SergeyPhoto7/Depositphotos.com
Houses along a street in Potsdam, near Berlin
Berlin’s commuter belt is attracting greater attention from residential investors, helped by lower entry prices, housing demand and frustration with regulation inside the capital. But crossing the city boundary does not by itself produce a sound investment. The municipalities that work are increasingly being treated as extensions of Berlin’s economy; farther out, each location must provide its own reasons for people to live there.
That was the more discriminating message to emerge from a lively webinar hosted by Jürgen Michael Schick, CEO of residential investment broker Schick Immobilien, with Katrin Zakrzewski of Deutsche Bank and Carsten Sellschopf of Bonava Germany. Representing brokerage, financing and development, the speakers were understandably positive about the market. Their evidence nevertheless pointed to something less uniform—and more useful to investors.
Schick described Berlin’s Speckgürtel as “long since a market with its own dynamics” rather than a fallback for those priced out of the city. Berlin’s political environment is one source of interest. Zakrzewski said rent regulation and continuing expropriation debates had prompted some investors with existing Berlin portfolios to look beyond the city; others are buying precisely because those concerns have helped bring prices down. The webinar offered no transaction data proving a wholesale outward shift, but it did reveal a more developed framework for deciding which surrounding locations merit capital.
Rail access is necessary, but not sufficient
Brandenburg’s regional planning follows a Siedlungsstern model—literally a “settlement star”—concentrating development along transport corridors radiating from Berlin. As Sellschopf explained, Bonava accordingly treats proximity to rail and other public transport as an important site-selection criterion. But connectivity alone does not create a viable location.
Schools, childcare, healthcare, shops and functioning municipal services determine whether everyday life works. Local authorities must also ensure that new development does not overwhelm infrastructure or create isolated dormitory settlements. “There has to be a good reason to want to live there,” Sellschopf said.
In the immediate commuter belt, that reason may be rapid access to Berlin combined with more space and a greener environment. Beyond it, a university, major employer, established Mittelstand base or strong regional centre becomes more important. Some places draw commuters in both directions: Oranienburg, Zakrzewski noted, has substantial employment of its own while remaining well connected to Berlin.
Deutsche Bank applies a similar hierarchy. It examines population forecasts, catchment size and the scale of planned development relative to the existing housing stock, alongside the property’s condition, reletting prospects and energy performance. Rental income must remain capable of servicing debt after the initial fixed-interest period; the bank does not size a long-term loan solely against today’s financing costs.
Zakrzewski described locations on the regional rail network as interesting to finance. Farther out, particularly in towns with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants, she was more cautious and would favour only strong central micro-locations. The city boundary is therefore not the bankability boundary.
Pricing reflects these distinctions. Schick cited Brandenburg market data putting existing detached houses in the immediate Berlin hinterland at around €3,900/sqm—approximately twice the level in the wider metropolitan region. The comparison concerns owner-occupied houses rather than institutional multifamily investments, but it demonstrates how thoroughly proximity to Berlin has already been priced. Travelling farther does not simply buy a higher return; it also buys thinner demand and greater location risk.
Berlin’s correction complicates the Umland case
The strongest challenge to the webinar’s outward-looking premise came from Zakrzewski herself. Berlin prices have corrected more sharply than in several surrounding markets, restoring opportunities inside the city. She said she might currently prefer an inner-Berlin property, depending on its rent and condition. Potsdam, by contrast, experienced neither Berlin’s full price surge nor its subsequent decline: stability can be attractive but may leave less repricing opportunity.
The occupier argument for the Umland is nevertheless substantial. Sellschopf illustrated it by comparing energy-efficient new-build rents of roughly €15/sqm outside Berlin with nearer €20/sqm in the city. On an 80 sqm apartment, the difference would be around €400 a month. Schick immediately supplied the necessary qualification: commuting can consume part of the saving. The calculation works best where residents can reach a station without becoming dependent on a second car.
Development activity confirms that the surrounding region is no marginal market. Sellschopf cited a regional analysis from bulwiengesa’s Development Monitor identifying 164 active developers and 284 residential projects representing approximately 2.2m sqm. But scale should not be mistaken for delivery. As REFIRE’s recent coverage of the same database showed, much of Germany’s residential pipeline remains in planning, while delays and projects no longer expected to complete on their original schedules have widened the gap between announced and delivered housing.
Sellschopf acknowledged that Bonava holds one or two sites it might assess more cautiously today. Schönefeld shows the other possibility: an initially pioneering settlement can mature into an established apartment market—but only with infrastructure, sustained demand and time.
REFIRE: Berlin’s commuter belt is no longer merely the place buyers go when they cannot afford Berlin. Rail-connected municipalities with growing populations, services and employment increasingly form part of the same metropolitan housing economy, with their own occupier demand, development pipelines and financing criteria.
But Speckgürtel is a convenient label, not an investment strategy. Berlin’s price correction has made the city itself more competitive, while the apparent discount farther into Brandenburg compensates for weaker liquidity and greater demographic risk. The operative choice is no longer simply Berlin or Brandenburg. It is whether a municipality outside the city boundary functions as part of the metropolitan economy—or merely lies near it.