Heikonaut

I. IDENTIFICATION
  • Investor (key institution): European Regional Development Fund (EFRE)
  • Contact person: Axel Watzke, xl@anschlaege.de
  • Year of implementation: 2006
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Germany
  • Region: Berlin
  • Town: Berlin-Lichtenberg
  • Size of area: 4 m2
  • Impact: local

    Total costs: EUR

    Source per every institution

    • EU fonds: Information not found EUR
    • other: Information not found EUR

    Important stakeholders concerned

    • EU fonds: Company Anschlaege.de; Small and medium sized entrepreneurs from the cultural sector; Local residents
    • other: Company Anschlaege.de; Small and medium sized entrepreneurs from the cultural sector; Local residents
    II. TYPOLOGY
    1. Improved support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats.
    2. Identified new functions for structures from the era of socialism in 1945 - 1989).
    III. DESCRIPTION
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. The project was initiated by Anschlaege.de, a company for integral communication and design. The district administration of Lichtenberg agreed to develop a project for entrepreneurs from the so called creative industries. The district administration of Lichtenberg helped to find an adequate building, so that the project is now located within a former kindergarten. The whole building was renovated by the entrepreneurs themselves. The constructional material was sponsored by the housing association HoWoGe, while the district administration helped to acquire financial support from the ERDF

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. No. The building of the Heikonaut project was constructed as a kindergarten in the 1960s near by a large residential area that was established under the GDR regime. It was not identified as a valuable socialist heritage, but it was also not intended to demolish the building. Instead of demolition, the building was vacant and the municipality was not able to invest in its renovation until the company Anschlaege.de decided to transform it into a start-up centre.

    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. No. After the reunification a lot of public buildings, e.g. kindergartens, schools, administration buildings, were not needed anymore and if the municipality was not able to renovate them or to return the buildings to use, they were demolished or sold.

    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 Heikonaut project did not intend to improve the territorial cohesion but the project improved the social cohesion between small and medium sized entrepreneurs from the cultural sector. The entrepreneurs who use the building as a start-up centre created their own social and economic infrastructure to run their business.

    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. No.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. Project is referred as null-euro-project due to the fact that it is also affordable for smaller municipalities (see http://www.null-euro-urbanismus.de/?p=244).

    IV. SUPPLEMENT

    Web site: www.heikonaut.de