"With more than 1200 prospective tenants, it was really difficult for the landlord to make a decision.
Unfortunately, we have to inform you that the landlord has decided on other prospective tenants.
Thank you for your understanding! "
[In 1917] the government spearheaded great changes in people’s lives, starting with housing. The Soviets nationalized private property and started the so-called “уплотнение” (housing compaction), giving rooms to working-class families in large central apartments that used to belong to [previous owners]. Note that renters were “compacted” too. This project officially laid the groundwork for the often bizarre kommunalka housing - a resilient symbol of the Soviet past. https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/331621-lenin-putin-soviet-rus...
So you are having problems looking for a 2bd apartment for a family of 3? What about one room in an apartment with a bath shared by 4 other families?
FTFY.
There is plenty of basic housing. It just happens not to be where people are looking most of the time.
Are you kidding ?
It's the best piece of advice you'll read all year.
Go and do likewise!
That worked in the 1990s. Not sure it's viable today.
Edit: There were 3.5 million residents in 1993. It is projected to reach 3.6 million residents in 2029 [1]
It's got to be something to do with financial markets and foreign investment
1 - https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/204296/berlin/population
And btw: new built appartments have almost free price setting.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/12/03/1061333538/berlin-voted-for-t...
It reflects a political environment that makes renting risky. And illegal laws can still cause hardship while they're being stayed and struck down. The corporate landlords can afford to fight. Single-home landlords cannot. This time the referendum constrained itself to corporate landlords; next time it may not.
And btw: it's stated in the constitution, that ownership introduces also responsibility to the society.
Eminent domain exists everywhere. Berlin’s politics are more extreme than the norm. Most homeowners would pay a low single-digit percent of their home value to insure against expropriation in that environment. Taking a property off the rental market is analogous; sacrificing a cash flow to safeguard the investment.
We can go back and forth on theory all day. I’m m reflecting what people I know are doing. Being flippant with (or even demonising) owners’ interests circles back into affordability crises worldwide, from Berlin to San Francisco.
People forget that you can always “price in” regulatory changes. Then you just see which path maximizes profit. What may seem ridiculous (leaving a unit empty) actually makes a lot of sense based on the rules.
Doppelte Haushaltsführung is a tax relief for people needing a 2nd place close to work. Also the work of your gf needs to be at least 1 hour away from the main apartment [1], she has to pay at least 10% of the cost of the main apartment to be allowed to deduct it (and maybe more requirements that I'm forgetting right now). She also has to pay 15% additional Zweitwohnungssteuer on the rent of the 2nd apartment.
[1] https://www.haufe.de/personal/entgelt/verwaltungsregeln-zur-...
I don’t see rent control as very useful, but I doubt it is very relevant to the current housing shortages throughout the cities that have it either (given that the same problems apply to cites that don’t have it).
[1] https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean
Population can stay the same, but number of single people wanting to live alone means less people per dwelling, which means more demand.
Also, Berlin was an odd place compared to other cities in Europe, when it comes to housing. Looking from the outside it seems like it was due for an upwards correction after 3 decades of pretty low rents since the fall of The Wall.
I don't understand what you mean or how it relates to supply and demand.
Say there's a supply on 100 apartments and a demand from 120 artists. 100 will pay €1k per month, and 20 will have to leave the city. Landlords can't increase to €1050 a month because nobody can afford that.
If demand is higher than supply, rents will increase, but if the demand is entirely from people earning €1000 a month those rents won't increase past €1000 a month.
However you have a demographic on €5000 a month move in, they can afford higher rents. The same 100 apartments exist, and there's a demand from 120 people, but now those people are earning €5k a month. Rents thus shoot up to take all the money that can be spent on rent, because the alternative is moving out of the city and thus not being able to earn the €5k/month.
The people owning the property do well in this situation, and thus don't want supply to increase to the points that there is more supply than demand
I know it is not apples to apples comparison but it’s the first thing that came to my mind.
By two orders of magnitude.
Ivies range from about 1:20 to 1:10 in non-covid times.
Probably a lot less self-selecting out than you think.
I guess I would have expected a few top Ivies to have significantly lower acceptance rates on the grounds that one could imagine a lot of average-ish students putting one of those schools down just in case they hit the lottery.
But actually, the top Ivies, MIT, West Point, top music schools, and a couple of schools I've never even heard of (!) are all in the 5 to 10% admissions range.
There are many, many of these applicants who have roughly a 0% chance of admission.
I am not saying that elite schools are easy to get in (they are not), but someone who is a strong all-around applicant will most likely get into at least one elite school.
Most applicants are challenged by the fact that they only have one or two strong points (like grades and scores), and those “strong points” often aren’t even that strong. Athletics, community involvement, leadership, above-and-beyond academics, etc. go a long way.
If they'd max out, they'd still get multiple applications, but maybe 10-30 of those, half of them from people with bad credit rating.
Still bad, but not as extreme as it sounds like.
Couldn't be happier, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who is single.
There's culture and museums and lots of different food in cities, but all I really need is a small smattering of decent establishments in exactly the vein you just mentioned. And of course a good environment for working from home.
I think there is something to be said for New England towns where the design of the town center predates the automobile and is therefore pleasantly dense and walkable. They just don't seem to make towns like that any more.
If you can be 100% remote and don't need the transit options to the big city then just a little further out you can find charming towns for even less.
We survived in little pedestrian-only villages. That thing that now is considered luxury or even a tourist destination.
Culture is also concentrated.
Because in most of Europe (Austria for me) it didn't flourish and not every job can be done remotely as not everything IT related is web development and in many companies management did not give ownership and resources to maintain remote work IT infrastructure to anyone, so everything is chaotic and crumbling to bits now that things are opening up and most people are back in the offices.
Few companies here are keeping 100% remote once the vaccine mandate came through and things started opening up this spring, and now the new standard is various hybrid work variants where you get 1-3 days per week remote and the rest in the office, or one week remote, one in the office, without any logic or arguments behind these choices, just "because management said so" and "this is how we do it here".
>Why are people still crowding the cities?
Because that's where the amenities and the networking opportunities still are. Universities, clubs, bars, music halls, swimming pools, great restaurants, bouldering halls and gyms, music and jazz bars and basically anything to do with art.
Oh, and most importantly, dating. It's way more difficult to meet someone when you live alone in the sticks VS being surrounded by people your own age sharing similar interests.
Because the top employers by number of people are all about schlepping shit from A (where population isn't) to B (where population is), and that can't be done remotely. Then you have the manufacturers, and that can't be done remotely either.
Most jobs cannot be done solely using a computer keyboard.
I'm not sure if this is what gp meant, but:
In some cases the current tenant (who is looking to move out) offers you the landlord's contact details if you agree to buy their kitchen for way too much money. This works because for a landlord looking for new tenants is a lot of hassle so they're likely to take you if you contact them.
You might still be able to find something decent for around 100k euro, I'm not sure.
That's the same thing as 5% yield right? (Just that that's the way around I usually hear it, might be a regional thing.)
That sounds like perhaps the high end of normal range, but not extraordinary?
No reasonable investor finds it attractive to build new rentals in German cities. Result is a shortage. And because of the shortage, rents skyrocket. And because of that, you have "Mietpreisbremse". And because of that, there is even less rentals and even more shortage.
If only anybody would understand that you can't fight the market like that.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/12/03/1061333538/berlin-voted-for-t...
Berlin citizens. It's a public referendum.
> seizing landlords' properties
with 3000 or more units.
> defending against an illegal law
It's not a law and it will very likely never be one as it's pretty much against the constitution.
The problem with property taxes of course are the people paying them are also the people living there. So good luck running on that platform heh.
First of all: the problem at the core is that Berlin is pretty much built out, there is not much space any more to expand to. Yes, skyscrapers could be a solution, but everyone seriously thinking about this gets invited to look at Frankfurt am Main and then forget about the idea because that city is simply hideous. Skyscrapers are very unwelcome in Germany because of that example, not to mention they need some seriously solid ground to make a proper foundation... and Berlin doesn't have that.
Second: that law was enacted because people were fed up with rents going up all the time - including absolutely ridiculous practices like "kalte Entmietung" (aka having construction crews in allll the time to drive out tenants) or charging ridiculous prices and raising rents while the property devolves ever more because the profits from the raised rents are clearly being siphoned off instead of being used to keep up maintenance.
Third: People were especially pissed off about the large landlords (Vonovia etc.) which bought their stock at fire-sale prices (literally - the 90s CDU government under Diepgen had left a veritable banking scandal and the Senate was forced to sell everything it had in the early 2000s for cheap) and now raised rent like there was no tomorrow. It was naked and utter greed that turned the public opinion so bad.
> Once a tenant lives in your place, it's really hard to get rid of them. Even if they act like total scumbags, trash the place, disturb the neighbors, pay their rent late.
Paying rent persistently late is grounds for termination, it's easy to grab an eviction order at a court. Disturbing neighbors... well let's keep it at "having illegal hotels aka AirBnBs as neighbors is way worse".
> No reasonable investor finds it attractive to build new rentals in German cities. Result is a shortage.
People build like mad wherever they still can and that is the problem. Land values in urban areas exploded - Munich for example had land values double in four years [1] - and the result is that because the land is so expensive, the resulting rental price are going to be exorbitantly expensive as well.
In the end the solution is not the market, as the market will over time only serve to evict the weakest of society - and as a result, as we have seen in Berlin and with the Yellow Vests in France, this has the potential to erode trust in democracy itself.
The solution is to revitalize the rural areas. Public transit and high-speed Internet access are the key points where the suburban and rural areas across the West have the worst issues - fix that and people will actively move towards these areas instead of all being forced to compete for urban quarters!
[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-grundstueckspr...
But yes I agree, make living outside cities worthwhile and attractive.
Please don't. That's not how a civilized debate works.
> First of all: the problem at the core is that Berlin is pretty much built out
Sorry, when comparing to other cities world-wide, that's hard to buy. Places like San Francisco, ok, maybe. Ocean in 3 of 4 directions. Vancouver, ok, maybe. Mountains on 2 sides, ocean on one side, border to US on one side. But Berlin? It's all flat, fields and tree plantations ("forest") all around. Even just adding a floor or two here and there would be fine. There are many areas that could get quite some more density with 5-6 floor houses. But then NIMBY hits. Easier to be angry at the "rich landlords".
> Second: that law was enacted because people were fed up with rents going up all the time
I'm trying to tell you that that's not solving the problem. High rents are just a symptom. The root cause is a mismatch of supply and demand. It's as if you are trying to legislate away gravity. That won't work in the long run. Either you need to increase supply or decrease demand. I can see that you argue that rural areas should be strengthened, but I fail to see how that would suffice. People want to live in Berlin.
> Third: People were especially pissed off about the large landlords (Vonovia etc.) which bought their stock at fire-sale prices
The people should be pissed off at the politicians that sold them the stock. It was rational to buy it. Selling out was not. And that wasn't just CDU. Even the SPD+Linke senate did similar things later on. Yet, everybody gets reelected all the time. (Not defending CDU here, they are just as guilty.)
Tempelhofer Feld is needed as greenfield in the central city for climate reasons.
Ideally it's a compromise, everything gives a little. A few more areas for housing, a little higher buildings, a bit higher prices, a bit more attractive rural areas.
Manhatten is one of the densest populated urban centers in the world. Nearly no other green areas, even street trees are a rare sight. Everything is concrete. Berlin on the other hand is very green. Parks, trees on the street, Tiergarten, Grunewald, and yes, Tempelhofer Feld. You could build housing for tens of thousands of people while still keeping the area green with lots of trees and parks for people to relax in.
Just keeping it a huge empty space and at the same time complain about high rents is ridiculous. This is not solved by complaining about money hungry investors. It's the supply-vs-demand ratio that's the problem. Not greed. (It may play a role, but would not have much of a chance without the underlying issue.) Of course you can keep it "for climate reasons". But that comes with a price and you need to live with those consequences. "Mietpreisbremse" is not going to solve any of those.
The idea that the Tempelhofer Feld would have become anything but a mall with adjacent luxury apartments is bonkers.
The German constitutional court had just forced Berlin to sell of most of its housing infrastructure and the mayor and his confidants clearly were either unwilling or incapable of enforcing laws that would have ensured some form of public control and affordable housing options.
This was the time when people were offering tours putting all these vacant buildings on display that were left there waiting for the rent moratorium to end. When corporations freely redesignated large and central areas to the next biggest mall and luxury apartment project.
Edit: wording
A few years back, I was looking for a rental in a German city with a similarly hot market. One place I looked at was not very modern but had quite low rent, so there were 300 applicants and I didn't even try. Another place was put on the market 3 days prior, there were 5 people looking at it with me, 3 of them applied (including me), and I got it. It was more expensive though (not insane, mind you) and very modern, recently renovated.
So, of course there will be crazy places, but if you only shoot for the ones with top demand, then of course you can come with anecdotes that sound insane.