workers are top earners. And at my last company in | Berlin we haven't had a German developer in years. | durnygbur wrote: | Depends on nationality preference of the person selecting | the candidate -\\_(tsu)_/-. Either way Germanic surname | will always win over Polish one. | f6v wrote: | Unless your name is Kevin. Then it's a no-go. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-15 23:01 UTC)