This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 20 September 2012, At: 06:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

City: analysis of urban trends, culture,theory, policy, actionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccit20

Is it, or is not? The conceptualisationof gentrification and displacement andits political implications in the case ofBerlin‐Prenzlauer BergMatthias Bernt & Andrej Holm

Version of record first published: 02 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Matthias Bernt & Andrej Holm (2009): Is it, or is not? The conceptualisation ofgentrification and displacement and its political implications in the case of Berlin‐Prenzlauer Berg,City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 13:2-3, 312-324

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810902982268

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

CITY, VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3, JUNE–SEPTEMBER 2009

ISSN 1360-4813 print/ISSN 1470-3629 online/09/02-30312-13 © 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13604810902982268

Is it, or is not?The conceptualisation of gentrification and displacement and its political implications in the case of Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg

Matthias Bernt and Andrej HolmTaylor and Francis

Building on Peter Marcuse’s definition of displacement, this paper examines Berlin’s urbanrenewal policy since the 1990s and studies how different definitions of displacement supportdifferent policy alternatives. It argues that the conceptualisation of displacement is notmerely an academic exercise, but has enormous political implications. We show how theo-retical differences in the definition of displacement have been taken up by policy-makersand used as justification for the withdrawal from ‘welfarist’ politics of market interventionto be replaced by advisory services to individual tenants. We argue that social scientists arepartly responsible for this change and call for more critical intervention of scholars intopublic debates and a clearer specification of policy alternatives.

Introduction

entrification, the process ofupgrading urban neighbour-hoods, has always been a contro-

versial issue. Where politicians, real estatecompanies and middle classes see it as ameans to counter urban decay, attracttaxpayers and place localities on the globalmap of ‘creative places’ (Florida, 2004), forthe urban poor gentrification means risingcosts of living, the destruction of theirsocial networks and the risk of beingevicted. Whether gentrification should besupported, or whether it should becontrolled, constrained and preventedtherefore is an issue around which all sortsof political struggles emerge.

Moreover, the conceptualisation andmeasurement of displacement is far fromsimple (see Atkinson, 2002; Newman andWyly, 2006) and, as a consequence, ifdisplacement is or is not found in a particu-

lar context depends to a large degree on theconcept one chooses. As a consequence, toannounce the displacement of poor house-holds from a gentrifying area is hardly evera ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’ description ofurban change. More or less all scientificconcepts on this issue are questionable, atleast to a certain degree, and thus, whethera particular finding is or is not accepted bythe public, does not only depend on itsscientific value, but on political strugglesand interests. Thus, a complex set of inter-actions between the analytic conceptualisa-tion of displacement and its practicalimplications emerges, in which scientificarguments can gain political weight anddirectly contribute to political struggles.

With this paper we focus on this issue andshow how the conceptualisation of displace-ment interacts with the formulation of politicsdirected to it. We use the case of Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg, which has been a battle-ground of gentrification and displacement for

G

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

BERNT AND HOLM: IS IT, OR IS NOT? 313

the last 15–18 years, to study how differentconcepts of displacement are taken up, or nottaken up, by politicians and show the implica-tions of this for the chances of poor people toexercise their ‘Right to the City’. Thereby wedraw on the multilayered definition ofdisplacement that has been developed byPeter Marcuse in the 1980s. We proceed asfollows: in the first part of our paper we traceMarcuse’s conceptualisation of displacementand discuss its political implications. Follow-ing, we analyse the debates around urbanrenewal in Berlin and examine how thesedealt with the definition of displacement.Finally, we summarise the interactionbetween research and politics in this field anddraw conclusions both for the conceptualisa-tion of displacement and the role of criticalscholarship.

Conceptual issues with displacement and their political implications

The most convincing and most widely citedconceptualisation of displacement has beendeveloped by Peter Marcuse (1986) in an arti-cle on gentrification and abandonment inNew York City. Here Marcuse takes theeasiest and most widely accepted definitionof displacement as a starting point. This defi-nition covers physical and economic causes,that is, a lack of heat that forces tenants tomove, harassment by the landlord and rentincreases. Both force individual tenants tomove and thus form an initial form ofdisplacement. Marcuse, however, distin-guishes between them analytically and refersto ‘physical displacement’ as one and‘economic displacement’ as another form ofdisplacement.

He makes an additional distinction andintroduces a temporal dimension to the defi-nition of displacement. If only the lastresident is counted, Marcuse defines that as‘last-resident displacement’. If those resi-dents who have been displaced from a prop-erty over time are taken into consideration aswell, Marcuse speaks of ‘chain displacement’.

A fourth layer of displacement is termed‘exclusionary displacement’. It is set in place‘when a particular housing unit is voluntarilyvacated by one household and then gentrified[…], so that another similar householdcannot move in, and the total number ofunits available to such a household hasthereby been reduced …’ (Marcuse, 1986,p. 156).

Finally, a fifth dimension of displacementis discussed which he coins ‘displacementpressure’. This dimension relates to changesin the character of a particular neighbour-hood that make it a problematic place to livein for a particular household:

‘When a family sees its neighbourhood changing dramatically, when all their friends are leaving, when stores are going out of business and new stores for other clientele are taking their place (or none at all are replacing them), when changes in public facilities, transportation patterns, support services, are all clearly making the area less and less liveable, then the pressure of displacement is already severe, and it is actually only a matter of time. Families under such circumstances may even move as soon as they can, rather than wait for the inevitable; they are displaced nonetheless.’ (Marcuse, 1986, p. 157)

Summing up Marcuse’s discussion one getsfive forms of displacement:

(a) physical displacement(b) economic displacement(c) last-resident displacement/chain displace-

ment(d) exclusionary displacement(e) displacement pressure.

The important point here is that these formsof displacement differ both along a timelineand according to the focus on individuals orneighbourhoods. Whereas economic andphysical displacement are directed at a partic-ular household, exclusionary displacementand displacement pressure proceed on adifferent spatial scale and focus more on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

314 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

neighbourhood change than on individualeffects. Moreover, last-resident displacementis directed at a particular moment in time,while chain displacement, exclusionarydisplacement and displacement pressure allrefer to changes that take a consecutiveperiod of time to happen.

This framework leads to a multidimen-sional definition of displacement in whichannouncing displacement can mean verydifferent things. Whereas some observersmight thus prefer to speak of displacementonly in those cases where tenants’ rights areobviously and unscrupulously violated bylandlord harassment, for others ‘displace-ment’ is the essence of all sorts of phenom-ena that are connected with gentrification,such as a changing population structure, ahigher share of condos and different shops.The interesting point here is that it is exactlythis ambiguity in the use of the termdisplacement that forms the point of entryfor politics and makes the definition ofdisplacement a politically controversialissue.

The main reason for this is to be found inthe practical consequences that different defi-nitions of displacement imply for practicalpolitics. Thus, if a state would desire toprevent displacement caused by gentrifica-tion, the solution for different forms ofdisplacement would be rather different andthe instruments that had to be taken and theresources that had to be spent on thisenterprise would be fairly different as well.

Table 1 discusses some of these policyoptions in relation to different forms ofdisplacement.

Obviously all these options differ not onlyalong spatial scales, according to the questionwhether they focus on individuals or neigh-bourhoods, and along a temporal frame, butmost of all in relation to the depth and costsof state intervention. Whereas giving legaladvice to tenants is relatively inexpensive andeasy to manage, setting up a rent-controlledhousing stock would cost an enormousamount of money and/or lead to intenseconflicts with private landlords. Thus, it isnot only the case that different definitions ofdisplacement imply different policy options,but an affinity to different policy optionswould also suggest different definitions ofgentrification to become more or less popu-lar for different political actors.

This conjunction can paradigmatically bestudied in the discussion about the conceptu-alisation of urban change and the strategiesfor state intervention in urban renewal thattook place in the district of Prenzlauer Bergin East Berlin since reunification of Germanyin 1990. Here, not only the concept ofdisplacement was successively displaced fromthe scholarly agenda as an appropriate toolfor analysing neighbourhood change, but thisexpatriation was closely accompanied by adrastic shift in the municipal policies towardsgentrification and urban renewal. Here,traditional welfarist policies were succes-sively given up and replaced by a neoliberal

Table 1 Forms of displacement and related policy options

Form of displacement Policies/instruments against displacement

Physical displacement Laws against harassment and on maintenanceLegal advice to tenants

Economic displacement Rent limits for particular householdsIndividual support (i.e. housing vouchers)

Last-resident displacement/chain displacement

Protecting a particular resident at a moment in time vs. protecting all residents in a housing unit over time

Exclusionary displacement Rent control pertaining to a whole marketLow-price segment in the housing market

Displacement pressure Zoning lawsSupport for critical infrastructures

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

BERNT AND HOLM: IS IT, OR IS NOT? 315

orientation towards the ‘natural’ movementsof markets at the same time that gentrifica-tion became a more common characteristic ofurban development.

In the following sections we will look athow this shift was debated and which discur-sive coalitions emerged in each phase of urbanrenewal since the reunification of Germany in1990. We present the context in which thesediscussions took place, compare thediscourses in the fields of academics, plannersand government agencies and urban socialmovements and examine which concepts ofgentrification and displacement were applied.

Gentrification ahead—the debate in the early 1990s

After the fall of the wall most expertsexpected that Berlin would quickly regain itshistoric importance and predicted animmense economic boom, high populationgrowth and a rapidly growing demand forhousing (see von Einem, 1990). This estimatewas immediately reflected in contributionsabout the likelihood of gentrification and, atthis time, it was nearly commonplace toexpect fast, brutal and inevitable gentrifica-tion, mainly in the pre-First World War hous-ing stock areas of central East Berlin.

Academic debate

The German academic debate, for whichgentrification had just become a ‘hot’ topic(Blasius and Dangschat, 1990; Borst et al.,1990; Blasius, 1993), immediately took up thesubject. With an unmistaken critical under-tone most urban scholars prophesied a rapidgentrification of the inner-city neighbour-hoods of East Berlin and declared displace-ment to be a central conflict for the upcomingdecade. A typical example of this position canbe found in a text from Stefan Krätke:

‘[the in-migration of highly paid specialists and executive managers] … will push

gentrification in Berlin at a scale that has not been seen in its dimensions yet. In the competition for apartments in the popular inner-city neighbourhoods “Yuppies” and “Dinks” (“Double Income No Kids”) will prevail over low-income households. Islands of gentrification will emerge, most of all in those quarters which, due to the reunification of both parts of the city, have become central locations again such as Kreuzberg and Prenzlauer Berg. […] In the eastern part of the city the displacement of low-income households by better-off ones can be followed very easily, with the means of privately financed renovations.’ (Krätke, 1991, p. 92, translation by MB/AH)

Similar arguments were put forth by Häußer-mann and Siebel (1991), Helms (1992), Hunger(1992), Kil (1992) and Hannemann (1993) whoall expected Prenzlauer Berg to become an easy‘victim to gentrification’ (Kil, 1992, p. 517).Summarising scholarly contributions of thistime, it can be said that the diagnosis of gentri-fication was commonly accepted, and prevent-ing displacement was seen as a major politicalchallenge. Nevertheless, it was hardly everexplained what exactly the expected changeswere about. The descriptions given in mostcontributions were rather metaphorical andimaginative and set the future scenery in sharpcontrast to the existing milieu.

Thus, although displacement was acommon feature when German urban scholarsdiscussed the future of urban development inBerlin, hardly any statement focused exactlyon one of Marcuse’s forms of displacementspecifically. The arguments rather referred toeconomic displacement of individual tenantsthrough renovation and rent increases at onepoint, but focused on displacement pressureby a changed milieu, or to exclusionarydisplacement by a general upward movementof land and real estate prices as well.

The professional planners’ debate

The debate among planners by and largefollowed the same track. Despite a problem-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

316 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

atic situation with Berlin’s budget andnotwithstanding political resistance (for amore detailed history of this debate, seeBernt, 2003), planners generally agreed withthe academics that gentrification anddisplacement were real problems and thatsomething needed to be done about them.

As a consequence, when the first urbanrenewal areas (‘Sanierungsgebiete’) weredesignated in 1993, the official agenda ofurban renewal was defined as follows:

‘… 3. The renovations must be oriented to the needs of the residents (“Betroffene”). The renewal measures will be organized in a socially responsible way. […] In the case of privately financed renovations, it is imperative to avoid negative consequences that would collide with the social intentions of urban renewal, as well as the preservation of the social structure. Recognising differences among the areas, it is mandatory to avoid: the displacement of low-income groups, the acceleration of processes of residential segregation and the implied consequences of an unbalanced development and a destabilisation of the population in the affected areas, as well as individual hardships for adaptable households. In principle, urban renewal should allow the residents to stay in the area. The rent increases shall therefore be oriented to the capacities of the residents.’ (SenBauWohn, 1993, translation by MB/AH)

The public agenda regarding the renewal ofEast Berlin’s dilapidated housing stock wasthus decisively anti-displacement andcovered both individual dimensions ofdisplacement (i.e. ‘physical’ and ‘economicdisplacement’) and those directed at neigh-bourhood change (‘exclusionary displace-ment’). It was characterised by a broaddefinition of displacement, moved farbeyond measures for individual tenants(avoidance of ‘individual hardships’, rentincreases according to the capacities of theresidents) and included a wide range ofsocio-spatial processes of urban change(‘avoid … the acceleration of residentialsegregation, preservation of the socialstructure’). The practical outcomes of this

orientation were mainly a subsidisation ofurban renewal activities with public moneyand a policy of combining these subsidieswith obligations as to the amount of rents tobe charged and (low) income groups to beserved.

Urban movements

By and large this course was in the interestsof urban movements as well. The early 1990swere a time of intense tenant activism in EastBerlin. Initiatives mushroomed, especially inPrenzlauer Berg where a coalition ‘WirBleiben Alle’ (‘We All Stay’) organisedmassive demonstrations against rent increaseswith up to 20,000 participants and a plethoraof other activities (see Rada, 1997; Bernt andHolm, 1998). Paradigmatic for the demandsof the neighbourhood movements is a paper‘Eight Claims Concerning the Future Courseof Urban Renewal’ that was published as anopen letter in 1992 and summarises the polit-ical positions of the initiatives in PrenzlauerBerg.

‘The government of Berlin needs to preserve the established social structure in Prenzlauer Berg and other boroughs of East Berlin. Our apartments need to stay affordable […]. Therefore, planning instruments that protect the tenants have to be expanded instead of reduced. Social responsibility needs to be the leading principle. […] We, the residents of Prenzlauer Berg, are absolutely determined not to be displaced from our neighbourhoods after the political changes of 1989 that we have brought about ourselves. We will resist! If necessary, we will protest on the streets again. We are experienced in that.’ (Private archive, translation by MB/AH)

In fact, street protests announced in thisletter were not only a threat, but a commonpractice at that time. The spectrum ofprotests was very broad and included aspectsof physical as well as economic and exclu-sionary displacement. Subsequently, mainlywith quarrels about noise emissions in newly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

BERNT AND HOLM: IS IT, OR IS NOT? 317

opened yuppie-bars, elements of displace-ment pressure came into focus as well.

Gentrification becomes controversial—the debate in the late 1990s

In the debates in the early 1990s a highconsensus among academics, professionalsand urban movements regarding both thedefinition of the problem and the policyproposals is obvious. Displacement wasconceptualised very broadly by academics,activists and politicians and covered nearlyall forms of displacement that are containedin Marcuse’s definition. However, thisconsensus about what constitutes displace-ment, and what should be done about it,didn’t last very long. In the late 1990s thesituation had changed considerably and moreand more privately financed renovationswere under construction, while the budgetsfor publically financed renovations wereincreasingly cut. The first examples of, some-times frighteningly rude, displacements oforiginal tenants became known and thequestion how these could be stopped was puton the political agenda. At the same time,run-down, not yet restored buildings werestill characteristic of most urban renewalareas in East Berlin. This split appearance ledto a series of controversial debates in whichtotally different views about the character ofurban change in Prenzlauer Berg came up.

Academic debate

Especially on the side of academics the ques-tion whether the observed developmentscould be labelled as gentrification wasanswered very differently.

On the one hand, a group of young schol-ars, who were connected to tenant organisa-tions and neighbourhood initiatives, arguedthat the social change as it was manifest in offi-cial statistics confirmed what had to beexpected in the ‘pioneer phase’ of gentrifica-tion (Bernt, 1997; Bernt and Holm, 1998,

2002; Stark, 1998) and demanded an expan-sion of planning regulations for the protectionof low-income tenants. Examining the changeof Prenzlauer Berg, Bernt and Holm wrote:

‘All … major trends are absolutely congruent with what is generally considered as “gentrification”. Nevertheless, important peculiarities remain.… As a result [of the regulations], poorer and wealthier sections of the population are living side by side for a long time, delaying the transition from a pioneer phase of gentrification.… Prenzlauer Berg is thus certainly another case of gentrification; but one of a special kind.’ (Bernt and Holm, 2005, pp. 119f., in German 2003)

This view was also supported by a handful ofmore established researchers, especially byKrätke and Borst (2000).

On the other hand, this view was force-fully criticised, most strongly by Häußer-mann and Kapphan (2000, pp. 174ff. and197ff.). They agreed that Prenzlauer Bergexperienced an ‘unmistakable urban change’(p. 175) but refused to interpret this changeas ‘gentrification’. For this view, two mainarguments were given.

Firstly, Häußermann and Kapphanemphasised that the change in PrenzlauerBerg would be ‘split’ and ‘contradictory’:

‘If “gentrification” of an area by definition means the replacement of the residents, it has not yet happened in Prenzlauer Berg. […] One house that is renovated and modernised is thus occupied by a mix of residents among which some are in a better social position than the previous tenants. […] But, in the neighbouring house, where the standard has not been improved and the rents stay low, the better-off leave and a totally different change can be observed: gentrification in one, its opposite in the other house. […] Upgrading and decay are thus cheek by jowl.’ (Häußermann and Kapphan, 2000, pp. 176f., translation by MB/AH)

These authors argued that, whereas in somehouses gentrification would take place, inothers abandonment would still continue to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

318 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

be the major problem. The situation amongdifferent houses would thus be split andcontradictory. Since Häußermann andKapphan defined gentrification as theupgrading of an entire area, instead of singleproperties, this split appearance led them tothe conclusion that the concept of gentrifica-tion would not apply.

The second argument put forward againstthe idea that Prenzlauer Berg would experi-ence a process of gentrification, was thatthere were so many protections for tenantsthat a displacement of low-income groups byrent increases would practically be impossi-ble. This argument was partially based on amicrosociological study in which Häußer-mann et al. interviewed tenants in PrenzlauerBerg who faced the renovation of their apart-ments (2002). They found that, althoughthere was a system of rent regulation andtenant advisory services in place, theseopportunities were mainly used by educatedand middle-class households. As a result,only 40% of the original residents, mainlyfrom the better qualified strata of society,remained in the renovated apartments. Incontrast, the majority of tenants, mainlyfrom the lower classes, did leave their apart-ments in the course of renovations irrespec-tive of rent regulations and tenant advisoryservices. From this observation, Häußer-mann, in another article, deduced that socialand cultural rather than economic factorswould determine social change in PrenzlauerBerg:

‘[…] the reasons for social change cannot primarily be found in the economic conditions. The instruments for a comprehensive control of investments and rents and for the protection of the residents against displacement are at hand. The fact that they obviously do not lead to the intended results, i.e. the “preservation of the social composition of the residential population” must therefore have different reasons. […] As the new owners and investors mainly come from the West, their actions are seen as “alien interventions”. This leads to cultural defences that are dressed up

in economic theories. Thus, the “original” residents become victims, for whom the only option left is the description of their own humiliation. The fact that “Easterners” have fewer assets, and as a consequence less influence on the renovations, is blended with the frustration about the dwindling control over their own living environment … This leads to a mystical transfiguration of conditions that can only emerge in a stagnating economy and a political dictatorship.’ (Häußermann and Kapphan, 2000, pp. 197 and 199, translation by MB/AH)

This argument implies an interesting turn inthe definition of displacement: the fact thatrent regulations didn’t stop tenants frommoving out in the course of renovations isnot interpreted as a sign of the weakness andineffectiveness of existing regulations, but onthe contrary the assumption that the ‘instru-ments … for the protection of the residentsagainst displacement are at hand’ is treated asproof that the out-migration of poor house-holds cannot be caused by economic factorsand has, therefore, to be attributed to culturalproblems. Consequently the blame for thelow share of poor households in renovatedbuildings is neither given to the landlords fortheir rent increases nor to the state for itsincompetence or unwillingness to providemore effective instruments for the protectionof low-income tenants—but on the tenantsthemselves.

The reason for this is that for Häußer-mann, the out-migration of East Germanhouseholds was not a sign of ‘economicdisplacement’, but rather ‘giving up’ in theface of renovations and cultural nostalgia.Although better-off households weremoving in, he insisted that this could not bequalified as ‘gentrification’, because the out-migration of the former residents could notbe ascribed to rent increases. While Häußer-mann acknowledged that there was a socio-spatial change that led to an upgrading of theneighbourhood, he denied that the economicdisplacement of individual householdsplayed a major role in that change. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

BERNT AND HOLM: IS IT, OR IS NOT? 319

central rationale for this was the fact thathouseholds with more social and culturalcapital could use the existing regulations intheir favour and managed to stay put. Focus-ing exclusively on the decisions of the exist-ing residents, implicitly a ‘last-residentdisplacement’ perspective was applied thatnecessarily excluded temporal dimensions ofdisplacement. ‘Exclusionary displacement’thus, by definition, was made irrelevant forthe analysis. Interestingly, ‘displacementpressure’ proceeding through changes in thesocial and cultural character of the neigh-bourhood did play a role for Häußermann—but only in a denunciatory way, caricaturingit as a sort of specific East German psycho-logical injury.

Professional debate

This refusal to use gentrification as a conceptapplicable to socio-spatial change in Pren-zlauer Berg soon became a characteristicfeature of professional debates, too. In thecourse of complex and often galling debatesgentrification and displacement graduallybecame ‘dirty words’. The main line of argu-ment was that the instruments in place (i.e.subsidies and rent caps) would work well,and that displacement would therefore bepractically impossible. The out-migration oftenants was, on the contrary, explained withdissatisfaction about the low quality of stillunrefurbished dwellings. Also, the enormousin-migration of more educated and better-offhouseholds and the resulting upgrading ofrents and social structures in Prenzlauer Bergwas not interpreted as a sign of ‘exclusionarydisplacement’, but portrayed as a ‘naturaldevelopment’ that could be observed in citiesall around the world. As a consequence ofthis view, the main priority of the Senatthroughout the 1990s was to acceleraterenewal activities, while remaining reservedand hesitant about rent controls.

The list of discussions and papers in whichthis line of argument was applied is too longto recapture at this place (examples are argus,

1999; SenStadt, 2001). Common to all thesecontributions, however, was a questioning ofgentrification and displacement as appropri-ate concepts, and a shift of attention fromneighbourhood dimensions of displacementto forms of displacement that were directedto individual/last-resident displacement.‘Exclusionary’ displacement successivelydisappeared and was interpreted as an indi-vidual matter rather than a process of neigh-bourhood change.

Urban movements

The positions of urban movements devel-oped in the exactly opposite direction.Compared to the early 1990s more and moreaspects of gentrification came into view, andwere made the focus of actions, too. Centralto the argumentation of neighbourhood initi-atives was a demand to keep the promisesmade in the early 1990s and to expand theinstruments for the protection of low-income tenants where necessary. Thereby,rather different strategies came into focus:whereas some activists preferred a case bycase approach that mainly built on self-organisation and solidarity, others engaged inintensive lobbying for an expansion of localrent caps that were designed to limit rentincreases after renovation, while again othersput their energy into setting up housingcooperatives. The definition of displacementused by these initiatives changed dependingon the occasion and at the same time referredto direct physical violence by particularlyaggressive landlords, pricing out the poor byrent increases and an overall change of theneighbourhood’s character.

Gentrification? Who cares?—the debate since 2000

Whereas in the early 1990s urban scholars,professional planners and urban movementslargely agreed on what displacement entailedand how it should be prevented, this changed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

320 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

considerably once urban renewal hadstarted—and the assessments whether gentri-fication processes were underway becametotally controversial. Interestingly, this phaseof disagreement about gentrification anddisplacement in Prenzlauer Berg didn’t lastvery long either.

Following a dramatic financial crisis andthe take-over of a red–red governing coali-tion, Berlin downsized its intervention intourban renewal considerably and cut all publicsubsidies for renovations (as well as therental and occupational regulationsconnected to them). Moreover, after a longlegal argument, the Federal court eventuallydeclared the use of locally established rentcaps as precondition for permitting renova-tions as illegal in 2005. At the same time,gentrification pressure became stronger thanever before, and signs of gentrification arerecently observed in nearly all neighbour-hoods within the core of the city.

Paradoxically, this neoliberal turn did notlead to an intensification of debates aboutgentrification and the course of urbanrenewal. To the contrary, the issue lost muchof its political appeal and debates ebbed off.

Academic debate

After the breakdown of the politics of ‘Care-ful Urban Renewal’ in 2001, the academicdebate was thus characterised by a simulta-neous increase of studies and a decrease ofcontroversies. In most of these studies, thequarrels of the late 1990s were plainlyignored, and the position that PrenzlauerBerg would face a process of gentrificationwas taken as more or less obvious. Conse-quentially, the new generation of studiesabout Prenzlauer Berg took the neighbour-hood as scenery in which all sorts ofphenomena were to be observed. Usingmostly ethnographic methods, the studiesconcentrated on particular subgroups of thepopulation—while not showing any particu-lar interest in the macro picture. Examples ofsuch studies that were mostly produced as

MA or doctoral theses by young scholars, areabout academic single mothers (Bernien,2005), about East German women and theirview of the changes (Marquardt, 2006) orabout shopkeepers (Schmitt, 2005). More-over, in contrast to preceding debates thatwere at least implicitly concerned with thedisplacement of low-income residents, thefocus of recent contributions is more or lesson the new residents, while the victims ofgentrification play only a minor role.

The overall impression is thus somewhatparadoxical: whereas on the one hand, researchon gentrification in Prenzlauer Berg hasbecome a normal feature of academic work,recent contributions set their sights lower andare largely ‘neutral’ with regard to politicalissues. The ‘eviction of critical theory in gentri-fication research’ that Tom Slater observed(2006), can also be found in Prenzlauer Berg—but rather in the form of political irrelevancethan as a rhetoric of neoliberal legitimation.

Professional debate

In the professional debate the treatment of‘gentrification’ as a taboo was more lasting.While the upgrading of social structures andthe erosion of planning instruments becamemore and more obvious, debates tended toincreasingly ignore or deny gentrification. Agood example for the argumentative deflec-tions that were deemed necessary is providedin a recent study by PFE (2008). Comparingthe social structure of the area around Koll-witzplatz in 1992 (before the start of renewalactivities) and 2008 PFE found that only17.3% of current residents lived in theirapartment before 19931 and observed adramatic rise in incomes, rents and formalqualifications. Interestingly these facts werenot interpreted as ‘gentrification’. Instead,the study argued warily:

‘Whereas the low share of senior citizens can be explained with “natural” developments … there is no particular information available about the motives for the out-migration of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

BERNT AND HOLM: IS IT, OR IS NOT? 321

low-income households. Therefore, the usual mix of motives regarding out-migration has to be assumed (like individual reasons, reasons related to the apartment, reasons related to the neighbourhood). The reasons to move out may thus be manifold. The low share of these households, however, can be attributed to an inadequate immigration of these household types.’ (translation MB/AH)

Without explicitly referring to it, this studytakes up the line of argument that was putforward by Häußermann and Kapphan nineyears ago. It conceptualises neighbourhoodchange as an outcome of aggregated individ-ual decisions to move and—as ‘no particularinformation about the motives for the out-migration of low-income households’ isavailable—the assumption that the low shareof poor households has something to do withdisplacement is denounced as not ‘backed byempirical investigation’. ‘Economic displace-ment’ of individual households is thus theo-retically accepted as a main driver ofgentrification—but in practice denied due toinsufficient empirical data (which, given theabundance of methodological and practicaldifficulties, can’t be called a big surprise). In asecond step all indicators pointing towards‘exclusionary displacement’ or ‘displacementpressure’ are either ignored and interpretedas ‘normalisation’ or even as signs for the‘attractiveness’ of the neighbourhood. Thus,while direct individual displacement is cari-catured as ‘non-verifiable’, exclusionarydisplacement is not acknowledged as aconcept. Gentrification has thus, by a mere

act of definition, become all but impossibleto prove.

Urban movements

This U-turn regarding the position towardsgentrification and displacement is not onlycharacteristic of official politics, but finds itscounterpart in recent urban movements(Table 2). In this field, it is, ironically, thewinners of gentrification who make uptoday’s neighbourhood movements in Pren-zlauer Berg. With the ongoing displacementof low-income households, initiatives thathave fought gentrification over the course ofthe 1990s have lost ground. Many activists ofthe 1990s have resigned, work on differentprojects or have themselves been displaced,their places taken by ‘quality of life-initia-tives’ who focus on the physical qualities ofpublic space, organise for art projects orprotest against the cutting down of old trees.Displacement, which was intensively strug-gled over barely a decade ago, is either not anissue for these initiatives or—in some cases—even actively demanded. In 2007, to give butone example, an initiative of condo-ownerscaused a furore when it demanded to closedown Helmholtz Square over night, in orderto prevent partying teenagers, beer-drinkers,homeless people and other troublemakersfrom meeting at the square after dark andthereby lowering the value of the neighbour-ing condos and negatively influencingchildren with their inappropriate appearance.

Table 2 Debates about gentrification and public policies in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg

‘Gentrification ahead’ (early 1990s)

‘Gentrification controversial’ (late 1990s)

‘Gentrification who cares?’ (since 2000)

Academic debate All forms of displacement Controversial Displacement vaguely accepted, but no research

Professional debate All forms of displacement Last-resident displacement = no displacement

No displacement, but ‘consolidation’

Movement debate All forms of displacement All forms of displacement No displacementPublic policies Public subsidies linked with

obligations as to amount of rent and types of renters

Decreasing public subsidies, introduction of (legally weak) rent caps

Subsidies cut Rent caps abolished

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

322 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

Conclusion

Summarising the discussions about displace-ment in Prenzlauer Berg since the 1990s avery general assessment would be that‘displacement’ has itself been displaced as anintellectual and political concept. However,for different strands of the debatedifferent dynamics of this displacement canbe identified.

The academic debate, for which gentrifica-tion used to be a fancy concept two decadesago, found itself increasingly uncomfortablewith the term. This discomfort came in twosteps. First, in the course of the 1990sacademic contributions gradually shiftedfrom a critical and interpretative orientationtowards positivist concepts in which thequestion whether displacement could be‘proven’ became the main concern. Theapproach through which this was made possi-ble was an orientation to individual decisionsto move, and a denial of neighbourhooddimensions of displacement. As a result ofthis shift, the difficulties of quantifying indi-vidual displacement became the main impetusfor moving away from the concept anddeclaring it as ‘not applicable’ for the case ofBerlin. In a second step, after 2000, gentrifica-tion became accepted as ‘normal’, too obviousto be raised as an intellectual topic. Interestthen shifted toward secondary phenomena.

The dynamic of the professional and polit-ical debate was more clear-cut. Whereas inthe early 1990s ‘gentrification’ and ‘displace-ment’ were concepts that helped to justify acontinuation of established subsidy policies,and to defend interests connected to thesepolicies, this nexus lost ground in the 1990s.Welfarist policies that aimed at a sociallybalanced renewal came under attack fromtwo sides. On the one side, in the course ofnew austerity politics, subsidising renova-tions was increasingly seen as no longerfinancially feasible—on the other (from theside of urban movements) the existing poli-cies were criticised as being ineffective inprotecting low-income tenants againstdisplacement. The existing policy of state-led

urban renewal, and the claims around it, thusfound itself in the crossfire from very differ-ent directions. In order to defend themselves,professional planners and public officialstried to fend off the critiques and safeguardan image that pictured the established plan-ning instruments as both effective and with-out alternative. As preventing displacementwas the official goal of urban renewal, prov-ing the effectiveness of applied instrumentsmeant proving that displacement did nothappen, or was at least not a relevant prob-lem. Therefore, the more gentrificationbecame a problem, the more displacementhad to be made a taboo. This led to adynamic in which the concept of displace-ment was successively narrowed and shiftedfrom a comprehensive perspective on urbanchange to an individualised concept.

For the urban movements ‘displacement’was a relevant concept as long as gentrifica-tion was struggled against. It enjoyed enor-mous popularity and was applied withincreasingly broad focus until the late 1990s.With the progress of gentrification, thesemovements were successively marginalised,and the concept lost its appeal for criticalintervention.

Summarising this history, a close correla-tion between the way displacement has beenconceptualised and the form of publicintervention into renewal activities is clearlyvisible. At the time when gentrification anddisplacement were critically discussed anddeclared a problem by academics, plannersand urban movements, the scope of stateintervention was broad and the protection oflow-income tenants a prime goal of officialpolitics. The more displacement was ques-tioned, the more public intervention wasdownsized and the effects of pure market-ledrenewal activities naturalised.

However, this correlation of academic andplanning discourses and political practiceworks not only in one direction. Rather, thehistory presented shows that some conceptsof displacement had the advantage of beingaccepted in the realms of politics at a certaintime, while others didn’t. Whether a finding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

BERNT AND HOLM: IS IT, OR IS NOT? 323

was taken up by politics depended more onthe conjuncture and the strength or weaknessof particular interests, than on the quality orfindings of the studies. While more individu-alised conceptions of displacement(economic displacement, physical displace-ment, last-resident displacement) were thusacceptable for a wide range of interests,concepts that focused on the dimensions ofneighbourhood change (exclusionarydisplacement, displacement pressure) had amore difficult stand since accepting themwould have implied acknowledging a needfor more severe public control of and inter-vention into the housing market.

This story thus also reflects the differentconditions that different approaches towardsurban change face in the context of neoliberalcities. It shows how concepts that refer to theexchange value, that is, the capital generatingcapacities of cities, are naturalised and made asine qua non for urban development. As aconsequence, accepting gentrification as a‘normal’ form of urban development, forwhich state intervention is at best necessaryto take care of extreme individual problems,goes without saying, while questioning thiscondition is burdened with all the problemsof providing empirical evidence. Moreover, itshows how counteracting gentrification ismade particularly difficult when those whoprofit from it have the resources to portraythis form of urban change as ‘renaissance’ or‘revitalisation’ while those who suffer from itlose support. The case of Prenzlauer Bergdemonstrates how the withdrawal of criticalscholarship directly facilitates a neoliberalturn in urban politics. It shows that urbanresearchers have a political responsibility tobear.

Whether they can live up to this responsi-bility depends only to a small degree on themethodological rigor and scientific quality oftheir work. The pivotal point for gettingdisplacement as a critical concept on to thepolitical agenda, we think, is to get out intothe real world—not as ‘neutral’ researcherswho simply inform the public of their supe-rior knowledge, but as scholars who see the

proactive work for the ‘Right to the City’ aspart of a professional ethic.

Note

1 1 As ‘it doesn’t make sense to differentiate between East and West Germans, or people from other regions, 20 years after reunification’ (PFE, 2008, p. 17), the study differentiated only between households that lived in their apartment before renovation, and those who did not. Households that lived in the area before 1993, but not in the current apartment, are thus counted in the same way as households that moved into the area recently and subsequently changed their apartment.

References

argus (Arbeitsgruppe Gemeinwesenarbeit und Stadteilplanung) (1999) Wohnmobilität in SaniePrenzlauer Berg 1994–1999. Untersuchung im Auftrag des Sanierungsbeauftragten S.T.E.R.N. Gesellschaft für behutsame Stadterneuerung mbH, Berlin.

Atkinson, R. (2002) ‘Does gentrification help or harm urban neighbourhoods? An assessment of the evidence-base in the context of the new urban agenda’ (CNR Paper 5: June).

Bernien, S. (2005) ‘Urbanes Leben—Warum bevorzugen Akademikerinnen mit Kindern den innerstädtischen Berliner Ortsteil Prenzlauer Berg als Lebensort und hat diese Wohnstandortentscheidung Konsequenzen für ihr Reproduktionsverhalten?’, Diploma Thesis at the Institute for Urban and Regional Sociology at Humboldt-University Berlin.

Bernt, M. (1997) Sozialräumlicher Wandel in Prenzlauer Berg, unpublished manuscript.

Bernt, M. (2003) Rübergeklappt. Die ‘Behutsame Stadterneuerung’ im Berlin der 1990er Jahre. Berlin: Schelzky & Jeep.

Bernt, M. and Holm, A. (1998) ‘Wir Bleiben Alle?’, in Stadtrat (eds) Umkämpfte Räume, pp. 155–167. Hamburg, Berlin and Göttingen: Verlag der Buchläden Schwarze Risse/Rote Straße.

Bernt, M. and Holm, A. (2002) ‘Gentrification in Ostdeutschland—der Fall Prenzlauer Berg’, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kommunalwissenschaften II/2002, pp. 125–150.

Bernt, M. and Holm, A. (2005) ‘Gentrification of a particular type. The case of Prenzlauer Berg’, in R. Atkinson and G. Bridge (eds) Gentrification in a Global Perspective, pp. 106–125. London: Blackwell.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12

324 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

Blasius, J. (1993) Gentrification und Lebensstile. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.

Blasius, J. and Dangschat, J. (1990) Die Aufwertung innenstadtnaher Wohnviertel. Opaden: Leske + Budrich.

Borst, R., Krätke, S., Mayer, M., Roth, R. and Schmoll, F. (eds) (1990) Das neue Gesicht der Städte. Theoretische Ansätze und empirische Befunde aus der internationalen Debatte. Basel/Boston/Berlin: Birkhäuser.

Florida, R. (2004) The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

Hannemann, C. (1993) ‘Stadterneuerung = Bevölkerungserneuerung? Anmerkungen zu sozial-räumlichen Konsequenzen der Berliner Stadterneuerung’, in Jahrbuch Stadterneuerung 1993. Berlin: Institut für Stadt- und Regionalplanung der Technischen Universität Berlin.

Häußermann, H. and Kapphan, A. (2000) Berlin: Von der geteilten zur gespaltenen Stadt? Sozialräumlicher Wandel seit 1990. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Häußermann, H. and Siebel, W. (1991) ‘Berlin bleibt nicht Berlin’, Leviathan 19(3), pp. 353–371.

Häußermann, H., Holm, A. and Zunzer, D. (2002) Stadterneuerung in der Berliner Republik. Modernisierung in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Helms, H.G. (1992) ‘Der Gabentisch. Einleitende Bemerkungen zum Umbau Großberlins und der Neuen Bundesländer zu den Konditionen des Finanzkapitals und der Hochtechnologien’, in H.G. Helms (ed.) Die Stadt als Gabentisch. Beobachtungen der aktuellen Städtebauentwicklung, pp. 5–47. Leipzig: Reclam-Verlag.

Hunger, B. (1992) ‘Berlin auf dem Weg zur Metropole. Soziale Problem der Staderneueung’, in H.G. Helms (ed.) Die Stadt als Gabentisch. Beobachtungen der aktuellen Städtebauentwicklung, pp. 521–530. Leipzig: Reclam-Verlag.

Kil, W. (1992) ‘Prenzlauer Berg. Aufstieg und Fall einer Nische’, in H.G. Helms (ed.) Die Stadt als Gabentisch. Beobachtungen der aktuellen Städtebauentwicklung, pp. 508–520. Leipzig: Reclam-Verlag.

Krätke, S. (1991) ‘Berlins Umbau zur neuen Metropole’, Leviathan 3/1991, pp. 327–352.

Krätke, S. and Borst, R. (2000) Berlin. Metropole zwischen Boom und Krise. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Marcuse, P. (1986) ‘Abandonment, gentrification, and displacement: the linkages in New York City’, in N.

Smith and P. Williams (eds) Gentrification of the City, pp. 153–177. London: Unwin Hyman.

Marquardt, T. (2006) Käthes neue Kleider. Gentrifizierung am Berliner Kollwitzplatz in lebensweltlicher Perspektive. Tübingen: Vereinigung für Volkskunden e.V.

Newman, K. and Wyly, E.K. (2006) ‘The right to stay put, revisited: gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City’, Urban Studies 43(1), pp. 23–57.

PFE—Büro für Stadtplanung, -forschung und -erneuerung (2008) Sozialstudie 2008. Sanierungsgebiet Kollwitzplatz. Studie im Auftrag des Bezirksamtes Pankow von Berlin.

Rada, U. (1997) Hauptstadt der Verdrängung. Berliner Zukunft zwischen Kiez und Metropole. Berlin: Assoziation A.

Schmitt, K. (2005) Ein Kiez im Wandel. Gentrification und Nutzungskonflikte am Helmholtzplatz. Schkeuditz: Schkeuditzer Buchverlag.

SenBauWohn (Senatsverwaltung für Bau- und Wohnungswesen) (1993) Bericht des Senators für Bau- und Wohnungswesen über die Vorbereitung und Durchführung der Stadterneuerung. Berlin: Leitsätze zur Stadterneuerung in Berlin.

SenStadt (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung) (2001) Mitteilung—zur Kenntnisnahme—über 22. Bericht über die Vorbereitung und Durchführung der Stadterneuerung, Berliner Abgeordnetenhaus, Drucksache Nr. 13/3300 (II.B.43.) sowie Nr. 14/821 (II.B.64.a) und Nr. 14/821 (II.B.64.b), Berlin.

Slater, T. (2006) ‘The eviction of critical perspective from gentrification research’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(4), pp. 737–757.

Stark, H. (1998) ‘Zwischen Hauptstadt und Kiez. Prenzlauer Berg unter Aufwertungsdruck’, Diploma Thesis at the Otto-Suhr-Institut of Free University Berlin.

von Einem, E. (1990) ‘Berlin-Scenario 2010—Flächen und Standorte, in Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umweltschutz (ed.) Metropole Berlin, mehr als Markt! Berlin: Kulturbuch-Verlag.

Dr Matthias Bernt is a researcher at theLeibniz Institute for Regional Developmentand Structural Planning in Erkner, nearBerlin. Email: berntm@irs-net.de

Dr Andrej Holm works as a researcher at theInstitute for Human Geography of theGoethe University in Frankfurt/Main.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:27

20

Sept

embe

r 20

12