The cooperative urban land development model in Germany - An effective instrument to support affordable housing
Introduction
Strategic development plans for urban land often seek for solutions to meet requirements regarding the supply of affordable and especially social housing that otherwise may not be provided by the private sector. Several criteria (low income, persons without income in household etc.) must satisfy the access to social housing. However, there are broader target groups that each require affordable housing. Hence, a more flexible housing policy is required. With more flexibility and more supply of affordable housing for the larger number of people who are in principle eligible for social housing allocation, can benefit from the social housing supply. From the point of social fair urban development, two goals are the focus of attention: The first is to provide a quantitatively sufficient supply of affordable apartments for all types of low income households and the second is to achieve socially mixed residential areas. This article deals with approaches that use municipal sovereignty to draw up development plans to ensure the social benefit and improvement of the development project in cooperation with landowners. In this way deals and contracts can be struck between the city authority and landowners to meet the local demand for affordable housing. Several international studies have already considered various policy instruments to promote socially mixed housing. Many states and cities have adopted the so-called “inclusionary housing policies” latest since the 1970s that have been well researched (Calavita and Mallach, 2010, Sunikka and Boon, 2003; Ruys et al., 2007; Gurran and Whitehead, 2011). Some recent pieces of literatures are critically discussing the issue of spatially inclusive urban space development, where socially mixed affordable housing policy instruments should be revisited for securing the right to the city (Fainstein, 2016; Hartmann and Jehling, 2019; Uitermark and Nicholls, 2017; Uwayezu and de Vries, 2019). However, research so far has insufficiently addressed how trajectories and practices of inclusionary housing policies take shape and to which extent these contribute to the goals of sustainable urban development. Hence, there is a need to evaluate to which extent locally adopted instruments are effective when aiming for affordable housing.
Over the past decade, many German cities have introduced a so-called “Cooperative Urban Land Development Model (CULD)” i.e. Modelle Kooperativer Baulandentwicklung (Drixler, et al., 2014). This strategy pursues similar objectives as the inclusionary housing approach (i.e. social mix to prevent segregation, affordable housing, and recovery of infrastructural costs). The concept has been discussed since the 1990s, first for passing the costs of building land development to the property owners and later to solve the problem of affordable housing (Koetter, 2014, 2018). In particular, a survey of local authorities found that a common set of urban development problems, namely high land prices, scarcity of improved building land, affordable housing shortage, arising cost of land improvement, increasing demand for housing because of increasing urbanization, are often the driving forces behind the adoption of CULD (Dransfeld, 2009). Efforts are being made to disseminate the positive experiences and successful strategies of these models to as many municipalities as possible through guidelines (Koetter et al., 2020). Various policy debates have considered the impacts, specifically the advantages and disadvantages of CULD (Drixler et al., 2014; Koetter, 2018). This paper answers two research questions: (1) Did the neoliberal changes in housing policy contribute to the introduction of inclusive housing in Germany? (2) What are the potentials of the CULD model to promote and finance the construction of affordable housing and socially mixed neighbourhoods? Therefore, some insights could be highlighted on the strategies in German cities that have nearly been neglected in scientific discussion until now. In their seminal book, Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective, Calavita and Mallach, (2010) pointed out that “Scandinavian countries and Germany tend to use inclusionary housing sparingly if at all”.
In order to answer the research questions, we examine the CULD model according to its social, economic and planning targets. As a method, we use the content analysis approach on the basis of related pieces of literature, city documents and practical projects. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a brief review on inclusionary housing policies in the international and German national context. Section 3 introduces the CULD model by including legal arrangements, implementation process and principles. Practical project cases and exemplary adequacy test in Section 4 show the possible economic burdens and social benefits for city and investors. Section 5 discusses the potentials of CULD to achieve its goals. The article concludes with possible further research scopes in Section 6.
Section snippets
International examples on inclusionary housing
Since the early 1970s inclusionary housing has been employed in the United States to combat the negative trend of ethnic and social segregation. In reaction to the curtailing of federal spending on public housing under the neoliberal Reagan administration of the 1980s, American cities adopted such inclusionary instruments to secure the availability of affordable housing. In some cases, they even strove to delegate the burden of supplying affordable housing to private developers (Calavita et
Objectives and targets of CULD model
The idea and basic functions of CULD are for a municipality to sign an urban contract with potential developers or landowners. In this agreements, the developers agree to bear the entire costs of necessary urban infrastructure facilities, urban planning and other development expenditures caused by the proposed residential development. In this CULD agreements the investors are also committed to creating a substantial percentage of affordable housing. In Germany, affordable housing should serve
Examples of projects realized under CULD
Since its adoption, many housing projects have been implemented under the CULD model. For instance, more than 150 legally binding development plans were created by the city authorities in Munich from 1994 to 2016, during which time more than 40,000 new apartments were built, of which about 14,000 were subsidized. Parkstadt Schwabing in Munich is one such example, where a former industrial site has been converted into an integrated city district with 1500 flats and office space for 12,000
Discussion of advantages and limitations
The CULD model is discussed by following three main targets: social, economic and planning (see criteria in Fig. 1). In the context of social targets, with the commitment to develop a noteworthy share of affordable housing within a newly developed area, the CULD clearly should have a positive effect on the number and quality of accommodation for households with lower incomes. CULD models not only aim to generate affordable housing but also to ensure a robust and socially balanced population
Conclusions: exploring economic and social benefits with the CULD model
The goal of this article was to present the concept of cooperative urban land development (CULD) as applied to affordable housing policies in Germany. Neoliberal changes in housing policy were pinpointed as the explanation for the late adoption of such a model of inclusionary housing. We elaborated on the implementation process as well as the economic effects of CULD. Under this model, the local authorities can implement their desired urban development goals without sacrificing housing
References (63)
- et al.
Urban renewal in Hong Kong: transition from development corporation to renewal authority
Land Use Policy
(2001) - et al.
Municipal urbanization tax and land-use management—the case of Tomar, Portugal
Land Use Policy
(2013) Three generations of urban renewal policies: analysis and policy implications
Geoforum
(1999)- et al.
From diversity to justice–unraveling pluralistic rationalities in urban design
Cities
(2019) Urban Infrastructure: a critique of urban renewal process in Ijora Badia, Lagos
Habitat Int.
(2001)- et al.
Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for achieving sustainable social housing (SSH)
Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.
(2017) Urban growth controls: transitional dynamics of development fees and growth boundaries
J. Urban Econ.
(2004)- et al.
Planning and affordable housing in Australia, New Zealand and England: common culture; different mechanisms
J. Hous. Built Environ.
(2014) Impact Fees and Housing Affordability
A J. Policy Dev. Res.
(2005)- et al.
Housing affordability and planning in Australia: the challenge of policy under neo-liberalism
Hous. Stud.
(2007)
The limits of housing policy: home ownership in Australia
Hous. Stud.
Municipal Landownership and Housing in Sweden: Exploring Links, Supply and Possibilities
Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture
Inclusionary housing in California and New Jersey: a comparative analysis
Hous. Policy Debate
Die Sozialgerechte Bodennutzung -
Assessing the relative merits of development charges and transferable development rights in an uncertain world
Urban Stud.
Housing policy retrenchment: Australia and Canada compared
Urban Stud.
The discourse of’community’and the reinvention of social housing policy in Australia
Urban Stud.
Kommunales Bodenmanagement - Ergebnisse einer aktuellen Befragung
Fachtag. Flächenmanagement Nordrh. Westfal. Erfahr. Perspekt.
Financialisation and justice in the city: a commentary
Urban Stud.
Delivering new affordable housing in the age of austerity: housing policy in Scotland
Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal.
City strategies for affordable housing: the approaches of Berlin, Hamburg, Stockholm, and Gothenburg
Int. J. Hous. Policy
Cited by (12)
Augmenting EV charging infrastructure towards transformative sustainable cities: An equity-based approach
2023, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeA machine learning methodology to quantify the potential of urban densification in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, United Kingdom
2023, Sustainable Cities and SocietyThe value of land redevelopment in different types of properties: Considering the effect of hold-out problems on the development probability
2022, Land Use PolicyCitation Excerpt :The rational and efficient development contribute to land value capture, which is important to the sustainability of land use. Therefore, many studies have focused on the issue of land value and development (e.g., Glumac et al., 2019; Koetter et al., 2021). However, there have been quite a few studies demonstrating that stakeholder relationships influence the outcomes of land value capture, such as: Sheehan and Ritchie (2005), Neville and Menguc (2006), Timur and Getz (2008), Hein et al. (2017), and Wang et al. (2020).
The Geopolitics of Place: Framing Avenues for Activism
2023, Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in EducationCritical barriers and countermeasures to urban regeneration from the stakeholder perspective: a literature review
2023, Frontiers in Sustainable Cities