Prof. Kötter, municipalities are currently coming up against ever tighter limits when it comes to developing new commercial sites, and this is happening in large parts of the Federal Republic. How do you assess the situation from a scientific perspective?
My thesis: The need for commercial space will increase sharply in the coming years as policymakers seek to strengthen the independence of our economy and reduce vulnerability to international supply chains.
The shortage of skilled workers and climate protection will also have an impact on the demand situation. On the other hand, there is increasing skepticism among the population about new commercial space. In addition, there are topics such as digitalization, mobile working, home office, Industry 4.0. urban production.
As a result, the working and living sectors will mix more, which is a great advantage, just think of the commuter trips that will be eliminated. In the sense of a functionally mixed city and urban production, the qualitative and quantitative challenges are increasing, but of course so are the opportunities.
What opportunities do you see for municipalities to provide additional commercial space?
Let me elaborate on this using the Ruhr metropolitan region as an example. The Ruhr Metropolis is an exceptional agglomeration area with competition between cities and considerable land potential. However, the number and scope of these areas could be much greater if the cities cooperated more closely and continuous inter-municipal cooperation was established, to a certain extent across city boundaries.
If the municipalities develop and operate commercial sites jointly, they share the tax revenues, but also the risks and the costs. Such inter-municipal approaches can initiate larger sites and thus achieve greater international visibility. Meanwhile, the numerous areas in the region that are easy to develop are already mostly developed. Therefore, the existing areas as well as inter-municipal commercial areas must increasingly come into focus in my view.
There are already many intermunicipal approaches that can certainly be expanded. What can those municipalities do that want to have another iron in the fire?
Of course, there is also this possibility: sites that appear to be very small-scale due to ownership structures and limited by conflicts of interest. Here, a city can leverage new commercial land potential and bring it to the market through active land management, land acquisition and land swaps.
Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformation at the University of BonnWhat does that mean exactly, area swap?
Some potential sites often cannot be mobilized because they are fragmented or characterized by different interests of the owners and other conflicts. In such cases, it may be worthwhile for municipalities to use the full range of instruments available under urban planning law. It would be helpful to publicize positive examples of the use of such instruments and procedures.
Municipalities can purchase land and, of course, also exchange it sovereignly, e.g. within the framework of a building land reallocation according to § 45 ff. BauGB. This is a legally regulated land exchange procedure for the creation of building land, which offers the advantage that optimum land use can be realized even if individuals are not willing to cooperate.
Therefore, a municipality does not need the consent of all owners in every case. Of course, economic efficiency, especially private utility, must be maintained in both directions, and ownership is also maintained in principle. In principle, every owner in the exchange process is entitled to a plot of land of at least the same value.
In which instrument do you see the first priority?
Rounding out, combining, and rezoning numerous smaller lots, some of which are no longer in use, can increase the supply of marketable larger lots. Such large sites are often more marketable. Urban development should therefore push such a transformation of existing areas through land management as an important task for the future.
What other instruments can be considered? Existing industrial areas need to be renewed with a view to current and future challenges. For example, areas with vacant industrial buildings, with old tracks that are hardly used today. Also some small-scale brownfields, some small-scale property.
These areas are currently still often economically unattractive due to their restrictions, because there is a lack of infrastructure, and they also have to be adapted to climate change, developed further and optimized. Perhaps a joint service center, i.e., an installed commercial space management system that companies can call upon, is an effective means in many cases. Another component could be to leverage unused real estate potential.
To what extent can this help develop fragmented stock areas?
That's a lot of ideas. What instruments should local authorities currently be using?
Municipalities should focus primarily on the existing stock and not just try to develop new areas. A wide range of instruments of urban planning law are available for these complex tasks. Depending on the individual case, the challenges of renewal, reconstruction and transformation can be met both with the instruments of planning, land readjustment and development in conjunction with urban development contracts under general urban development law and with overall urban development measures under special urban development law.
The guiding principle of sustainable urban development forces the actors to use land economically. The Ruhr Metropolis covers a large area, and it will certainly be possible to continue to find suitable locations in the existing stock in order to upgrade them.
With regard to a mixed-function structure, it is indispensable to consider the issues of housing, environment and open space so that the region remains attractive for employees and companies.
In which instrument do you see the first priority?
The focus must first be on the existing stock. Conversion areas and existing areas from past decades should be modernized, renewed and brought up to date with regard to issues such as climate change, energy refurbishment and functionality. One example: Phoenix West and East in Dortmund, which, despite all the justified criticism, has nevertheless succeeded well overall. It is a gain for the entire city. Today, one would perhaps proceed differently, but in order to gain such insights, one must of course dare to do something new at some point. Without the city's courage, there would never have been such a result.
It is a public task to promote structural change and the development of industrial sites and to take the public interest into account. The city and the region must play an active role, and the entire region must become capable of action. None of this is brand-new knowledge, and coordinated action is becoming increasingly important because the scope for action is becoming narrower.
Many residential areas are currently being redensified, what role can this play for commercial areas?
For me, this is the issue of optimizing existing areas. This applies, for example, to commercial areas that were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. If you take a systematic look at them, you will discover a lot of potential.
One could, for example, think about offering buildings with possible uses for offices, presentation areas and common rooms for many companies collectively. These could reduce fixed costs by spreading them over many shoulders. Here, it would also be possible to flexibly expand these usage options - attractive for companies that are growing strongly.
But of course this is costly and not a foregone conclusion, because the companies will not do this on their own. One could also actively search for areas that are owned by companies but are no longer needed. Cities should offer to acquire these areas.
These are important questions. But it is not primarily the task of politics to make money. It is the task of politics to work on the future of the economic basis of the city and the region. It is about sustainable jobs and qualitative growth. The conversion, transformation or renewal of existing commercial areas is often associated with unprofitable land preparation costs.
Land development is therefore usually not possible without public funding. Overall, it is not about financial return, but about urban return. The development of modern industrial estates is part of the provision of public services and is an investment in the long-term future of the region! The return from pure land development should therefore not be in the foreground.
What role does the tight budget situation of the municipalities play in this? What does it cost and who pays for it?
What do you understand by the "soil stock policy"?
The ability to act in the commercial sector is only given to the cities and regions if they have access to the land. But if an owner does not want to sell in the case, then successful economic development is hardly possible. Where municipalities develop land, it is essential that they are also the owners. But how do they get hold of the land? With time: There are always owners who want to sell. Cities should take advantage of this. And provide themselves with a supply of land. Regardless of whether there are already planning projects. Initially, the land can also be used temporarily and leased out to generate income. It can also make sense to reserve areas for exchange or ecological compensation.
Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformation at the University of Bonn