Selection and determination of programme districts are initially left to the discretion of borough and town councils. The Land government as the grant award body then accepts or rejects the proposals of local authorities. The special development need that warrants participation in the Socially Integrative City programme is always compared to the overall situation in the town or city as a whole. Evidence must exist that the selected areas need assistance more urgently than other districts, that their development should be prioritized and that more resources should be channelled into them. The selection procedure should be transparent and plausible to legitimate it in the eyes of local policymakers.
 |
Figure 16: |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
Intelligent selection of programme districts presupposes detailed microspatial knowledge of givens in the entire city. However, few municipalities have such information at their disposal. Those that do have set up continual sociospatial observation and reporting systems or have commissioned dedicated investigations (e.g. Berlin, Essen, Duisburg, Gelsenkirchen, Wiesbaden). In many other areas official social statistics are used to justify selection. However, microspatial facts on the social situation are rarely available (1). In addition, attempts to draw sociological borders on the basis of official statistics produce a blurred image. It must be pulled into focus by consulting qualitative findings (2).
87% (193) of the programme districts were selected on the basis of special inquiries, particularly on expertises performed in the run-up to the application (41% of all programme districts), preparatory investigations (37%) and overall planning (34%), and as many as 16% were chosen following microspatial observations of the entire city. However, we can assume that worsening sociospatial segregation, the increasing significance of integrative district development and the ever-louder calls for programme evaluation and auditing (particularly coming from politicians) will contribute towards the proliferation of monitoring systems and sociospatial and segregation analyses among the municipalities (3) This could also help to refine district selection methods.
Almost half of all the programme districts (109) were chosen and delimited on the premises of previous programmes. Several Länder have earmarked Socially Integrative City funds to complement schemes in existing assisted areas. In Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Brandenburg and Lower Saxony, districts must already be confirmed rehabilitation zones to receive assistance. A large proportion of the programme districts in North Rhine-Westphalia had already participated in the Land programme Districts with Special Development Needs, launched in 1993. 40% of all programme districts also belong in whole or in part to rehabilitation zones. Eight of the areas receive funding from both the Socially Integrative City programme and EU URBAN. Over a quarter are ERDF assisted areas (Objective 1/Objective 2).
District selection was also based on previous studies in some of the pilot districts. Like all programme districts in Berlin, Kottbusser Tor in Kreuzberg was elected on the findings of an expertise commissioned by the Senate Department of Urban Development, Environmental Protection and Technology in 1997 (4). The study aimed to "analyse sociospatial changes in the city following reunification and to identify localized problem areas". Investigations were both quantitative and qualitative. The study surveyed 23 areas and utilized the official 1997 statistics and population structure atlas. Its findings did more than form a basis for selection of Berlin's initial Neighbourhood Management and Socially Integrative City districts; they also helped create a monitoring system for the entire city.
The Bismarck/Schalke-Nord pilot district in Gelsenkirchen was recognized as a special needs district in 1994. Criteria such as educational opportunities, housing availability/quality and concentration of welfare recipients determined its status. A sociospatial analysis conducted in 2000/2001 subsequently validated its selection validated its selection(5). The study looked at two different spatial dimensions. Firstly it analysed structural developments in the Ruhr District in order to describe Gelsenkirchen's position in the area's urban system. Secondly it examined Gelsenkirchen.s own interior sociospatial structures. In 2001 the jury consulted the findings to nominate Southeast Gelsenkirchen as its second Socially Integrative City district.
The city of Leipzig based the choice of its eastern districts on its "house-building and urban renewal plan developed jointly by several offices and departments". The selection criteria included urban planning and structural analyses and social findings and indicators. So-called identification units, places which "the majority of the inhabitants would describe as 'my neighbourhood'", were used to carve out programme areas (6).
Several pilot districts were already assisted areas in previous initiatives prior to adoption in the Socially Integrative City programme. Even before Socially Integrative City started, Bremen-Gröpelingen had a "rich tapestry of assistance" and was clearly reaping initial rewards from a package of measures (7). This is also the case for Gelsenkirchen-Bismarck/Schalke-Nord where the North Rhine-Westphalia Land programme is implementing many projects. Cottbus - Sachsendorf-Madlow and Schwerin-Neu Zippendorf previously received assistance from the WENG programme (Weiterentwicklung grosser Neubaugebiete or Further Development of Large Recently-Built Estates). Hanover-Vahrenheide, Nuremberg-Galgenhof/Steinbühl, Singen-Langenrain and parts of Leipzig's eastern districts and Bremen-Gröpelingen benefited from traditional urban planning appropriations.
The borders of some existing rehabilitation zones were reconsidered and modified before entry into the Socially Integrative City programme, for example in Bremen and Leipzig. However, the rehabilitation zone limits which matched settlement structures and urban planning functions prior to transition to the Socially Integrative City programme (8)have not been redrawn, despite the new programme's philosophy (9).
(1) Cf. Chapter 9 for more details.
(2) Hartmut Häußermann und Andreas Kapphan, Sozialorientierte Stadtentwicklung. Gutachten im
Auftrag der Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, Umweltschutz und Technologie, Berlin 1998,
p. 28.
(3) Cf., for example, Heiko Geiling, Zum Verhältnis von Gesellschaft, Milieu und Raum.
Ein
Untersuchungsansatz zu Segregation und Kohäsion in der Stadt, Hannover 2000, p. 11 ff. (typescript, agis-texte) and Chapter 9.
(4) Häußermann/Kapphan, p. 21
(5) Klaus-Peter Strohmeier, Sozialraumanalyse Gelsenkirchen, stadträumliche Differenzierungen von
Lebenslagen und Lebensformen der Bevölkerung, Armut und politischer Partizipation. Materialien
und Analysen zur Begründung der Auswahl eines Stadtteils mit besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf.
Final report, Bochum 2002 (unpublished typescript).
(6) Christa Böhme and Thomas Franke, Programmbegleitung vor Ort im Modellgebiet Leipziger
Osten. (german) Final report, Berlin 2002, p. 22.
(7) Thomas Franke and Ulrike Meyer, Programmbegleitung vor Ort im Modellgebiet Bremen - Gröpelingen (german).
Final report, Berlin 2002, p. 22. Various schemes were running before the programme's launch, e.g.
the Community initiative URBAN, Inner City and Subcentres Immediate Action Programme, Wohnen in Nachbarschaften (WiN - Living in Neighbourhoods) (p. 42).
(8) In the case of Hanover-Vahrenheide, transition into a rehabilitation concept including an
"integrated social renewal process" (Heiko Geiling, Thomas Schwartzer, Esther Bartnick and Claudia Heinzelmann,
Begleitende Dokumentation der Programmbegleitung vor Ort im Modellstadtteil Hannover-Vahrenheide
Final report, Hanover 2002, p. 1).
(9) Geiling/Schwartzer/Bartnick/Heinzelmann, p. 93: "The district delimitation decided by the municipality makes sense as far as
structurally required modernization measures are concerned, but it will neither strengthen cohesion in the district nor overcome everyday boundaries."
Cf. also Marie-Therese Krings-Heckemeier, Meike Heckenroth und Stefan Geiss, Programmbegleitung des Bund-Länder-Programms 'Soziale Stadt', Singen-Langenrain.
Final report, Berlin 2002, p. 20. "The original district limits were not changed."
Translated from: Soziale Stadt - Strategien für die Soziale Stadt, Erfahrungen und Perspektiven – Umsetzung des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik 2003
