land
Article
Gentrification through Green Regeneration?
Analyzing the Interaction between Inner-City Green
Space Development and Neighborhood Change in the
Context of Regrowth: The Case of Lene-Voigt-Park in
Leipzig, Eastern Germany
Lena Ali 1,*, Annegret Haase 2and Stefan Heiland 1
1TU Berlin, Department of Landscape Planning and Development, 10623 Berlin, Germany;
2Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology,
*Correspondence: lena.r[email protected]; Tel.: +49-341-2351735
Received: 4 November 2019; Accepted: 13 January 2020; Published: 16 January 2020
Abstract:
Green regeneration has become a common strategy for improving quality of life in
disadvantaged neighborhoods in shrinking cities. The role and function of new green spaces may
change, however, when cities experience new growth. Set against this context, this paper analyzes
a case study, the Lene-Voigt-Park in Leipzig, which was established on a former brownfield site.
Using a combination of methods which include an analysis of housing advertisements and interviews,
the paper explores the changing role of the park in the context of urban regeneration after the city’s
turn from shrinkage towards new growth. It discusses whether the concept of green gentrification
may help to explain this role. As a result of our analysis, we argue that Lene-Voigt-Park has indeed
operated as a trigger for structural, social, and symbolic upgrades in the growing city of Leipzig, but
only in combination with real estate market developments, which are the main drivers of change.
The concept of green gentrification does help to better understand the role of different factors—first
and foremost that of green space. We also discovered some specifics of our case that may enrich the
green gentrification debate. Leipzig serves as an example for a number of regrowing cities across
Europe where green gentrification might represent a challenge.
Keywords:
green gentrification; regeneration; urban green space; neighborhood change; housing
market; regrowth; Leipzig
1. Introduction
Following a period of massive shrinkage in the 1990s and having faced a subsequent outflow
of people and housing vacancies, larger cities in eastern Germany (e.g., Leipzig, Dresden, Potsdam)
have seen new growth since around the year 2000. In the period of shrinkage, including the first years
after shrinkage had stopped, several regeneration measures aimed at improving quality of life [
1
]
had been introduced and financed by large-scale state funding programs such as Stadtumbau Ost
(Urban Restructuring East). Since 2001, Leipzig has witnessed the physical regeneration of housing
areas, improvement of streetscapes and urban green spaces, as well as the reuse of vacant lots [
2
].
In this context, the reuse of urban brownfields and demolished former industrial and residential
buildings made the expansion of urban greenery a key measure in sustainable urban and neighborhood
planning [3].
Land 2020,9, 24; doi:10.3390/land9010024 www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land 2020,9, 24 2 of 24
The city of Leipzig is an outstanding example for urban regrowth. In the last ten years, Leipzig
has been hyped as a great place to work, study, and live, and the city was even nicknamed “Hypezig”.
New growth can be observed throughout the city, but especially in districts with Wilhelminian-style
buildings
1
which were previously rundown and unrenovated, and where urban development funding
plays an important role [
4
,
5
]. Presently, these districts are characterized by a housing market saturation,
exclusive building projects, and rising apartment rents. Reudnitz-Thonberg, one such district in the
eastern part of the city, is home to the Lene-Voigt-Park (hereinafter abbreviated as LVP). The park
was created on a former railway industrial area during the post-shrinkage period around the year
2000, when housing vacancy was high. The aim was to encourage residents not to move away and
to improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. Since then population growth, socio-structural
dynamics within and between districts, rising apartment rents, and the city’s improved image have
made gentrification an increasingly hot topic in Leipzig.
Neighborhoods experiencing such structural, social, and symbolic upgrading, which results in
residents being forced to move away, are referred to as gentrified [
6
]. Yet the fundamental determinants
that cause or trigger gentrification have not yet been identified, hence gentrification is considered
a process that can take various forms. The green gentrification
2
discourse, which emerged more
recently, analyzes the link between sustainable urban planning and “green urban developments”,
and their effects on the housing market as well as their social implications (renovations, rising rents,
displacement, segregation). Urban upgrading by establishing new green or blue qualities (e.g.,
a high-quality, planned green space or waterfront) leads to the displacement of low-income residents,
because richer households move to these newly developed areas (for an initial study see [7]).
The aim of this paper is to examine the role of urban green spaces for gentrification in the context
of new growth after shrinkage and urban regeneration, using Lene-Voigt-Park (LVP) in Leipzig as
a case study. We discuss whether LVP might have operated as a trigger of residential change and
displacement under the new conditions of growth since 2010 and if, consequently, evidence for green
gentrification can be found. Moreover, we examine the extent to which this approach can be used
to analyze similar cases. Our pivotal question is: What role does green space development play in
a context of urban regeneration, when a city is experiencing new growth after shrinkage? Can the
concept of green gentrification help to explain this role?
The paper is structured as follows: After the introduction, Section 2expands on the debates about
greening, regeneration, and green gentrification in the specific context of shrinking and regrowing
cities. Section 3introduces Leipzig and particularly Leipzig’s inner east and LVP as a case study, and
describes the methods used for the study. Section 4presents the key results, which are discussed in
Section 5in relation to the research question and the debates introduced in Section 2. We finish with
some concluding remarks in Section 6.
2. Interrogating Debates: Greening, Regeneration, and Green Gentrification in the Context of
Urban Shrinkage and Regrowth
In this section, we cross-reference debates on urban regeneration, greening (policies) and green
gentrification. The first part briefly describes urban development in eastern Germany since the early
1990s with special attention to the role of greening (policies) and the general debate on gentrification.
In the second part, we introduce the arguments of the green gentrification debate that look critically
at interactions between “green regeneration” and the (re)production of socio-spatial inequalities and
inequities. We focus on processes in cities that have turned shrinkage towards regrowth.
1Wilhelminian-style building stock means buildings erected in the period between the 1870 and 1914.
2
In this study, which focuses on greening (strategies) and urban green spaces, we find the term “green gentrification” to be the
most appropriate, but use it in line with other terms such as eco-/ecological gentrification and environmental gentrification.
Land 2020,9, 24 3 of 24
2.1. Greening Strategies in the Context of Shrinkage and Regrowth
Many cities in eastern Germany experienced a period of shrinkage after the fall of the Berlin Wall
and German Reunification in 1989/90. Large cities like Dresden and Leipzig were characterized by
unemployment, out-migration, decay, and vacancy of buildings. Particularly inner-city neighborhoods
with Wilhelminian architecture suffered a loss of function and value [
8
]. Following a huge wave of
out-migration to western German cities, suburbanization became the second major reason for people
to leave eastern cities in 1996/97, as the suburbs promised a better quality of life for many families.
City authorities were faced with the challenge of successfully transforming brownfields and
derelict areas into green spaces with a positive appearance and social functions, given that vacancy
and abandoned spaces can easily be associated with decline and a lack of prospects. Integrating
the development of urban green areas into the comprehensive set of urban development support
and funding programs (from municipality to EU level), cities took the opportunity to restructure
neighborhoods and promote less dense residential areas with newly designed green spaces (cf.
e.g., [
9
,
10
]). However, due to modernization, new building projects and persistent suburbanization,
the vacancy rates often still exceeded 20% in the city centers (cf. e.g., [11]).
In around 2000, urban shrinkage changed (first moderately, from 2010 onwards more dynamically)
to urban regrowth with the beginning of a new population influx to inner-city districts prompted
by attractive, newly renovated housing stock and increased green space. This has pushed forward
revitalization processes also in the areas with high vacancy rates [
12
]. Reurbanization describes the
renewed in-migration of various household types and their lifestyles to the city centers, including their
intention to stay (cf. [
2
,
13
,
14
]). Green spaces have played an important role in this process, as they
have contributed to the revaluation of many neighborhoods. Projects on a local scale that are aimed at
improving the living conditions in disadvantaged neighborhoods are particularly useful for improving
the image of residential areas, if not entire districts (cf. e.g., [
15
–
17
]). In Leipzig, the long-term
establishment of green spaces is considered a key measure in the regeneration process, as building
stock redevelopment increased at the edges of large and attractive green spaces [16].
The benefits humans derive from urban green spaces are well documented and beyond question
(cf. e.g., [
18
–
20
]), as access to and use of urban green spaces is crucial for people’s wellbeing and both
physical and mental health [
21
,
22
]. Consequently, greening has become increasingly important as
a strategy to improve quality of life and sustainability of cities throughout the last decades. Hence,
in the real estate sector, green spaces act as a soft location factor, potentially increasing the value of
nearby properties. While establishing new green spaces during urban shrinkage can help cities avoid
total decline, in times of regrowth, green spaces can contribute to gentrification processes. Starting with
the in-migration of so-called “pioneers”—mostly artists and students taking advantage of available and
cheap space—such neighborhoods soon develop further, showing the typical features of a gentrification
process, such as changes of building stock, apartment rents, and residents, as well as a functional and
image change (cf. [23,24]).
Such developments can be observed in regrowing eastern German cities. There are a few main
differences to the gentrification that has taken place in steadily growing western German cities, like
Munich or Hamburg. In the east, home ownership has not increased very much, rental costs long
stayed at a relatively low level, and people have still had relatively great freedom of choice while
looking for their preferred neighborhood [
25
]. The displacement of residents has not been a typical
characteristic of this development [
26
], implying that in-migration to neighborhoods has been driven
by housing preferences and the image of the different areas rather than by rental costs (ibid.). However,
since around 2010, dynamic growth has been taking place in some large East German cities—upgrading
now includes high-end renovations and new upmarket constructions as well [
27
]. At the same time,
the concept of gentrification attracted more attention in public debate and scientific discourse [
28
], and
led to the eastern German development being called “new-build gentrification” (i.e., a process that
contributes to a small but distinctive segment of the housing market [
29
]). It is also referred to as “soft
gentrification”, which emphasizes the slow speed of the development process [30].
Land 2020,9, 24 4 of 24
Ongoing in-migration during a housing shortage results in competing land use claims.
Consequently, green spaces often have to make space for new construction and building density
increases again. Diminishing urban green increases the value of remaining or newly developed
individual green spaces. As a result, this leads to an extra boost in value for the residential areas near
those spaces, which in turn leads to higher rental costs.
According to Marcuse [
31
], exclusionary displacement is the consequence of high rents that do
not allow poorer households to move to a certain area. This indirect displacement, combined with
direct displacement (when residents are forced to move out), results in (higher) segregation within the
city. This segregation is partly a reflection of the (lack of) high-quality green space: While better-off
households often live in areas with a good provision of urban green spaces, poorer households
more often live in densely built areas with a worse or even under-provision of urban green (cf.
e.g., [
32
,
33
]). Due to this insufficient supply, the accessibility and quality of remaining green spaces are
of major importance. Generally, a spatially uneven distribution of green spaces is an effect of limited
development regulations, and the basis for the question of environmental justice.
2.2. Green Gentrification: A Critical Perspective on the Impacts of Green Urban Regeneration
Greening under market conditions may cause negative effects on housing costs and lead to
a (re)production of inequalities and injustices. The value-adding impact of green spaces on real estate
objects is provable in an economic sense, as shown by several studies (cf. e.g., [
34
,
35
]). Depending on
their function and amenities, green spaces may increase the standard ground value up to 20% [
34
].
Generally, the awareness of this interaction between greening and real estate development, and
resulting social injustices, has slowly been increasing within recent years (e.g., [
36
–
38
]). This is
supported by a recent study by Rigolon and N
é
meth [
39
] that investigated predictors for gentrification
using the example of parks in US cities: It has shown that both function and location of parks are good
predictors, whereas size is not.
In this vein, the concept of green gentrification emerged in the scientific discourse; this approach is
used to critically assess the impacts of neighborhood upgrading due to urban green, which results in the
displacement of economically vulnerable people as stated by one of the inaugural papers by Dooling
in 2009 [
7
]. Later works also describe green gentrification as a strategy to upgrade neighborhoods
and taking into account displacement if not intending it (cf. e.g., [
40
]). Generally, green spaces
can operate as triggers for gentrification in different ways. Either they unintentionally lead to an
increase in property prices and housing costs, because property owners and real estate agents regard
them as a factor that increases property value, or they are intentionally implemented for economic
gains that benefit high-income households, regardless of the consequence that low-income residents
are excluded from the advantages of newly designed greenery (cf. e.g., [
7
,
41
,
42
]). Checker ([
43
],
p. 212) explains this targeted strategy as follows: “Operating under the seemingly a-political rubric
of sustainability, environmental gentrification builds on the material and discursive successes of the
urban environmental justice movement and appropriates them to serve high-end redevelopment that
displaces low-income residents”. This means that the development is technically profit-oriented and
disregards the social dimension of sustainability, (re)producing social inequality (cf. e.g., [44–46]).
Green gentrification is regarded as related to greening strategies in the context of urban renewal
and sustainability initiatives in the neoliberal era [
47
], or to the revitalization of old industrial brownfield
sites [
48
,
49
] which is especially important for (post)industrial cities such as Leipzig. Expressions
such as “cleaning up and clearing out” [
50
] and “from toxic wreck to crunchy chic” [
51
] highlight
the exclusive character of the newly developed green spaces and the surrounding residential areas.
Gould and Lewis [
40
] describe it as the transformation of a low-value environmental site with
potential into a high-value environmental site, which is followed by a population shift. Curran
and Hamilton [
45
], as well as Wolch et al. [
52
], ask when a neighborhood is “just green enough”
to mitigate or avoid effects like rising housing costs and displacement, but still provide good
quality of life. “Just green enough”-approaches represent a means in which to tackle the seemingly
Land 2020,9, 24 5 of 24
omnipresent logics of improvement of residential quality (here: through greening) and the unavoidable
concurrent increase in prices and rents and related social consequences (here: direct or indirect
displacement) [
42
,
46
,
53
]. Especially endangered by potential gentrification are neighborhoods in good
location with multi-functional green spaces—caused by either greening or by the conditions of context
change (e.g., through a change from supply to demand-driven housing markets) as is the case in many
regrowing cities.
Different solutions have been proposed to address the negative outcomes of greening strategies.
They have a clear focus on incentives designed to regulate housing market dynamics. Profit-oriented
development is to be restricted, for instance by means of social housing programs or rent control (cf.
e.g., [
43
,
54
]). Another approach appeals to the residents, who are encouraged to oppose high-end
redevelopment and enforce small-scale greening initiatives in the form of a bottom-up or grassroots
movement (cf. e.g., [
55
,
56
]). Urban gardening is one example of such a “just green enough” strategy
that involves civic participation, thus accounting for the real needs of the residents [
57
], although other
scholars question whether bottom-up greening strategies can actually prevent gentrification as long as
they happen under market conditions [
40
]. Other studies analyze the conflicting interests of local actors
when it comes to greening with an unequal distribution of benefits and losses at the neighborhood
scale [
58
]. There are a growing number of studies dealing with marginalization and exclusion related
to greening projects, including strategies aimed at contesting or resisting gentrification (cf. e.g., [
59
,
60
]).
However, studies that look at greening from the perspective of housing market development and
gentrification theory are so far exceptions (e.g., Holm [
53
] who calls green gentrification the “ecology
of upgrading”).
3. Case Study, Materials, and Methods
3.1. Leipzig: The Shift from Shrinkage Towards New Growth
We have chosen to focus on the German city of Leipzig as it is one of the most prominent examples
of urban shrinkage and regrowth across Germany and Europe, and exemplifies a larger group of cities
with similar development pathways and features. Leipzig was recently dubbed a “city of extremes” [
28
],
as the city went from massive shrinkage towards dynamic regrowth in only 20 years [61].
The city’s period of severe shrinkage started in the 1960s but saw its most dramatic phase in
the 1990s when the city lost about 20% of its inhabitants (approximately 100,000 people) in only
10 years [
62
]. At that time, this exodus not only led to massive job losses and high unemployment rates,
but also to high rates of vacant housing and a lot of abandoned space throughout the city. Greening
these places to improve the quality of life in the residential areas, therefore, became a key strategy
for counteracting shrinkage [
1
]. Greening strategies operated together with the demolition of surplus
housing. They included the creation of new green spaces such as parks and urban gardens and the
expansion of existing ones, interim greening (particularly in those areas that were unlikely to be rebuilt
in the near future), new street greenery, and the refurbishment of urban waterways [
1
,
63
]. At the
same time, Leipzig’s housing market was characterized by high vacancy rates, which were highest
in built-up, inner-city areas with Wilhelminian architecture; the socio-spatial segregation patterns
re-configured after the first half of the 1990s [64].
When shrinkage came to a halt around the year 2000, Leipzig had approximately 70,000 vacant
apartments and 3000 brownfield sites [
62
]. During the 2000s, Leipzig experienced reurbanization [
13
],
mostly in the inner city, decreasing vacancy rates and modest annual gains in population numbers
(2000–4000 people). From 2010 onwards, the city entered a new phase of dynamic regrowth, leading to
a population increase of almost 100,000 by 2018 with growth rates of more than 2% per year [5]. This
growth was facilitated by new, large-scale investments by major corporations such as the Deutsche
Post DHL Group, BMW, and Porsche, and the creation of over 70,000 new jobs in the industrial and
service sector since the mid-2000s. Investment in housing renovations, new construction, and urban
land in good locations increased. This has not only encouraged (young) people to come to Leipzig,
Loading more pages...