Questions of district size and borders were relevant for traditional urban planning aid schemes and they still are. However, the primary focus was financial feasibility and rapid project conclusion, favouring rehabilitation zones with a relatively small area. In 1984 the German average was 10.6 hectares. (1) The Socially Integrative City programme districts are 12 times as big, averaging 126 hectares. This suggests that an urban renewal philosophy emphasizing integrated approaches affects the selection and demarcation of districts. Addressing districts merely according to population structure and functions of space no longer suffices.
However, the size of Socially Integrative City areas varies dramatically. They range from 1061 hectares (Hagen-Vorhalle in North Rhine-Westphalia) to just one hectare (Rostock-Schmarl and Schwabach-Schwalbenweg). The national average is 126 hectares. North Rhine-Westphalia's mean is 287 hectares. The next highest are Lower Saxony with 255 hectares and Saxony-Anhalt with 187. Rhineland-Palatinate has the smallest average district size (32 hectares). It is followed by Mecklenburg-West Pomerania (43 hectares) and Berlin (63 hectares). In 2001 Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria had much larger districts. During the first survey they occupied first and second place. (2)
During its analysis of the implementation of integrated action plans for urban districts with special renewal needs, North Rhine-Westphalia proposed stipulating a minimum population of 5000 and a maximum of 25,000. (3) It gained inspiration from Britain, which was discussing the "ideal size" of areas for an integrated district renewal concept with direct inhabitant participation. The 8415-inhabitant average size of the programme districts is within these limits. A slight deviation exists between east (9260) and west (8225). (4) The high proportion of large residential estates in the east explains this difference. Saxony-Anhalt has the highest average district population (13,700). The next highest are in North Rhine-Westphalia and Berlin. The lowest average district populations (3700) are in Lower Saxony, followed by Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate.
|
Figure 24: Programme District Size. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
|
Table 5: Programme District Size in each Land. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
||||||||
Size (hectares) |
Size (population) |
|||||||
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
n |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
n |
|
Baden-Württemberg |
5 |
518 |
90 |
14 |
531 |
16,379 |
4,706 |
13 |
Bavaria |
1 |
930 |
116 |
26 |
51 |
95,367 |
8,574 |
27 |
Berlin |
15 |
103 |
63 |
14 |
4,404 |
19,636 |
12,20 |
14 |
Bremen |
7 |
354 |
129 |
11 |
890 |
25,478 |
8,863 |
11 |
Hamburg |
40 |
140 |
93 |
4 |
7,124 |
13,400 |
10,675 |
3 |
Hesse |
10 |
352 |
80 |
17 |
1,940 |
13,994 |
6,364 |
16 |
Lower Saxony |
4 |
255 |
56 |
22 |
797 |
10,312 |
3,721 |
21 |
North Rhine-Westphalia |
8 |
1,61 |
287 |
32 |
1,216 |
40,693 |
13,289 |
33 |
Rhineland-Palatinate |
2 |
140 |
32 |
11 |
293 |
270 |
5,462 |
12 |
Saarland |
20 |
334 |
165 |
12 |
1,657 |
10,514 |
5,621 |
12 |
Schleswig-Holstein |
17 |
408 |
108 |
7 |
1,467 |
20,185 |
6,858 |
7 |
West German total |
1 |
1,61 |
128 |
170 |
51 |
95,367 |
8,225 |
169 |
Brandenburg |
24 |
235 |
102 |
8 |
1,950 |
17,730 |
9,309 |
8 |
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania |
1 |
70 |
43 |
8 |
3,700 |
12,567 |
6,947 |
7 |
Saxony |
22 |
352 |
112 |
9 |
994 |
28,891 |
6,955 |
9 |
Saxony-Anhalt |
32 |
346 |
187 |
8 |
3,149 |
28,899 |
13,668 |
8 |
Thuringia |
30 |
445 |
146 |
6 |
2,349 |
22,825 |
9,575 |
6 |
East German total |
1 |
445 |
116 |
39 |
994 |
28,899 |
9,260 |
38 |
Total |
1 |
1,61 |
126 |
209 |
51 |
95,367 |
8,415 |
207 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||||||||
The vast spectrum of district sizes is particularly apparent when we compare the smallest (Schwabach-Schwalbenweg with only 51 residents, or Am Luisenturm in Koblenz with 293) with the largest (Munich's Mittlerer Ring with 95,000 inhabitants, Dortmund's Nrdliche Innenstadt with around 54,000 and Flingern/Oberbilk in Düsseldorf with 41,000). Many of the most populous areas - those with over 25,000 inhabitants - are either in old town neighbourhoods dating from early days of the German Empire (e.g. Leipzig.s eastern districts, Cologne-Kalk, Bremen-Grpelingen) or in GDR prefab housing estates (Halle-Neustadt, Berlin-Marzahn, Dresden-Prohlis).
Several cities and boroughs have divided very large districts into many subdistricts, some of which have been identified as "social hotspots" or "pockets of discontent". In December 2000 Bremen-Gröpelingen district council decided to concentrate its programme activities on such "focus zones". (5) Activities in the eastern districts of Leipzig also mainly target "core areas". (6)
Other municipalities seem to consider a policy of more investment-based urban planning aid to be the way forward. (7) However, very small areas delimited to respond to little else than the investment volume of structural and urban planning measures are at cross purposes to Socially Integrative City specifications. For example, such strategies make it difficult to include local economy growth potential and neighbouring infrastructures in development and utilization projects. To counteract this, projects like a North Rhine-Westphalia evaluation study and an impulse congress on integrated action have advocated introducing "extendable district boundaries" (8) or "institutionally guaranteed hinterlands". (9) These areas are functionally and spatially linked to the programme districts and can play a supporting role throughout strategy and measure implementation.
It is interesting to investigate to what degree local government contacts consider the selection and delimitation of their programme areas to be spatially and objectively "correct". Pilot district spokespersons stressed the difficulty of implementing programmes by fusing two relatively autonomous areas into a single district. They was done in Gelsenkirchen (Bismarck and Schalke-Nord), Hamburg-Lurup (Flüsseviertel and Lüdersring/Lüttkamp) and in downtown Neunkirchen (combining the radically dissimilar Lower Town and Upper Town).
 |
Figure 27: |
 |
Figure 28: |
 |
Figure 29: |
 |
Figure 30: |
When asked whether district demarcations were "right or wrong", survey participants in 157 (or 78%) of the 201 districts stated that they were "right" because shared central problems could be lumped together and tackled as a single unit. 33 (or 16%) of the districts classified the limits as "wrong". One reason was that the surrounding area and its infrastructural support of the district were not taken into account. 11 districts (5%) were undecided or equivocal. Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony were conspicuously sceptical about the correctness of their districts' demarcation decisions. More than half the districts in the former and around a quarter in the latter disagreed with the boundaries.
(1) Rainer Autzen, Heidede Becker, Rudolf Schäfer und Elfriede Schmidt, Erfahrungen mit der Sanierung
nach dem Städtebauförderungsgesetz - Perspektiven der Stadterneuerung, Bonn-Bad Godesberg
1986, p. 51 f. (Schriftenreihe des Bundesministers für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau
No. 02.036).
(2) Baden-Württemberg took first place with an average district size of 35 hectares (now 90) and Bavaria second with a 39-hectare average (now 116).
(3) Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (ed.),
Analyse der Umsetzung des integrierten Handlungsprogramms für Stadtteile mit besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf,
Dortmund 2000, p. 16 (ILS Schriften, vol. 166).
(4) These figures have become much closer since the first survey in 2000/2001,
when the eastern districts had an average of 11,600 and the western 8400.
(5) Franke/Meyer (german), p. 22.
(6) Böhme/Franke (german), Programmbegleitung, p. 22.
(7) For example, the municipality of the pilot district Singen-Langenrain wanted to "limit contingency funds for investments to certain areas of land ...
and not include private property in the immediate locality". This "narrow and artificial" demarcation
was frequently questioned during the development process, since a more flexible delimitation based on social needs would have been more useful ...
(Krings-Heckemeier/Heckenroth/Geiss, p.20)
(8) Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Hrsg.),
Analyse der Umsetzung, p. 18.
(9) Spiegel, Integrativ, kooperativ, aktivierend (german), p. 33.
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
