Whoever Evicts the Hugohaus Is Sending Young People Back onto the Street

On Tuesday, September 1, a former hostel on Gürtelstraße in Berlin’s Friedrichshain district could be cleared. It has been home to 10 to 20 young punks for the past two years. For many of them, the Hugohaus is the only home they have. An investor from Vienna wants to develop the property. The Green-led district office of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg has so far made no public statement on the case.

The former Georghof hostel at Gürtelstraße 39 to 41 exemplifies a familiar Berlin pattern. First, refugees from Oranienplatz were housed there. Then the building stood empty for years. It fell into disrepair and increasingly filled up with rubbish. About two years ago, young people who urgently needed a place to live finally moved in. Street punks settled into the upper floors and gave the building its name: Hugohaus.

As the taz newspaper reported after visiting the residents, this is by no means a derelict, chaotic squat. According to their own account, the residents have removed large amounts of rubbish, repaired damage, and made the building habitable again. They see themselves as a community. One of the residents says he previously lived on the street for eight years. In the Hugohaus, he found a home again for the first time. Over the past two years, there have also been no conflicts with the police. A banner hangs from the facade with the demand: “Housing for all.”

Now the community is facing eviction. A company from Leipzig, which says it is acting on behalf of a development firm from Vienna founded only about a year ago, apparently wants to build on the property. Its website mentions new construction, work on the existing building, and an underground car park. Press inquiries have so far gone unanswered. Instead, the residents received visits from company employees and a note setting a deadline of just five days, which expired on August 31. According to the taz report, there was no court eviction order at that time.

This raises fundamental legal questions. People who have lived in a building for two years cannot be put out on the street within a few days solely on the basis of a demand from a company. In Germany, forced evictions are subject to due process and the rule of law. If an eviction does take place on Tuesday, it must therefore be clarified on what legal basis it is carried out and who has verified that basis.

The People Who Fall Out of the Housing Market

Rising rents and the strained Berlin housing market are now widely discussed. Far less attention is paid to those who no longer have any access to the regular housing market at all. And hardly anyone talks about homeless teenagers and young adults.

Yet their situation is closely tied to the general housing crisis. Anyone who ages out of the youth welfare system at 18, for example, and can show neither family support nor a guarantor, a sufficient credit history, or the money for several months’ rent as a deposit, has virtually no chance on the Berlin housing market. The existing support services are often geared more towards older homeless people. Emergency shelters are not always suitable for young people. Even within alternative housing projects, according to the residents, street punks struggle to find a place.

That often leaves only a few options. One of them is the street. Another is to occupy a vacant building and make it habitable again.

That is exactly what happened at the Hugohaus. The residents pulled themselves out of a situation in which they had no fixed place to live. In doing so, they took on a task for which politicians and public authorities have been announcing programs and strategies for years. Without public funding, without an official pilot project, and without political stagecraft, they created a home for themselves.

An eviction would reverse all of that. One of the residents told the taz, in essence, that they would end up back on the street until they found a new place.

This is why the case is about more than the use of a single building. An eviction would cost 10 to 20 young people the place where they currently live. Set against that is a planned construction project about which little concrete information is publicly known. At the same time, there is a risk that the building will simply stand empty again after they leave. The residents even fear that without their presence, the house would once more fall into neglect and be damaged.

What the District Office Could Do

Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg has been governed by the Greens for years. The district stands for a politics that repeatedly emphasizes social housing policy, neighborhood protection, and the vision of a city for everyone. How it handles the Hugohaus will therefore also be a test of how seriously these claims are meant.

The district office bears responsibility on several levels.

First, there is the question of the years of vacancy. The building stood unused for a long time and deteriorated. In Berlin, housing, and in some cases other buildings, falls under the law against the misappropriation of housing (Zweckentfremdungsverbot). The responsible district authorities have powers to act here. So it is fair to ask why, during the long period of vacancy, apparently no stronger action was taken. Anyone who tolerates years of vacancy must also accept the question of what part that inaction played in the later occupation.

Second, there is the social responsibility towards the residents. If an eviction leaves people without shelter, new homelessness must be prevented. With young people in particular, there is the additional question of what support the youth welfare system is required to provide.

Finally, the district also has political options. It could mediate between the owners, the residents, and social service providers. One possible path would be a temporary toleration agreement or a contractually regulated interim use, for as long as a concrete construction project cannot yet be carried out.

Berlin has seen examples of conflicts over occupied buildings, or buildings affected by homelessness, being resolved politically and through negotiation. The experience of Habersaathstraße in the Mitte district shows that such an approach is at least fundamentally possible.

Why should a round table not be set up in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg as well? The owner, the residents, the district, and social service providers could look for a solution together. If a construction project is still waiting for permits and further planning steps anyway, the question arises why the building already has to be completely cleared now.

So far, little has been heard publicly from the district office on this specific case. That should change before facts are created on the ground.

The Case Lands in the Middle of the Election Campaign

According to the taz, the residents of the Hugohaus are hoping that politicians will engage with their situation during the election campaign. After all, Berlin is on the verge of electing a new state parliament.

The eviction could take place on September 1. Just four days later, on September 5, the Berlin tenants’ movement plans to demonstrate at 1 p.m. in front of the Rotes Rathaus, Berlin’s city hall, under the slogan “Runter mit der Miete! Her mit den Wohnungen!” (“Down with the rent! Give us the housing!”). On September 20, Berlin will elect a new House of Representatives.

If images emerge in the coming days of young people standing on the street with their mattresses and belongings, while election posters everywhere promise affordable housing, the political impact is likely to be considerable. They would be images that make visible the contradiction between political promises and concrete reality.

The residents of the Hugohaus need support now. Anyone who wants to show solidarity should follow the residents’ public channels and watch for short-notice announcements of actions. And on September 5, the demonstration will take place in front of the Rotes Rathaus.

Because those who have long since lost their place on the regular housing market are part of this city too.