The shortage of housing in Switzerland, due to the massive influx of immigrants from the “third world”, is widening. To remedy the crisis, an highly left-wing activist, working regular as an architect, proposed supposedly an ‘innovative’ concept in housing. It is about state coercion and building blocks with common kitchens and bathrooms. This is nothing fresh – specified projects were on the agenda in the russian Union in the days of Józef Stalin.
The Swiss activist calls for the introduction of a "communal". This word refers to residential blocks formed in the russian Union since the 1940s. It is simply a residential strategy with very limited privacy, where many families share a kitchen, toilet and another social spaces. This phenomenon had its roots in hard housing and mediocre housing in the State of Stalin after the end of planet War II. The communists, in addition to being burdensome, created perfect conditions for the universal surveillance of their inhabitants.
An thought modeled on them has late appeared in Switzerland. Since this summer, little than 1 percent of apartments have been empty in more than half of all municipalities. Therefore, architect Regula Lüscher of Zurich, who served as manager of construction in the legislature for 14 years and secretary of state for urban improvement in Berlin, appealed to politicians to reflect on the issue of changing the reasoning on housing.
The housing crisis in Switzerland arose erstwhile the country adopted 1.5 million immigrants over the last 20 years. As a remedium, Regula Lüscher did not, of course, propose mass deportations, but changes in the lifestyle and resignation by the Swiss from their own kitchen or surviving area for sharing space. – Does all flat truly gotta have everything? People could share things. – said in an interview with Swiss portal Blick.
As a left-wing activist, she evidently suggested introducing state regulation of the housing market. The train has gone and is speeding. There are aspects that we no longer have influence on. Rent will proceed to grow and consumption per square metre will fall, which is beneficial to the environment. Above all, those with lower incomes will gotta live in tight conditions. This can lead to social unrest She said. It was just more interesting:
– It's greed. erstwhile individual has a product and has quite a few buyers on it, they induct prices. Moreover, land prices are now so advanced that investors can only cover their expenses with advanced rents. If land belonged to the State, the emphasis would be not for profit and return on investment but for the common good.
W Switzerland now has government on spatial planning, which requires us to make certain housing areas. We cannot make more housing settlements; instead, we request to usage the existing space and increase its density.
Existing buildings should be utilized as a sustainable source, but besides as the most affordable housing. If we manage to enlarge the existing surviving space to width or height, with greater probability this will lead to a density of construction – even in single-family homes. Only then will the residents be able to stay in their homes. Yes, even private homeowners gotta ask themselves if it makes sense for comparatively fewer people to live in a large area.
In the past, respective generations have lived on 1 property. The young lived downstairs and the grandparents lived upstairs in a tiny cottage. Nobody was alone. The settlement of single-family houses should not be converted into a skyscraper, but the doubling of the residential area by building has a crucial impact. And in wealthy Switzerland, this frequently leads to demolition. This is environmentally unfavourable and deepens the gap between the rich and the poor, as housing prices are rising.
In this case, force from the authorities is needed – for example by introducing a demolition ban that would be lifted as shortly as the owners prove that after demolition they will accommodate at least twice as many people as in existing buildings. Because the marketplace will not regulate itself, and the consequence would be pushing poorer people, mainly immigrants, from centres and reducing social diversity. Speaking of which, I don't mean just the center of Zurich.
We Swiss gotta think about it. Does all flat truly request everything, or could tenants share certain things? Like a kitchen, surviving area or guest room? ... You should be ready to share. Many housing cooperatives are already applying this approach. However, private investors and pension funds focus on "anonymous" housing.
Switzerland is committed to cooperation and individual responsibility. The Germans bet on coercion. It's mentality. The German State so has more effective means of setting standards.
OUR COMMENTS: "To bring socialism into the country, it is adequate to introduce democracy" - Charles Marks.
