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
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
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
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