Re-Location: Urban and architectural analysis of resettlement practices in the brown coal mining area of Welzow-Süd in East Germany

. Since the beginning of the 20 th century, more than 370 villages with a total amount of about 120,000 inhabitants have been relocated in Germany due to open-pit lignite mining. The devastation of villages and resettlement of their inhabitants had and still have massive implications on the rural landscape and settlement structure of the region. The planning of the relocations reflects, to a great extent, social, economic, and political change in post-war Germany, as well as development in town planning and architectural concepts. The paper focuses on the resettlements that took place due to the surface mine of Welzow-Süd (Lusatia, southern Brandenburg), where the development of the resettlement practices of the GDR since the late 1960s and after reunification up until today can be studied in one single open-pit mine. dissertation research, explores relocation strategies in surface coal mining areas of with a focus on architecture and planning history in the A comparison of the resettlement policies in the GDR and fundamentally and the decades, put the dissertation. Through the analysis of case studies of selected villages (or open-pit mining areas), relocation concepts and influence of the respective political, economic, and social conditions will be examined and a typology of relocation strategies will be developed.


Introduction
Since the beginning of the 20 th century, more than 370 villages with a total amount of about 120,000 inhabitants have been relocated in Germany due to open-pit lignite mining. The planning of the relocations reflects, to a great extent, social, economic, and political change in post-war Germany, as well as development in town planning and architectural concepts.

Research topic
In this paper, I argue that in the socialist-centralized system of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) the dissolution of rural communities and group relocations corresponding to the political agenda and modern visions of the time were common, while in the democratic system of West Germany collective resettlements were already implemented in the 1950s. In the years following reunification, the resettlement practices in the Rhineland acted as a prototype for those in Lusatia. By the mid-1990s, across Germany, collective resettlements were undertaken. This paper focuses on the resettlements as a result of the operations of the opencast mine of Welzow-Süd (Lusatia, southern Brandenburg), which witnessed the development of the resettlement practices from the GDR period from the late 1960s and after reunification up to today. The villages will be briefly described, and the implications of the devastation of these villages and the resettlement of their inhabitants on the rural landscape and settlement structure of the region will be discussed 2 .

Current state of research
Important references on the lignite-induced devastation of villages in Lusatia include those of Frank Förster and the Archiv verschwundener Orte (AvO, Archive of vanished villages) in Forst-Horno [1,2]. The first comprehensive publication on lignite-induced resettlement in all of Germany was released by the Academy for Spatial Research and Planning [3].
Studies of the planning history of lignite-induced resettlements primarily deal with resettlements in the Rhineland. Comparisons of resettlement concepts across Germany sometimes neglect the GDR resettlements -by either not going into detail or skipping those decades completely 3 .
A comprehensive, scientifically compiled study on the resettlement practices in the GDR that goes beyond a few lines or references in a footnote, does not exist. This most interesting and fascinating omission needs to be addressed and will be tackled in my research which aims to identify and elaborate the different resettlement concepts that were applied in the GDR over the decades and to describe the development of the GDR resettlement policy.

Research questions
The following key questions define the research area: -How did the respective political, economic and social circumstances influence resettlement planning? -When can the turnaround in the GDR planning be observed? What impacts are associated with it? What happened after reunification?

Procedure and methods
Research data was collected through the search of archival sources and the study of secondary literature.

Context: resettlement and lignite mining Forced migration and forced displacement
Forced migration is a current and relevant topic worldwide. Forced displacement includes demographic movements such as flight, evacuation, displacement, and resettlement, which have diverse causes including: [4] conflict-induced displacement: armed conflicts, (civil) war, generalized violence, and persecution on the grounds of nationality, race, religion, political opinion or social group. -disaster-induced displacement: natural disasters (e.g. floods, earthquakes), environmental change (global warming: e.g. sea-level rise, desertification) and human-made disasters (industrial accidents, radioactivity) -development-induced displacement: caused by mining actions and large-scale infrastructure projects like dams, roads, airports or military training grounds In the GDR, in addition to the resettlements that took place due to the mining of lignite (in Lusatia and Central Germany) and uranium (in Wismut), resettlements were undertaken due to collectivization of agriculture and the establishment of agricultural production cooperatives 4 . Other forced displacements in the GDR were caused by the construction of the inner German border 5 . The focus of this paper, however, is on the resettlements caused by open-cast lignite mining in Lusatia.

Relocation concepts
Generally, one can distinguish four basic concepts of relocation practices that have been applied in the lignite mining areas of Germany: [5: 48, 6: 63, 7: 28, 8: 440] single relocation: single resettlers/families receive financial compensation payments to build or buy a new residence of their choice group relocation: integration of groups of resettlers in several villages or cities collective relocation: the affected population is collectively resettled in a new location; a new village develops consolidating relocation: inhabitants of numerous villages are resettled collectively in a new or existing village. 4 On the agricultural production cooperatives (LPGs -Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften) see MODSCAPES Case Study "German Democratic Republic" by Friedrich Kuhlmann, Vittoria Capresi, and Christoph Muth at EMU and TU Berlin (http://casestudies/germany/). 5 Along the border, authorities organized the resettlement of about 10,000 East German civilians in programs with codenames like "Operation Vermin" (Aktion Ungeziefer) in 1952. In the GDR, until the mid-1980s it was common to resettle displaced inhabitants via single and group relocations into new Plattenbau housing on the outskirts of cities, e.g. in the new development areas of Cottbus, Senftenberg, or Hoyerswerda. This was called Kohleersatzwohnungsbau, which literally means "the construction of coal substitution housing". Single and group resettlements appeared to be more costefficient than collective relocations to new villages. For many displaced persons, who had mainly lived in rural areas before, life in new urban areas did not comply with their accustomed lifestyles. Dissatisfaction grew and many resettlers disliked the applied relocation schemes. Starting in the mid-1980s, regulations that facilitated the resettlement of displaced persons into detached prefabricated houses were put into place 6 .
In the West German Rhineland, by contrast, the concept of collective relocation was used since the 1950s. Back then new villages were developed which were regarded as being exemplary, and whose model architecture and car-friendly urban framework corresponded to the modern visions of the time [5: 45, 8: 440].
In the first few years following reunification, the resettlement practices in the Rhineland acted as a prototype for those in Lusatia. Today, the concept of public participation, which includes the resettlers in every step of the planning process, is a central element of the collective, "socially responsible" relocations both in West and East Germany.

Open-pit lignite mining in Lusatia and the GDR
The industrial mining of brown coal in Lusatia started in the middle of the 19 th century. In the beginning of the 20 th century, the first large excavators were developed, and open-cast mining took on a new dimension. Huge areas were being stripped. Consequently, at first forests, agricultural land and single houses, and later, whole villages were devastated to access the lignite lying below. In 1924, Laubusch was the first village in Lusatia to be completely razed by open-cast mining (125 resettlers).
After World War II, in the GDR, the nationalization of the brown coal industry and increased energy demand brought on by industrial growth led to the expansion of lignite open-cast mines in the 1950s and an increase in devastation and forced displacement 6  [3: 1, 5: 19, 6: 65, 12: 89-91]. In the GDR, for the production of energy, brown coal was almost exclusively being used. Therefore, huge quantities of lignite were extracted. The district of Cottbus became the "centre of coal and energy for the GDR" [5: 262-263, 8: 439].
By the 1970s, about 20% of the district's area was designated as mining reserve (Bergbauschutzgebiet). That meant not only that this area was determined to be used for mining purposes, but also that no more money was invested in infrastructure, and the construction of new buildings was no longer allowed [3: 53, 9: 262]. During GDRtimes alone, 71 villages and 30 neighbourhoods in Lusatia vanished from the map, and over 22,000 people were relocated. At this point, it should be noted, that this number is the official information in the records and should be viewed as a minimum number, as is does not account for resettlers who left villages before the official resettlement programme [1: 22]. The same is true for most of the figures given below, which have yet to be verified from archival sources.

Devastated villages during GDR times
Starting in the south-east of Welzow, the mine first moved toward the northeast, then in a counter-clockwise circular motion. The first village devastated due to the Welzow-Süd mine was Gosda. In 1968/69, almost half of whose 130 inhabitants were moved to new apartment buildings in Spremberg (43%). The others were moved to Haidemühl (12%), Proschim (11%), and Welzow (2%), other towns in the county of Spremberg or Cottbus (16%), and another 16% moved further away or to unknown locations.
The largest relocation caused by the Welzow-Süd mine took place in 1972/73 in preparation of the devastation of Jessen. Most of the 650 inhabitants were relocated to the "Georgenberg" and "Römmlergelände" housing complexes in Spremberg. In 1975/76, the partial devastation of Pulsberg precipitated the relocation of 110 people (about a quarter of the village's inhabitants). Most of them were moved to the "Schomberg" and "Georgenberg" housing complexes in Spremberg.
The 209 inhabitants of Roitz and its Josephsbrunn neighbourhood were primarily relocated to the "Schomberg" housing complex in Spremberg (1977/78).
The devastation of Stradow triggered the resettlement of 320 people in 1983/84, mainly to the "Schomberg" housing complex in Spremberg. A few families were able to acquire detached houses in the city and county of Spremberg.
Another big relocation took place in 1984/85 for the destruction of the village of Groß Buckow. Most of the 547 registered resettlers were moved to the "Schomberg" housing complex in Spremberg.
The inhabitants of the villages of Radeweise (1986, 80 people), Straußdorf (1988, 90 people) and Klein Buckow (1987/88, 180 people) were largely resettled to the "Heinrichsfelder Allee" housing complex in Spremberg. (Data: [1], [2], SA SPB) As stated above, most of the resettlers were moved via single or group relocations to new housing complexes in the neighbouring city of Spremberg (Georgenberg, Schomberg, Heinrichsfelder Allee). Only a few families were able to buy or build a detached house, which constituted a difficult undertaking. Former homeowners, who did not want to move into an apartment building, received a compensatory payment for their house, but the size of the payment often proved insufficient for the purchase or construction of a new house [1: 27].

Wolkenberg and Dollan -a resettlement at the "turning point"
The resettlement of the village of Wolkenberg (1991/92) and its Dollan neighbourhood (1988/89) poses a special case, since it took place at the time of political change known as Wende. The resettlements were planned during GDR times, but were carried out after reunification.
The council for the district of Cottbus (Rat des Bezirks Cottbus: Büro für Territorialplanung) and the county of Spremberg (Rat des Kreises Spremberg) were in charge of planning the resettlement. A so called Arbeitsgemeinschaft Umsiedlung (resettlement working group) had to solve all problems and fulfil all tasks concerning the resettlement 9 .
At a town hall meeting in 1982, the inhabitants of Wolkenberg were informed of the impending devastation and resettlement. In subsequent individual talks, each family was invited to express their desired relocation destination. Taking into account certain household characteristics (e.g. size of family, elderly people, young adults, engaged people, pregnant women) and the existing housing situation (e.g. home-owner, tenant), their needs for the new home were registered in housing requirement lists 10 . It can be seen that in many cases older people (especially widows) were moved to apartment buildings suitable for the elderly, and young adults, previously residing with their parents, were able to move into their own apartments. Some residents seem to have left the village before the official resettlement programme began, and at some point, their names vanished from the official lists. Engaged people, newlyweds and/or families expecting another child were given bigger apartments. One might assume that in the case of lignite-induced resettlements, it was easier to get one's own apartment as a young adult compared to people or young couples in other towns who just wanted to move out of their parents' home 11 . In 1984, three housing possibilities existed for the resettlers: flats in apartment buildings in new housing complexes, flats in two-story multi-family buildings, and prefabricated row-houses. In 1986 and 1987, new regulations were put into place that facilitated the resettlement of home owners into detached prefabricated houses 12 . The 9 The working group was comprised of the chairpersons of the district, county, and city councils, the mayor of Wolkenberg, representatives of the mining company and others. 10 These lists contained the old addresses, names, birthdates, jobs, and work addresses of the resettlers, as well as the apartment sizes that they were entitled to. It should be noted, that during the course of planning, some changes occurred due do birth, death, or marriage. This might be one of the reasons for the existence of differing figures in the literature. This should be taken into account in the examination of other resettlements. 11 SA SPB: Rat der Gemeinde Wolkenberg: Sig. 3532: "Vorbereitung und Durchführung der Ortsverlegung Wolkenberg" (1984-1990); and Sig. 3538: "Protokollbuch Gemeinderats-und Gemeindevertretersitzungen Wolkenberg" (1981-1990). 12 14]. About 80% of Wolkenberg's inhabitants were relocated to the city of Spremberg, the remaining 20% moved to surrounding villages and cities (Welzow, Cottbus).
Taking a closer look at the resettlements to Spremberg, it can be observed that half of the people moved into apartment buildings, and most of them moved into the new housing complexes of "Schomberg" (c.10%) and "Wiesenweg" (c.25%). The other half moved into new or existing detached or semi-detached houses. Almost a third moved to "Wolkenberger Weg", a street comprised of 20 prefabricated single-family-homes (LPC-Eigenheim mit Steildach type A, D, E or F) 13 .

Collective "socially responsible" resettlements after reunification
In the course of political change, German reunification and Western democracy opened up possibilities for civil resistance. Demonstrations and protests started by citizens' initiatives of to-be-resettled villages took place and resulted in the re-evaluation of all designated resettlement in Lusatia in the early 1990s. Some villages could be excluded from the mining plans; in some of them, the resettlement had already started or was even finished (e.g. Dubrau, Pritzen, and Klingmühl). In the area of Welzow-Süd all planned resettlements stayed on the agenda, except for Neupetershain, which would have caused the resettlement of over 1,600 people [9: 270]. A significant change in resettlement practises is observable. The first relocation planned and carried out completely after reunification was that of Kausche together with Klein Görigk in 1995/96, posing a model case. The so called "Kausche-Vertrag" (Kausche agreement), signed in 1993, marked a turn in resettlement practises and policy in East Germany. For the first time, a village in the area of Welzow-Süd was actually moved to a newly built neighbourhood as a whole. A collective "socially responsible" resettlement, based on the West German model and adapted to local requirements, was conducted. Since then, the so called "Lausitzer Weg" (Lusatian Way) strategy serves as an exemplar for relocations in Lusatia

Conclusion
Industrialization, lignite mining, the devastation of villages and the resettlement of their inhabitants had, and continue to have, massive implications on the rural landscape and the settlement structure of the region. Before the mining of lignite, small villages and hamlets scattered between grasslands, fields, and forests characterized the rural landscape in the area of Welzow-Süd. The industrialized extraction of lignite and the expansion of the mine completely changed the area's settlement structure [9: 259].
During GDR times, the territorial concentration of the population in cities and rural centres was spurred on by the political goals of modernization and urbanization by means of internal migration. It suited the urban-oriented redistribution strategies of the socialist system, whose economic and social policies aimed for a further development of the "advanced socialist society by constantly improving the material and cultural living standard of the people" [15: 109-110]. In both East and West Germany, authorities and planners considered resettlements as an opportunity to improve living conditions and infrastructure as well as to reorganize the settlement and territorial structure [5: 21 and 265-266, 12: 93].
As shown above, in the GDR it was common to resettle displaced inhabitants via single and group relocations into new Plattenbau housing on the outskirts of cities. Starting in the mid-1980s, regulations that facilitated the resettlement of displaced persons into detached prefabricated houses were put into place. In the years following reunification, the resettlement practices in the Rhineland acted as a prototype for those in Lusatia. Since then, both in West and East Germany collective, "socially responsible" relocations are being conducted.