For decades, Leipzig was regarded as a symbol of the failure of the transformation - with its depopulated center, dilapidated tenements and industry in disarray. But it was out of this urban emptiness that one of the most original stories of reconstruction in modern Europe was born. Instead of racing for height and prestige, Leipzig has relied on greenery, flexibility and resident involvement.
At first glance, Leipzig could be considered a model example of a Central European city. Established at the crossroads of trade routes, it developed according to the rhythm set by the history of many other urban centers on the continent. Founded in the 12th century by Margrave Otto the Rich, it quickly gained market privileges and the status of a place where trade took real shape - first locally, then across the Reich.
One of Germany's oldest universities was founded here in 1409, and in the 19th century Leipzig flourished as a publishing powerhouse, a center of musical life and an important railroad junction. One of the greatest battles of the Napoleonic era - the Battle of the Nations of 1813 - was also fought near it. It would seem to be a city that had everything to follow the classic path of European metropolises: with a rich past, a stable present and a promising future.
But the story turned out differently.
After World War II, Leipzig found itself within the borders of the GDR. Although it remained an important industrial center and the second largest city in the country, it was already beginning to struggle with the first signs of urban and demographic burnout. It was here, in the fall of 1989, that the Monday demonstrations (Montagsdemonstrationen) began - protests that gave impetus to the collapse of the communist system in East Germany. After 1989, when the communist regime collapsed, a period of rapid decline began. From the 1960s onward, Leipzig faced a mass exodus of residents, industrial decline and an increasing number of vacant buildings - even in the heart of the city. The city was depopulating at an alarming rate, factories were closing, and entire quarters of tenement buildings were shining empty. Leipzig - once vibrant with life - began to resemble an abandoned, lost, forgotten space.
Leipzig in the 19th Century - The City's Main Buildings in an 1840 Lithograph - A historical lithograph showing Leipzig's most important buildings circa 1840, including the churches of St. Nicholas and St. Thomas, Pleissenburg Castle and university buildings. The image depicts the city's former urban identity and its prestigious public edifices.
Von Deutsche Fotothek | © CC BY-SA 3.0 DE
Yet this is not the end of the story. This is just the beginning of the stage that brought the city's toughest test - a dramatic population decline, economic decay and urban emptiness that was not dealt with for decades.
Industrial collapse, urban hole
In the 1960s, Leipzig had a population of about 700,000 residents. But over time, the economy based on heavy industry began to crumble, and after the collapse of the GDR, hundreds of plants closed overnight. By the mid-1990s, more than 80% of those employed in industry had lost their jobs. Young and educated residents moved to the western states. By 1998, Leipzig's population had fallen by almost 40% - to 437,000. It was mainly the young who fled Leipzig. The elderly stayed, and the birth rate was also falling. In 2010, the number of deaths exceeded the number of births by almost 400 people a year.
The situation was exacerbated by a wave of suburbanization in the 1990s - state programs promoting the construction of houses in the suburbs led to a mass exodus from the center. Thus, the outflow of population occurred in two ways: on the one hand, emigration to richer regions (after the opening of borders, many people took the opportunity to leave for a better life), and on the other - under the city.
As a result, in 2000 as many as 60,000 apartments stood empty. The city looked like Swiss cheese - with holes in buildings and infrastructure that had no one to maintain. The phenomenon was given the term "perforated city," which was coined to convey the scale of the process.
Reichsstraße in Leipzig in 1952 - view of Deutrichs Hof and Riquethaus - The photograph shows the buildings on Reichsstraße in the center of Leipzig in the postwar period. Visible in the central part of the frame are the Deutrichs Hof - a 15th/16th century building, demolished in 1968 - and the distinctive Riquethaus with its corner turret and oriental detailing. The photo shows the state of the urban space after World War II and before the modernization of the downtown area during the GDR era.
Deutsche Fotothek | © CC BY-SA 3.0 DE
Meanwhile, Leipzig, like other ex-NRD cities, had to contend with the legacy of the communist system. During the GDR period, many residential buildings were underinvested, so as a result, their condition left much to be desired. As a result, by the late 1980s much of Leipzig's old housing stock was already in a poor state of repair. Although rents were administratively kept very low, protecting tenants, but on the other hand this prevented owners from investing in renovations. In addition, as pointed out in a study on the barriers to Leipzig's revitalization after German reunification, the authorities did not have effective tools to adapt vacant buildings for reuse or to take them over, which significantly hampered broader revitalization efforts. The city had no effective legal or financial tools to take over or upgrade these crumbling vacant buildings. In practice, this led to the continued deterioration of many buildings.
In Leipzig? Living solo
As depopulation and the industrial crisis continued, the structure of households in Leipzig was also changing. On the one hand, their number was decreasing, while on the other hand, the number of single-person ones was increasing. While extended families once dominated, often associated with work in large industrial plants, in the 21st century more and more people lived alone. Statistics show that the percentage of Leipzig residents living alone has been increasing year after year. This trend, however, can be explained by broader cultural changes, such as the rise in popularity of living alone observed throughout Germany since the 1970s.
It is worth mentioning here that in the case of Leipzig, local conditions also played a role. Among single-person households, there were particularly many low-income people, often on welfare. This was not only a side effect of government programs, but also a consequence of the failure to adjust local cost-of-living (KdU) thresholds to the realities of the housing market³. In practice, this translated into many people - especially the elderly, the lonely or those with disabilities - being forced to live in small, low-cost units, often in buildings in urgent need of renovation. Leipzig, for years regarded as a city of low-cost housing, was slowly losing this status, and mismatched social policies only exacerbated problems in the rental market. As a result, not only was the number of single-person households increasing, but the phenomenon of social and economic isolation was worsening.
This transformation was particularly evident after 2005, when the labor market was reorganized in Germany. The Hartz reforms, introduced in stages between 2003 and 2005 as part of Agenda 2010 initiated by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, were intended to change the face of the German labor market and social security system. Their main goal was to increase labor force participation and reduce welfare costs. In practice, this meant not only a stronger link between benefits and the obligation to work, but also simplification and standardization of forms of support - through the introduction of a program known more widely as Hartz IV.
One of the most controversial changes was the obligation to accept a job - even if it did not match qualifications, experience or salary levels. In addition, the period during which the unemployed could receive higher benefits(Arbeitslosengeld I) was shortened, after which they were placed on the less favorable ALG II. For many, this meant accepting unstable, low-paid jobs - such as so-called Minijobs - which contributed to the growth of the precariat [1].
Leipzig, which was still experiencing a decline in population in the 1990s, began attracting a new wave of newcomers after the reforms were introduced. Relatively low rents and the availability of housing caused young people, artists and labor migrants to settle here. In the long run, this had an impact not only on the social structure, but also on the development of phenomena such as the gentrification of certain neighborhoods [2]. At the same time, pressure increased on the housing market, which - despite vacancy rates - was unprepared for the growing demand for substandard housing.
Reconstruction - imaginative, but with limitations
In the background of these struggles was the slow process of rebuilding the urban fabric after decades of neglect. After German reunification, Leipzig inherited a huge stock of tenement buildings in a terrible state of repair. Local governments did not have the tools to buy them out or comprehensively renovate them.
Leipzig, however, tried to respond. Rather than betting everything on large, prestigious investments, it relied on less obvious moves. One of these was heritage preservation. A number of instruments were introduced to improve the quality of buildings and housing conditions. The ability to impose modernization and repair in neglected buildings was used, and urban renewal concepts were developed to protect the social cohesion of neighborhoods and control building development [3]. At the same time, programs were launched to support tenants - including in adapting housing to the needs of the elderly and people with disabilities.
Housing problems in Leipzig: degraded historic buildings and large-panel housing developments - Left: turn-of-the-century townhouses in eastern Leipzig in a state of advanced degradation. Right: a large-panel block of flats in the outlying Grünau neighborhood. Both examples illustrate the varied housing challenges after German reunification.
Plöger, J. | © 2007
Tenements from the Gründerzeit [4], or 19th-century building boom, began to be renovated instead of torn down. An example? The former Spinnerei spinning mill, once one of the largest industrial plants in the region and a symbol of Leipzig's industrial heritage, has been transformed into a vibrant art center.
Of course, it also faced serious restrictions. Sometimes the preservation regime blocked the redevelopment of sites, even though these urgently required it. Also, legal regulations often did not provide effective tools to enforce the elimination of specific defects in new developments, and residents often had to fight for their rights in court on their own [5]. On top of this, there were financial barriers: the local government's tasks grew faster than its ability to implement them. The city was struggling with a limited budget, and investments in infrastructure and housing were not keeping up with the needs⁵. An additional problem was instability on the part of contractors - bankruptcies of developers delayed the commissioning of new buildings. This had a bruise not only on housing, but also on public confidence in investment processes.
At the same time, however, Leipzig also moved forward with projects to demolish vacant buildings and turn them into... green spaces. In practice, this meant the systematic removal from Leipzig's landscape of abandoned, dilapidated buildings that had not lived to see renovation or new functions for years. The city authorities decided on radical, concrete measures: in one decade alone, some 14,000 apartments in degraded buildings that were unfit for further use and were not finding new tenants were demolished.
The liquidation of vacant buildings in Leipzig was not just an attempt to halt decay - it was a decision to symbolically and physically cut the spiral of neglect. It was no longer just about removing the traces of depopulation, but about reclaiming spaces that had been stuck in limbo for years - between history and oblivion. Particularly looked at buildings along the city's main arteries, where ruin was most conspicuous and at odds with the image of a city trying to revive itself. More than two and a half thousand such buildings disappeared from the map - some were demolished, others underwent extensive revitalization.
Greenery was not an addition, but the answer. Cleared plots of land were not left empty - squares, parks and community gardens were created in their place.
Green Leipzig
An example of such a successful transformation is Lene-Voigt-Park in the Reudnitz-Thonberg district, which was built on the site of the former Eilenburger Bahnhof station. The station operated until 1942, and after its closure it fell into oblivion for decades. Between 2000 and 2004, it was transformed into a modern 10.5-acre city park, which was officially opened in 2004 [6].
Today it's one of the locals' favorite recreation spots - with playgrounds, sports fields and a small "fairy forest" for children. The revitalization of the area was part of a broader urban development effort, and was aimed at making the neighborhood more attractive and creating communal spaces that foster neighborhood ties.
Leipzig, however, has more such places. Rabet, a park located in the heart of the eastern part of the city, was created on a devastated site after demolitions near Eisenbahnstraße. Since the 1990s it had been a place with a bad reputation - a symbol of neglect and social problems. The revitalization of this space and its transformation into a neighborhood park was not only physical, but also symbolic - as an attempt to restore this part of the city to its residents [8].
Another example is Grüner Bogen Paunsdorf, a greenbelt in a neighborhood that for decades served as Leipzig's industrial hinterland. Although it was not built directly on the demolished area, it is an important complementary element. The project has given Paunsdorf a new identity - not only as a residential area, but also as a space for activity and relaxation [9].
Also of particular importance in Leipzig were the so-called interimnutzungen - the temporary development of degraded areas even before their final arrangement. Such solutions allowed empty plots to be quickly transformed into communal spaces: community gardens, playgrounds, temporary playgrounds. Some of them were transformed into permanent parks over time, while others disappeared, leaving behind traces of urban activity [10].
Also noteworthy is the Parkbogen Ost project, a green "active belt" designed to connect already existing recreational areas and complement them with new spaces for pedestrians and cyclists. Although it was not built on a post-demolition site, it fits into Leipzig's broader philosophy as a city responding to shrinkage by creating green infrastructure. It's an idea for reclaiming the continuity of space in a place previously dominated by urban chaos and traffic exclusion [11].
Strong PR, good quality
These measures were part of a broader plan to transform eastern German cities. In 2002, Leipzig, along with other centers in the region, joined the Stadtumbau Ost program - the reconstruction of cities in the former GDR. The premise of the program was to adapt the urban infrastructure to real demographic conditions. By systematically demolishing housing that was no longer in demand, the intention was to stabilize local real estate markets and counteract further deterioration of living conditions [12]. At the same time, great importance was attached to raising the quality of urban spaces, including the restoration of historic and culturally valuable buildings and improving infrastructure³. The last pillar of the program was the strengthening of city centers, which were to regain their residential and economic functions to once again attract people and investment [13].
Leipzig actively participated in the implementation of these goals, integrating them into its strategies within the framework of the so-called Integrated City Development Concept (SEKo - integriertes Stadtentwicklungskonzept). Thanks to it, it was possible to identify areas in need of intervention and support projects aimed at the reconstruction of downtowns and post-industrial districts [14].
Cooperation with residents was also an important part of the whole process. The city supported grassroots initiatives such as Wächterhäuser - the so-called "guard houses" - in which individuals, groups or associations could temporarily use abandoned buildings on the condition that they provide basic maintenance and protect them from further deterioration.
View of Leipzig and the Monument to the Battle of the Nations
At the same time, the Selbstnutzer program operated, supporting residents wishing to buy and renovate properties for their own use. Leipzig authorities at the time offered preferential purchase terms, as well as technical and urban planning advice to facilitate the conversion of empty buildings into permanent, inhabitable urban structures. This initiative had not only an economic dimension, but also a social one - it assumed the activation of local communities and the restoration of neighborly relations through the real rooting of residents in specific places.
At the same time, Leipzig was attracting big investors. BMW, Porsche, DHL, Amazon and Siemens, among others, opened their plants in the city However, these investments were often located on the outskirts, outside the areas with the greatest housing crisis.
Leipzig's image
Toward the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Leipzig began to increasingly project itself as a young, creative and green city. This was a change not only spatially, but also symbolically - an attempt to disenchant the image of a city tired of transformation, with vacant lots and unemployed people, in favor of an image of a place full of opportunities. To this end, the city authorities initiated the "Leipzig kommt" campaign, which, although not formally part of the Stadtumbau Ost program, became its natural complement. The goal was not only to attract investors and new residents, but also to build pride in a place that had been considered a loser for years [15].
The campaign relied on highlighting Leipzig's strengths: its growing cultural scene, relatively low cost of living, availability of housing, growing number of start-ups and diverse architectural heritage. The city showed itself as an alternative to overcrowded Berlin - a place where one can live more cheaply, work remotely, create and live close to parks.
In Leipzig May
This was convincing, but, as urban planner Daniel Florentin noted, also partly illusory. In his critique, he described the message as "Schleier der Maya" - a veil that obscures the city's real, structural problems and limited opportunities for lasting improvement[16]. For while the center and selected neighborhoods have indeed come alive, not all parts of the city have followed this trend. While areas such as Schleußig attracted investment and new residents, the big-box neighborhoods - especially in Grünau or Mockau - continued to struggle with population outflow, vacancy and social problems. These were spaces that were already considered "difficult" in the 1990s, and their mono-functional buildings and peripheral location further hampered the revitalization process.
There were various initiatives to improve the situation in these areas. Some buildings in Grünau were demolished to reduce the oversupply of housing and stabilize the market. At the same time, projects were carried out to modernize infrastructure and common spaces to improve the quality of life in neighborhoods that for years had been treated as secondary[17]. However, even where positive changes were occurring, a gap persisted between different parts of the city - both in terms of investment and residents' social prospects.
one can assess
Leipzig's renewal process was thus - and remains - uneven. Investment policy often favored those neighborhoods that had greater market potential or a more attractive location. Less "profitable" areas received less support, and change progressed much more slowly there. Thus, the city developed in a two-speed rhythm - with a dynamic, aestheticized center and a still lagging periphery.
Despite these tensions, Leipzig remains one of the most interesting examples of urban transformation from the genre of shrinking cities. It shows that even in the context of depopulation and economic crisis, it is possible to experiment, act flexibly and create new planning models. But it also shows that no strategy - even the most well-thought-out one - will solve all the problems at once. Especially in a city that for decades has had to fight not only for its buildings, but also for its own identity.
Magdalena Milert
[1] See "Hartz IV - Reform einer umstrittenen politischen Maßnahme," Wirtschaftsdienst, 2019, No. 4, accessed December 13, 2019, https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2019/heft/4/beitrag/hartz-iv-reform-einer-umstrittenen-politischen-massnahme.html (as of April 13, 2025).
[2] See "Leipzig ist Single-Hauptstadt - immer mehr Menschen sind einsam," LVZ, accessed at: https://www.lvz.de/lokales/leipzig/leipzig-ist-single-haupstadt-immer-mehr-menschen-sind-einsam-JZNZXYVUDRHQXNJA7X3QXV5KZY.html (on 13.04.2025).
[3] See "Stadterneuerung in Leipzig," Leipzig City Hall, accessed at: https://www.leipzig.de/bauen-und-wohnen/stadterneuerung-in-leipzig (as of 13.04.2025).
[4] The Gründerzeit is a period of intensive industrial and urban development in Germany falling between 1871 and 1914, i.e. from German unification until the outbreak of World War I. The term, literally meaning "founding time," also refers to the architectural style - richly decorated townhouses with high ceilings and large windows, characteristic of bourgeois housing of the late 19th century. In Leipzig, many such buildings have survived and become the subject of revitalization.
[5] See "Mieter-Neubau-Baustelle: Mängel, Ärger, Insolvenz," MDR Sachsen, accessed at: https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen/leipzig/mieter-neubau-baustelle-maengel-aerger-insolvenz-100.html (as of 13.04.2025).
[6] See Lene-Voigt-Park, Bildlexikon Leipzig, accessed at: https://bildlexikon-leipzig.de/leipziger-parks/lene-voigt-park/ (as of 13.04.2025).
[8] See Rabet Park, Urbanite Leipzig, accessed at: https://www.urbanite.net/leipzig/artikel/uebersicht-parks/ (as of 13.04.2025).
[9] See Grüner Bogen Paunsdorf, Leipzig.de, accessed at: https://www.leipzig.de/freizeit-kultur-und-tourismus/parks-waelder-und-friedhoefe/parks-und-gruenanlagen (as of: 13.04.2025).
[10] See Interimnutzung in Leipzig, Urban Gardening, accessed at: https://www.oekoloewe.de/nachhaltige-mobilitaet-stadtentwicklung-detail/der-parkbogen-ost-ein-gruenes-aktivband-fuer-leipzig.html?page_n163=5 (as of 13.04.2025).
[11] See Der Parkbogen Ost, Oekoloewe, accessed at: https://www.oekoloewe.de/nachhaltige-mobilitaet-stadtentwicklung-detail/der-parkbogen-ost-ein-gruenes-aktivband-fuer-leipzig.html?page_n163=5 (as of 13.04.2025).
[12] See Statusbericht Stadtumbau, Leibniz-IRS, accessed at: https://leibniz-irs.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pure_files/385337/Statusbericht5.pdf (as of 13.04.2025).
[13] See Suburbs Leipzig Report, York University, accessed at: https://suburbs.info.yorku.ca/files/2019/09/42COD-3636915-2011-Leipzig-Report_PROOF.pdf?x44769 (as of 13.04.2025).
[14] See Programm Stadtumbau Ost, Leipzig City Council, accessed at: https://www.leipzig.de/bauen-und-wohnen/stadterneuerung-in-leipzig/foerderprogramme/programm-stadtumbau-ost (as of: 13.04.2025).
[15] See Daniel Florentin: Leipzig und die Schrumpfungspolitik, UFZ Leipzig, accessed at: https://www.ufz.de/export/data/global/258316_DP_2021_6_Rink.pdf (as of 13.04.2025).
[16] described this strategy as the "veil of Mai" - referring to Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy and the Indian tradition, where the term symbolizes an illusion that obscures reality.
[17] See Programm Stadtumbau Ost, Leipzig City Hall, accessed at: https://www.leipzig.de/bauen-und-wohnen/stadterneuerung-in-leipzig/foerderprogramme/programm-stadtumbau-ost (as of 13.04.2025).
