In January, a coalition bringing together the PLR, the Vert’Liberaux and the UDC launched a popular initiative in Zurich to encourage the raising of existing buildings throughout the city. Municipal councilor Hans Dellenbach (PLR) believes that the initiative is “ecological”, because it would save the gray energy embedded in buildings. The initiative was born from a parliamentary refusal, the initial proposal having clashed with the principles which guide the current revision of the general allocation plan: concentrating verticalization at specific points. This is how urban planning works: first the place, then the rule.
Then the idea gained ground, and today becomes a political battleground, which opens an interesting debate. In April, in response to the Confederation’s 30 measures for the creation of housing, the PLR launched its own national plan, in six points, entitled More housing, fewer regulations. Among these points, the press mainly retained the proposal to densify existing buildings by raising them “where possible and judicious”. A laudable proposal, but which falls within one of the points of the plan (the fourth) which generally aims to “increase the utilization indices and maximum heights”. And which above all asks to “introduce usage bonuses for new replacement constructions [en allemand: Ersatzneubau]»! This seems contradictory to us: if an investor is encouraged to demolish and rebuild higher, in many cases he will refrain from embarking on a complex elevation project.
All kinds of miraculous virtues are attributed to the elevation (except for the tenants below). But contrary to what is often said, it cannot be used to produce accessible housing. And to finance energy standards upgrades only in rare cases. In the others, the work inevitably leads to an increase in rent, and therefore to the inevitable replacement of residents… who will have to look elsewhere for accommodation.
Raising heights is therefore not in itself a response to the housing crisis. It all depends on the intentions of the owner, often linked to the land value of the territory concerned – in general, it will decrease away from densely built centers. What is the point of encouraging elevation where the land value takes care of it? The 15 years of debate since the Geneva “raising law” have taught us: each situation differs. Here, we need safeguards, there, bonuses.
It is especially in areas where there is currently a lot of construction that we should promote elevation, by imposing strict conditions on demolition (as a reminder, in Switzerland, 500 kg of waste are “evacuated” per second ). The enhancement of existing buildings can be qualified as an “ecological” solution uniquely as an alternative to demolition-reconstruction.
This month’s thematic file shows that town planners concerned by revisions to land use plans are thinking along these lines. First the place, then the rule. The PLR’s proposal therefore has the merit of relaunching the debate because, yes, raising the height is an option that must absolutely be taken into account. But rather than generalizing it, it must be used as a planning instrument, or even be integrated in its own right into town planning regulations – for example by drawing inspiration from the practice of Meyrin, which was able to put in place an “elevation plan » specific to his situation.
