This chapter analyses socioeconomic segregation and segregation by migration background for Berlin, Germany. Berlin’s history of division and reunification affected suburbanization patterns and the unequal economic restructuring of the city over time. Within this historical context, we present our empirical results on segregation, and we reflect on the implications of segregation for the daily use of the city. Arguments that segregation affects access to amenities (as in the literature on ‘food deserts’) or reduces access to jobs (as in spatial mismatch theories) are not so useful for Berlin with its strong public transport infrastructure. We find that socioeconomic segregation was moderate and stable for the working-age population between 2007 and 2016, whereas segregation of poor children increased. At the same time, segregation of foreigners and segregation by migration background strongly declined. And yet, even though segregation levels are low and public services are present everywhere, the social use of the city, we argue, may be more segregated than statistical indicators suggest. Drawing on various case studies, we suggest that the use of the overall city reflects segregation patterns of the use of space for other reasons than commonly suggested.

Urban scholars commonly expect that residents show more neighbourhood belonging, the longer they live in an area. An imagery of fixed settlements thus remains dominant in a rapidly changing world. Recent research challenged classic assumptions but the alternative of elective belonging hardly differentiated between symbolic and practical neighbourhood use. As belonging is performatively maintained, this differentiation may be needed. What defines residents’ belonging in a neighbourhood in digital mobile times? Does length of residence alone result in place-based practices, familiarity with other people and ultimately in more belonging? Our analyses of survey-data from four Berlin neighbourhoods show that length of residence correlates with belonging, but not in a simple linear way. The use of infrastructure and especially public familiarity, which depends on the settlement as specific historical configuration, affect this relationship.

No abstract

Affordable housing is a key challenge of the 21st century. A pivotal driver of growing housing prices is residents' opposition to construction, a phenomenon known as NIMBYism ("Not In My Backyard"). To make housing more affordable, city governments are increasingly implementing rent control policies. Does rent control---by making tenants more likely to stay in their apartments---spark NIMBYism and thus exacerbate the housing crisis? We study the case of Berlin, which recently passed a sweeping rent control law. Leveraging two discontinuities in the policy, we show that rent control made tenants less NIMBY. Specifically, tenants in rent controlled apartments became more likely to approve of local-level construction and immigration, compared to tenants in non-rent-controlled apartments. We argue that the decline in NIMBYism is likely due to an economic channel. Tenants in urban centers associate construction and immigration with displacement pressures and gentrification. Rent control alleviates these concerns by providing financial and residential security.

No abstract