Fritz50: The 1990s in the Fritz Heckert area
With the European reorganisation of society, the economy and politics after 1989/1990, there was a contrasting development between the new housing estates in eastern Germany and their eastern European counterparts.
In addition to the sometimes significantly larger number of flats, Eastern European new-build areas differed from their East German counterparts after 1990 above all in terms of acceptance and ownership structure.
Further information
Note:
The texts were written by author and historian Norbert Engst. The City of Chemnitz would like to thank him for his valuable support and co-operation.
While a sharp decline in population was recorded in the new development area of Leipzig-Grünau, there was virtually no decline in Warsaw-Bemowo, Prague-Řepy, Bratislava-Petržalka and Sofia-Mladost saw virtually no decline and often even an increase in population. While the privatisation attempts in the five eastern German states were only marginally successful, the Eastern European housing stock was offered to tenants for sale at very low prices after 1990. Unlike here, however, tenants in Eastern Europe often no longer had the option of continuing to rent their own home.
In the Fritz Heckert area of Chemnitz, it took almost a decade and a half for consolidation to create stable social, political and economic conditions for the respective players. In the early 1990s, when property plans were still stored in laundry baskets in the Chemnitz administration, this housing giant steered through the sea of urban, architectural and social upheaval without a clear direction. But where there are risks, there are also opportunities.
The area between Wladimir-Sagorski-Straße and Südring, the Morgenleite, was a wasteland with abandoned cable drums, concrete slabs, oil drums and piles of earth. This made the area ideal for young people with mopeds or for hiding out. The flat roofs of some residential buildings also attracted young people, either for sunbathing in summer or as a vantage point at the turn of the year.
However, there was also uncertainty in the administration and among investors about ownership structures and property boundaries. For some supply centres, for example, it was unclear who correctly owned the land after reunification and who was the legitimate legal successor to the respective user during the GDR era. Consultancy firms advised their clients to start realising their investments as quickly as possible, as the aspirations of some investors interested in the supply centres clearly clashed with the interests of the city. The implementation of investor plans would only be possible as long as the city had not yet developed and approved a different centre concept.
Sociological studies in the early 1990s on the interaction between new development areas on the outskirts of the city and city centre development are interesting. Sociologists recognised: "Social peace in new development areas is a prerequisite for far-reaching inner-city regeneration". Conversely, this means that the sustainable development of Chemnitz city centre can only be successful if social peace is ensured in the Fritz Heckert area.
As a result, the city of Chemnitz, together with social welfare organisations, developed concepts to support young people and people in all walks of life. It was possible to establish meaningful leisure activities in every neighbourhood. Since the end of the 1990s, annual festivals have facilitated mutual exchange and socialising.