integration (language courses, possibilities to access the labor market etc.). The housing policy concept also implied that housing for refugees should be provided rather in central locations than in the periphery, where refugees might feel isolated (especially due to the fact, that refugees normally do not own cars and public transport towards and from peripheral locations is weak).
Leipzig’s idea to prioritize decentralized housing rather than centralized housing is in line with the above mentioned concept of the European City. A social mix in neighborhoods, a focus on central rather than peripheral locations for refugees and the idea that integration can be achieved on an urban level refer to the ideal-typical concept of the European City.
Nevertheless, the latest numbers for Leipzig show a different picture: The majority of refugees in Leipzig live in large scale centralized housing. Of the approximately 5,000 refugees in Leipzig, 2,500 live in large scale refugee homes with more than 60 persons, approx. 600 refugees in small scale refugee homes with less than 60 persons, approx. 300 refugees in hotels, 50 refugees in contemporary housing conditions, 700 refugees in flats rented by the municipality and 1,100 refugees have rented their own flat, Thus it can be stated that decentralized housing is of minor importance, despite the political will to avoid centralized housing for refugees.
Why does this gap between political will and real development exist? A multitude of different, partly overlapping reasons can be identified. In order to systemize these reasons, the different options of decentralized housing are analyzed and it is evaluated why only a small share of refugees lives in decentralized housing.
A. REFUGEES AND THE PRIVATE HOUSING MARKET
Currently, around 1,100 refugees living in Leipzig rented their own flats. According to the legal requirements, refugees can rent flats and the rent is paid by the municipality, if certain rent levels are not exceeded. The rent levels are indicated in the so-called “KdU-Richtlinie”. The costs indicated there are equal to the rent which unemployed persons receive as a state subsidy. In the current situation of the housing market, it is difficult to find vacant apartments which cost no more than the prices indicated in the “KdU-Richtlinie”. This is especially the case in central locations. In peripheral neighborhoods and/or disadvantaged neighborhoods refugees may find apartments which do not exceed the amount of rent indicated in the KdU. Still, these locations are not really attractive and refugees sometimes refuse to live there. Furthermore, German landlords sometimes refuse to rent their apartments to refugees even though rent payments are guaranteed through the state. Due to existing xenophobia, some landlords prefer to rent their flats to Germans than to people with other nationalities. It needs to be emphasized that refugees are in competition with other low-income households, they compete for the same flats and the number of affordable flats in attractive locations is low.
B. EXISTING PUBLIC HOUSING
In Leipzig, a public housing company exists which has the mandate to balance market forces and provide housing for households which have difficulties to rent apartments on the free housing market. Especially households with low income or elderly persons have the possibility to receive a flat which is rented by the public housing company of Leipzig. Also refugees have the possibility to move in flats of the public housing company. As mentioned above, also in this sector of the housing market, competition for these flats with other low income groups exist. The fierce competition concerning these flats is demonstrated through a recent bribe scandal which took place in Leipzig. It was revealed that refugees paid the responsible official money in order to get a flat from the public housing company. Even though the CEO of the public housing company argued that the practice of corruption is a single case and the responsible person was fired immediately, the case demonstrates the desperation of refugees to find adequate housing.
It also is necessary to mention that most public housing stock in Leipzig is concentrated in buildings which were constructed during GDR times, i.e. before 1989. The apartments build in this time were constructed in line with the principles of the socialist cities and their floor plans are orientated to small families and a certain “socialist” lifestyle. The household structures of the refugees in Leipzig are different: A considerable share of refugees lives in larger families and also their living habits hardly fit with the floor plans of the apartments provided by the public housing company. Therefore the option that refugees find their apartments in existing public housing faces also difficulties because the floor plans are not adequate.
C. APPARTMENTS RENTED BY THE MUNICIPALITY (GEWÄHRLEISTUNGSWOHNUNGEN)
Due to the above mentioned access problems, the city of Leipzig started to rent appartments directly on the free housing market, so called “Gewährleistungswohnungen”. Through this instrument it is posible to complement the housing options for refugees and get access to the kind of appartments which are actually missing. Nevertheless, the effort is very high and therefore only selected kind of refugee households (for example households with ill members), which have special housing needs have access to the Gewährleistungswohnungen.
D. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC HOUSING BUILT BY THE MUNICIPALITY
Another opportunity would be the construction of new housing for refugees by the municipality. Even though there are discussions on the construction of new building in Leipzig the financial resources of the municipality are not enough to construct considerable new housing for refugees. Until now, no subsidies on national and/or federal level exist, which could support new construction. Additionally, it is argued that current migrations flows are very difficult to foresee and construction should therefore include flexible type of housing, which —if less housing for refugees might be needed in the future— can be transformed in student housing and/or housing for families.
REFLECTION AND CONCLUSION
What does the situation in Leipzig tell us about Europe and especially about the European city? First, we can summarize that the current housing policy in Leipzig refers to the concept of the European city and that also current strategies on hosting refugees can be seen in line with the concept of the European city: Integration instead of isolation, central location instead of peripheral locations and rather small- than large-scale solution. Therefore we can conclude that even if on national and supra-national level the challenge of how to deal with the increasing amount of refugees leads to divergent policy responses and can be even considered as a challenge for the future European integration process, the case study Leipzig shows another picture: It is still tried to implement the European City model.
Two issues need to be highlighted:
• There exists still a considerable gap between the political ideas and the actual situation. Even though there is a political will to avoid large scale housing for refugees, the majority of refugees still live in large scale accommodation. Structural obstacles stand against the implementation of the political will. This shows that the implementation of the concept of the European city is not an easy-going process but requires to overcoming existing problems.
• A second point tackles the social dimension of the European city, which refers to the idea of citizen participation and the involvement of civil society organizations in urban development. This dimension has not been implemented in the policies on how to host refugees in Leipzig. Participation of refugees in decision making processes of housing policies has not taken place. In the discussions on what kind of housing, floor plans and location refugees actually prefer the social group most affected by the decisions, the refugees themselves have not been included. Participation of refugees is far from easy and requires complex methods. Nevertheless, the idea to see the refugees not only as objects for which the European city need to provide housing opportunities but as subjects which are part of the urban society and which opinions need to be heard would be in line
