Zoning in Reunified Berlin

  • Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt
  • Wolfgang Maennig
  • Felix J. RichterEmail author


While urban renewal programs have become widely-used policy measures to target urban development, the reasons why certain areas are more responsive to policy interventions than others are less known. With this study, we address some of these issues by analyzing an urban renewal program in Berlin, Germany, with 22 designated renewal zones between 1990 and 2012. We separately estimate the effects of the renewal policy on property prices for each respective redevelopment area by comparing price developments in these areas to a series of runner-up areas and to geographically close transactions. We find a considerable amount of heterogeneity. While some areas profit from the renewal policies, there are several areas which develop quite differently and end up with a decrease in property prices due to the urban renewal policy.


Urban Renewal Programs Renewal Policies Property Prices Reclamation Area Sociodemographic Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank the Berlin Committee of Valuation Experts and the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment for data provision.


  1. Ahlfeldt, G. M., & Maennig, W. (2010). Substitutability and complementarity of urban amenities: External effects of built heritage in Berlin.Real Estate Economics, 38(2), 285–323.Google Scholar
  2. Ahlfeldt, G. M., Maennig, W., & Richter, F. J. (2016). Urban renewal after the Berlin Wall: A place-based policy evaluation.Journal of Economic Geography, 17(1), 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Card, D., & Krueger, B. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.The American Economic Review, 84(4), 772–793.Google Scholar
  4. Ding, C., Simons, R., & Baku, E. (2000). The effect of residential investment on nearby property values: Evidence from Cleveland, Ohio.Journal of Real Estate Research, 19(1), 23–48.Google Scholar
  5. DiPasquale, D., & Glaeser, E. L. (1999). Incentives and social capital: Are homeowners better citizens?Journal of Urban Economics, 45(2), 354–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galster, G., Tatian, P., & Accordino, J. (2006). Targeting Investments for Neighborhood Revitalization.Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galster, G. C. (1983). Empirical evidence on cross-tenure differences in home maintenance and conditions.Land Economics, 59(1), 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hilber, C. A. L. (2010). New housing supply and the dilution of social capital.Journal of Urban Economics, 67(3), 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Larsen, H. G., & Hansen, A. L. (2008). Gentrification—Gentle or traumatic? Urban renewal policies and socioeconomic transformations in Copenhagen.Urban Studies, 45(12), 2429–2448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lazrak, F., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., & Rouwendal, J. (2010).The market value of listed heritage: An urban economic application of spatial hedonic pricing. VU University Amsterdam Working Paper.Google Scholar
  11. Leather, P., & Nevin, B. (2013). The housing market renewal Programme: Origins, outcomes and the effectiveness of public policy interventions in a volatile market.Urban Studies, 50(5), 856–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maennig, W. (2012). Monument protection and zoning: Regulations and public support from an international perspective. In T. Just & W. Maennig (Eds.),Understanding German real estate markets (pp. 181–192). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition.Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rossi-Hansberg, E., Sarte, P. D., & Owens, R. (2010). Housing externalities.Journal of Political Economy, 118(3), 485–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Santiago, A. M., Galster, G. C., & Tatian, P. (2001). Assessing the property value impacts of the dispersed housing subsidy program in Denver.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schwartz, A. E., Ellen, I. G., Voicu, I., & Schill, M. H. (2006). The external effects of place-based subsidized housing.Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36(6), 679–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Berlin. (2001).22. Bericht über Stadterneuerung.Google Scholar
  18. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Berlin. (2005).Leitsätze zur Stadterneuerung.Google Scholar
  19. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Berlin. (2006).Urban and environmental information system. Berlin: CityWare.Google Scholar
  20. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Berlin. (2010).27. Bericht über Stadterneuerung.Google Scholar
  21. Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density estimation for statistics and data analysis.Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability.Google Scholar
  22. Towe, C., & Lawley, C. (2013). The contagion effect of neighboring foreclosures.American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 313–335.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Maennig
    • 2
  • Felix J. Richter
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environment & Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC)London School of Economics (LSE)LondonUK
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations