What is innovative about this project?

  • Project planning and management: Architectural and design approaches that allow individual housing buildings to address a combination of purposes.
  • Social:Combining different target groups to counteract segregated housing
  • Social: Ensuring co-creation in the process of renovating social and affordable homes.

ÖrebroBostäder was the first public housing provider in Sweden to include as a condition in the procurement the obligation to hire jHousing Cooperative Berliner Bau- und Wohnungsgenossenschaft von 1892 eG (1892 for short) pursued an experimental and innovative renewal of a housing complex from the 1970s. The renovation was based on an award-winning co-management process within a wide coalition of architects, social and healthcare organisations and research teams (from the EU-funded project DREEAM) with the residents, neighbourhood committees and the staff of 1892. They also opted for a balanced approach, opting for both traditional and novel technological solutions, including storage of PV energy. The plan included involving additional groups to live at the estate to add to the social mix of the quarter (single, family, retirees, students, artists, couples or shared flats). To cater for different needs, the architectural solution included adaptable suitable housing sizes and floor plans as well as transformation of existing flats into shared and public spaces, which were conducive to increased sense of belonging and community.

Local Partnership

  • Company: tafkaoo architects, Domoplan
  • Municipality: City of Berlin
  • Housing provider: Housing Cooperative 1892
  • Other: Residents

The building is owned by ‘Berliner Bau- und Wohningsgenossenschaft von 1892 EG’ (1892 for short), comprising 164 dwellings over 6 buildings in the centre of Berlin. The dwellings, from 1956 and the late 1970s, are 1-3 bedrooms apartments and comprise of 11.000 square meters of living space. Given the cramped conditions of the building and pervasive social problems (ex. drug use) occurring at ground level, 1892 decided to initiate a deep renovation of the district. Tafkaoo Architects were tasked with the planning and the management of the project. The cooperative, the inhabitants and other organizations were part of the project. The residents were involved through a series of meetings organized by 1892, where ideas and proceedings were presented and discussed.
The project Nettelbeckplatz was selected as one of three pilot projects of the EU Horizon 2020 research project DREEAM – Demonstrating an integrated Renovation Approach to Energy Efficiency at the Multi-building scale. DREEAM was started by the Swedish Chalmers University and several other European research and technology partners.

Key Facts

  • Year of construction: 1974
  • Renovation period: start planning in 2014. Interventions started taking place in 2016 and were completed by Fall 2019
  • Area of intervention (m²): 4,505 m2
  • Number of dwellings (before/after):170/210 plus 8 student apartments and 10 apartments for the elderly
    70% of the people living here are first time tenants from the 1970s.
  • Housing typology: multi-apartment buildings
  • Housing tenure:  cooperative housing
  • Number of residents: about 500
  • Shared facilities: Community room, guest dwelling, small bar, community washing facility, library, courtyard, billiard room, ping pong and two gym rooms.

Financial information

  • Funding sources: Bank Loan 8.0 million, Equity 1.9 million €
  • Total cost of renovation (€): €11.1 million
  • Subsidies received (€): the project was awarded the Berlin Housing Innovation Prize which included subsidies of 1.2 million € to renovate apartments for students and the elderly.
    There is also a subsidised rent of 6.5€/m2 (28% of the new flats of the complex have subsidised rent) from the state of Berlin. For comparison, a non-subsidised rent within the 1892 new built block is around 8.32€/m2 on average, compared to no less than 12€/m2 on the unregulated market.
  • Rent before and after renovation (€/month): the rent increased by 1.05€/m2, but this was outweighed by energy savings. The total costs were reduced.
  • Energy bill (€/month):substantially lower than before, consumption went down from 100 to 79 kWh/m2/a for heating and from 44 to 40 kWh/m2/a for warm water

Context

Constructed in the 1970s, the building is located in a working-class district in Berlin, formerly plagued by criminal activity. The large size and proximity to an important square in Berlin made it a natural community meeting point. However, the aforementioned problems led to the fencing off of the building to discourage antisocial behaviour. Until not long ago, the only services in the area were an inactive crematorium and a pharmacy.

Goals

  • Secure the ground area and remove fencing.
  • Improve the accessibility of the building, its suitability for an ageing population and improve the liveability.
  • Offer tenants the possibility to relocate to a more suitable apartment within the same community (many of them had children when they originally moved to the residence, but when they eventually moved out, the apartments were too large for their needs). The large apartments were built with young families in mind.
  • Attract young people, especially students.
  • Add housing supply in Berlin, as a response to the high demand for accommodations in Berlin.
  • Improve the energy efficiency of the building by improving the insulation in the first floor (above the open ground floor).
  • Expand common facilities.
  • Support the self-governance of the community.

Interventions

  • Upgrade of the thermal and technical conditions of the existing building. The roof was insulated, the windows substituted, and solar panels installed.
  • Replacement of windows to increase comfort and reduce energy consumption for heating
  • Electricity production from renewable sources (photovoltaic panels on the roof – only for common parts). the service provider “Solarme” would cater for the remaining energy needs.
  • Inclusion of battery storage (Tesla PowerWall) for optimal community use of generated energy
  • Closing off of the open ground floor area. Only the part that connects two yards was left open.
  • Construction of new dwellings through the closure of the ground floor to accommodate student and elderly residences and add common areas.
  • Construction of a new residential building in place of the park deck/garage.
  • Examination of energy consumption trends in the neighbourhood. Residents participated in a study (DREEAM project) to monitor energy consumption as a result of a training programme. The trained group of residents consumed 30-50% energy less than the control group.
  • Redesign of the internal courtyard.
  • Modernisation of the elevators.

Impact

  • Energy saving was a major positive outcome of the project. As the DREEAM project demonstrated the reduction was up to 50% compared with pre-renovation measurements. This was enhanced by specific energy reducing training.
  • The resident involvement was a significant achievement, despite initial challenges. The residents subscribed to the project progressively, particularly as a result of an effective communication strategy initiated by the cooperative with the collaboration of the team of architects, builders and the other organisations.
  • The introduction of a social mix (e.g., student and young families’ populations) was also achieved successfully, as measured in terms of district conviviality.
  • The original plan was achieved, having been able to overcome initial difficulties related to inconsistent obligations from different departments of the local authority.
  • After the renovation of Nettelbeckplatz, the crematorium was transformed it into a cultural centre (“Silent Green”), featuring a large concert hall and serving as a hub for Berlin’s electronic music labels and video production. Therefore, new types of people started to hang out and live in the area. Additionally, a solidarity farming group that provides food was established in the neighbourhood. Generally, this part of the city became more dynamic.

Advice to future “Lighthouse Districts”

  • Involve the residents and build trust. The residents were considered as part of the ‘renovations team’ so they were consulted frequently. This resulted in significant changes to the initial plan, such as the transformation of the ground floor to shared spaces that all the community could use. Also, by establishing a dialogue early on, residents can easily understand whether the decisions and the investment are considerate of their needs. This generally has positive effects on resident satisfaction.
  • Invest in quality materials to keep the maintenance costs low.
  • Include other factors beyond the financial to establish the business case. Although financial analyses play an important role to save on costs and ensure affordable housing is possible, non-financial benefits such as increased community sense of belonging, egalitarian living standards and multi-generational solidarity are also important guidelines.