Bürgerjury - Neighbourhood Jury

I. IDENTIFICATION
  • Investor (key institution): Federal-state programme ‘Socially Integrative City’
  • Contact person: Please use the contact form available at: http://www.quartiersmanagement-berlin.de/Kontakt.25.0.html
  • Year of implementation: 2000
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Germany
  • Region: Berlin
  • Town: Berlin
  • Impact: municipal

    Total costs: 15000000 EUR

    Source per every institution

    Important stakeholders concerned

    • national: Particular Neighbourhood Management Offices in Berlin; local residents and institutions
    II. TYPOLOGY
    1. Improved involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter.
    III. DESCRIPTION
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. Particular Berlin districts are funded by the funding programme Socially Integrative City in order establish a neighbourhood management team which is responsible for developing projects on urban or social regeneration. In addition to this, the Berlin Senate for Urban Development wanted to strengthen the involvement of local citizens. Therefore, a working group consisting of representatives of the Senate and representatives of various neighbourhood management teams decided to set up a jury model which involve residents and let them participate in decisions about urban regeneration and social projects. In the first round, fhe participants were chosen via random selection. An annual budget is provided to each jury in order to decide about what kind of project ideas to support. The overall budget for 15 Berlin districts funded by the Socially Integrative City programme and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) contains 15,000,000 euros.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. Not applicable.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. Not applicable.

    7. Was the building or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making process about its rehabilitation or conversion?
    8. The districts where the jury model is implemented are residential areas stressed with urban or social problems. To solve these problems and to let the residents participate in the decision-making about possible solutions, the neighbourhood management juries were established. The participants are selected via random selection or election and asked if they want to participate. In the first project year, every participant got an allowance of 20 euros per meeting session but today, residents participate voluntarily. The jury decides about which project or local initiative to realise within their quarter. Only some rules were given to jury members by the Berlin Senate for Urban Development.

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. The jury model itself is an attempt to improve territorial as well as social cohesion within several districts. Local people are invited to participate and to decide about the implementation of particular projects within their quarter. The jury model is successful because the members support each other and the municipality held back with interferences. Each meeting helps to improve the self-esteem of the jury members and in the end the self-organisation works because people got the feeling to be useful and valued.

    11. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns achieved reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    12. After the reunification Berlin is affected by social, urban and demographical changes. While some districts have become more attractive to residents others lost their attractiveness and people moved away. The Neighbourhood Management Approach, established by the Berlin Senate in 1999, was invented to stabilise districts which were mostly affected by the loss of population and other social problems. On this occasion neighbourhood management teams were established and various projects were implemented to improve the quality of the selected districts and to stop unfavourable developments.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. Within the neighbourhood jury model over 600 projects were realised and the participants were highly motivated. An evaluation of the project is available on http://edoc.difu.de/edoc.php?id=ZIX34HC9

    IV. SUPPLEMENT

    Web site: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/wohnen/quartiersmanagement/download/QM_quartiersfonds.pdf, http://www.aeidl.eu/en/projects/urban-development/participative-neighbourhood-management-in-berlin.html