Читать книгу Debates de la cooperación latinoamericana - Silvana Insignares Cera - Страница 15

Leipzig, a city with around 550,000 inhabitants is located in the federal state of Saxony in Eastern Germany. The case of Leipzig exemplarily presents a re-growing city: After decades of decline, Leipzig is now one of the fastest growing cities in Germany. The city encountered a long period of population decline after the political turnaround in 1989 from 530.010 inhabitants in 1989 to 437.101 inhabitants in 1998. After the incorporation of some suburbs around 495.000 inhabitants were living in Leipzig in the years from 2000. During this time, planning instruments to maintain the inner-city structures despite a declining population were implemented in the frame of the Stadtumbau-Ost national funding scheme: low-density housing (e.g. town houses), renaturation of brownfields, and renovation of vacant housing. Since the first decade of the 2000s population increased at a fast pace and currently more than 560.000 people live in Leipzig. New neighborhoods for more than 10,000 inhabitants are planned in inner-city or close to inner-city areas, which are mainly directed at middle class households. Despite the population increase of the last years, the situation on the housing market is - especially compared to other German cities - as a result of the shrinking period rather relaxed and the average rent level is still modest. On a city wide level, there exist more flats than households.

The city has faced in the last years a growing numbers of refugees which ultimately decreased: In 2011, 285 persons were registered as new asylum seekers in Leipzig, in 2014 there were 1,243 persons registered, in 2015 4,230 persons. It is estimated that in 2016 around 3,000 asylum seekers will come to Leipzig. This is the result of the rising number of refugees coming to Germany especially in 2015 and the distribution following the Königssteiner Schlüssel and the mechanisms within the federal state of Saxony.

The city of Leipzig has already in 2012 decided that large scale asylum seeker accommodation should be avoided and that refugees should be hosted in smaller units or rent their own flats. This political statement has been also been included in the municipalities’ housing policy concept, which was updated in late 2015. Concerning the situation of refugees, the housing policy concept stated that decentralized housing options for refugees should be accompanied by measures for social integration (language courses, possibilities to access the labor market etc.). The housing policy concept also implied that housing for refugees should be provided rather in central locations than in the periphery, where refugees might feel isolated (especially due to the fact, that refugees normally do not own cars and public transport towards and from peripheral locations is weak).

Leipzig’s idea to prioritize decentralized housing rather than cen­tralized housing is in line with the above mentioned concept of the European City. A social mix in neighborhoods, a focus on central rather than peripheral locations for refugees and the idea that integration can be achieved on an urban level refer to the ideal-typical concept of the European City.

Nevertheless, the latest numbers for Leipzig show a different picture: The majority of refugees in Leipzig live in large scale centralized housing. Of the approximately 5,000 refugees in Leipzig, 2,500 live in large scale refugee homes with more than 60 persons, approx. 600 refugees in small scale refugee homes with less than 60 persons, approx. 300 refugees in hotels, 50 refugees in contemporary housing conditions, 700 refugees in flats rented by the municipality and 1,100 refugees have rented their own flat, Thus it can be stated that decentralized housing is of minor importance, despite the political will to avoid centralized housing for refugees.

Why does this gap between political will and real development exist? A multitude of different, partly overlapping reasons can be identified. In order to systemize these reasons, the different options of decentralized housing are analyzed and it is evaluated why only a small share of refugees lives in decentralized housing.