1999, 2000 and 2001 Socially Integrative City districts were remarkably heterogeneous. Their main common denominator was a concentration of problems exceeding those of the rest of the city. Two distinct types of "districts with special development needs" have long since been identified. One type is densely populated neighbourhoods with old buildings usually from the early days of the German Empire and the industrial age. They may feature a large number of juxtaposed small settlements. The other type is primarily massive prefabricated housing estates from the 1960s to 1980s (called Großtafel in the west and Plattenbau in the east).
The survey results confirm this typology. Neighbourhoods consisting of only old buildings (40 districts, or 20%) and mixed-age neighbourhoods (46 districts, or 21%) constitute two fifths of all programme districts. However, 55% of the districts are new estates. In the former East Germany this figure is even higher, at 68%. The preponderance of large postwar housing estates in the programme proves the special significance of housing companies as integrated urban development advocates and providers.
However, categorizing the wide range of different programme districts by merely overlaying two urban planning criteria is not exhaustive. Adding the mean values from selected social data paints the following picture. Functionally homogeneous post-WWII estates house an above-average number of young people and welfare recipients. Functionally heterogeneous neighbourhoods of pre-WWI buildings are characterized by high unemployment and a multicultural mix. However, people living in neighbourhoods with buildings of various ages and functions tend to be older. If the interim assessment were to include additional categories proposed by the evaluation team (economic pressures, function for the town as a whole, local initiative tradition and civic involvement) and contribute to the emergence of a more sophisticated, viable typology, it could give programme implementers extra insight into typical goal and strategy profiles.
Table 6: Urban Planning District Types and Social Indicators*. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
||||||||||||
|
District type according to building age and function |
Mean |
|||||||||||
|
Total |
Unemploy-ment rate |
Welfare recipient quota |
Proportion of immigrants |
Proportion of under-18s |
Proportion of over-60s |
|||||||
|
No. |
% |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
|
|
Mixed function with old buildings |
43 |
19.6 |
18.4 |
26 |
13.0 |
23 |
25.0 |
36 |
18.7 |
35 |
15.8 |
34 |
|
New buildings, purely residential |
79 |
36.1 |
15.6 |
29 |
21.1 |
42 |
21.9 |
65 |
24.8 |
68 |
18.3 |
62 |
|
Mixed function with new buildings |
42 |
19.2 |
14.1 |
24 |
12.0 |
27 |
19.5 |
37 |
21.3 |
33 |
19.9 |
31 |
|
Mixed building ages and functions |
42 |
19.2 |
15.0 |
20 |
10.2 |
28 |
18.7 |
36 |
19.3 |
31 |
20.5 |
30 |
|
Other areas |
13 |
5.9 |
17.0 |
5 |
12.1 |
6 |
26.2 |
12 |
19.7 |
12 |
18.0 |
12 |
Total |
219 |
100.0 |
15.9 |
104 |
14.8 |
126 |
21.7 |
186 |
21.7 |
179 |
18.5 |
169 |
* The district types with the highest mean value for each indicator are highlighted ("other areas" are excluded). |
||||||||||||
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||||||||||||
Experiences in pilot districts and discussions and publications have demonstrated that the Socially Integrative City programme districts have special citywide significance in two particular areas. Firstly, they relieve burdens by providing living space for people who would otherwise have worse accommodation or none at all. Secondly, they can stimulate new developments (1) and take on a model function.
Many different groups emphasize the great integration function of the programme districts, particularly for people with numerous different cultures, ways of life and modes of behaviour. However "it would be politically controversial to mention this openly" (2), probably because anyone doing so would have to be prepared to pump resources into the programme districts and fight the stigmatization and discrimination they suffer.
The testbed function of the Socially Integrative City districts and the special expectations of (and demands on) their development was clearly expressed at the Socially Integrative City - Unity, Security, Future congress where a provisional appraisal of the programme took place. German chancellor Gerhard Schröder regards them as "laboratories assessing new formulae for social integration" which must be supported in their "difficult task of integration, so vital to the community". Klaus Selle called the Socially Integrative City districts "proving grounds for the urban policy of the future". (3) This key function of the districts is confirmed in many final onsite programme support reports.
(1) Ingeborg Beer und Reinfried Musch, "Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf - die soziale
Stadt" Modellgebiet Kottbusser Tor (german), Berlin-Kreuzberg,
final report of onsite programme support, Berlin, May 2002. p. 164 f.
(2) Klaus Wermker, Einbindung der Integrierten Handlungskonzepte in gesamtstädtische Entwicklungskonzepte (german).
Impulsreferat, in: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (ed.), Impulskongress Integratives
Handeln, p. 159., vol. 7
(3) Published in: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (ed.), Kongress "Die Soziale Stadt - Zusammenhalt,
Sicherheit, Zukunft" (german), p. 15 and p. 98.
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
