With the so-called construction turbo introduced at the end of 2025, the legislator wanted to give new momentum to the faltering housing construction in Germany. The Act on the Acceleration of Housing Construction and Housing Security allows for far-reaching deviations from the previous planning law and is intended to significantly shorten approval procedures. But how great is the actual effect, especially against the backdrop of exploding construction costs? This question was the focus of an online press conference by Rueckerconsult, which was attended by Dieter Becken, Managing Partner of Becken Holding, Jens Wadle, Managing Partner of Hohental, Dr. Simon Kempf, Managing Director of Periskop Development, and Jakob Hans Hien, lawyer for public construction and planning law at KNAUTHE Rechtsanwälte.
From a legal point of view, the construction turbo is one thing above all: an instrument for accelerating approvals. "The term construction turbo suggests something that the law cannot do at all," says Jakob Hans Hien. "Actually, one would have to speak of a permit turbo, because construction will not be faster, but sooner." The biggest innovation is that municipalities will be able to dispense with lengthy development plan procedures in the future. "We're talking about time savings of five to six years," says Hien. "Even neighborhood developments can be ready for approval within about a year and a half with the construction turbo – instead of a decade." At the same time, the application remains voluntary. "Without the consent of the municipality, there is no construction turbo," emphasizes Hien. "This is the central bottleneck and at the same time the greatest uncertainty."
From the point of view of the project developers, however, the core problem lies not only in planning law, but also in the economic efficiency of construction. Dieter Becken, Managing Partner of Becken Holding, puts it in a nutshell: "We are simply not in a position to build housing economically at the moment." High construction, land and financing costs as well as approval risks can no longer be reconciled with affordable rents. "We would have to build apartments at rents of 40 euros per square meter to be profitable. But there is no market for that," says Becken. "This is not socially and economically feasible." He also criticizes the lack of binding nature of the new law: "As long as the construction turbo is not mandatory, it will not be applied in many places." In practice, he experiences that municipalities continue to insist on development plans despite suitable projects. "Then we lose years again - and in the end, in the worst case, there is no construction at all."
Dr. Simon Kempf, Managing Director of Periskop Development, also sees profitability as a decisive lever. "Real estate today no longer only competes with each other, but with other asset classes," he explains. "Why should private capital take a development risk when there are safe government bonds with a yield of three percent?" For Kempf, it is clear: "We can hardly increase rents any further politically. So we have to radically reduce the total investment costs." This also includes questioning cherished standards. "Our building standards have been continuously increased and inflated over the past ten to 15 years. We have to get rid of that if we want to build affordably again." The construction turbo could help with this – for example through higher densities. "The optimal use of land is a central lever for reducing costs," says Kempf. "But that only works if the municipalities have the political will to use the instrument."
Jens Wadle argues similarly. Among other things, he sees the construction turbo as an opportunity for densification. "Higher density is a key to reducing construction costs per square metre," says Wadle. "This is exactly where the construction turbo can help, because it enables deviations from previous standards." At the same time, he warns of new cost traps: "The advantage must not immediately fizzle out again in the price of the land." Land owners would also have to make their contribution. "We need projects that are built and not land that is speculated on." For Wadle, the construction turbo is an important signal: "It is not a miracle cure, but it is an impulse for the planning authorities throughout Germany, which will hopefully increase the pressure to get projects off the ground more quickly."
A signal that the construction turbo could be applied quickly comes from Berlin. "As a district, we will certainly make use of the optional simplification of planning law," says Martin Schaefer, mayor of Berlin-Lichtenberg. "This means that as of today, we examine each project to see whether it makes sense to use the construction turbo." For Schaefer, the answer to this question depends not least on the social infrastructure available locally. "If there are enough school and daycare places, sufficient local amenities and leisure, green and sports areas, we will accelerate the planning. Because apartments are urgently needed in Lichtenberg. However, if the potential increase in the resident population due to larger projects necessitates the creation of additional infrastructure, we will usually continue to draw up a B-Plan. Because with the current economic and budget situation in Berlin, schools and daycare centers cannot be built by the public sector alone."
The construction turbo has the potential to significantly accelerate residential construction and reduce costs, especially through time savings and higher land utilization. But without more binding application, falling construction and financing costs and political reliability, its effect will be limited. "The construction turbo can make a big difference," Jakob Hans Hien sums up. "But only if we really use it – and have the courage to leave old processes behind us."
