Rent control initiative proposed

Accomodation, House and Garden
42

I wonder why they would accept this, because the landlord might have missed out on a lot of rent raises in that time.

43

I can be very persuasive.

44

Or Madrid where the owner of a house with fixed rent (sometimes under 5 EUR per month) is not able to maintain the houses. Or Buenos Aires where owners were obliged to rent at a big loss, so they just did not rent out.

You don’t get out of a hole by digging deeper. We are in this situation because several problematic laws. Adding more problematic laws will only stop investors, less construction, less offer, higher prices. That is what markets are for, if you cut the “higher prices” you disrupt the market and the result will be probably not what you wanted.

2 Likes
45

that is actually what happens not just in Madrid, but in all big cities in Spain (as well as other ‘tensioned’ capitals, like Paris, or countries, like Belgium or Vienna.

As it is not a new idea, there are various case studies and economic scholar articles on the impact of the legislation observed in these markets in the short, medium and long term.
to cut it short: a lot of previously rented flats go out of the regulated market, and change rental type to airb&b or rent-by-room, in both cases, increasing the scarcity of residential long term rentals.

Best of luck

2 Likes
46

The concentration of reasonable liberal posts in this thread is quite unusual for this forum :smiley:

1 Like
47

I would apply this basic filter: Zurich’s city parliament has a deciding majority by the left and by the greens.

Interestingly, the right (SVP) was also opposed to the FDP plan mentioned. Some would label this as a “unheilige Allianz” when the left and the right join forces against the rest.

I would not know how any particular party really argued (or “guided” their members), but I can totally see how some politicians might be opposed, e.g. a (now Nationalrat) SP politician who I unfortunately know personally through mutual friends. She lives with per husband in some rather lavish living space in the center of the city of Zurich while very loudly chanting the slogan of “Wo-wo-Wohnige!”.[$]

Below is what the NZZ[:hugs:] wrote about that parliament … ahem, parlour and decision:

“Futuristic Fever Dream”: The dream of building housing for 150,000 people over Zurich’s railway tracks has burst
The costs for the roofing would have been in the double-digit billions. The city parliament is not even willing to carry out a non-binding feasibility study of the idea.
By Michael von Ledebur June 11, 2026, 05:00 a.m.

According to FDP calculations, 150,000 people could have lived on the railway tracks that stretch between the main station and Altstetten station.

The dream of a city above the tracks: many in Zurich have dreamed it before. In the 1980s, voters even said yes to covering the tracks once—but the project failed, partly due to financing. Now the FDP has made a new attempt. According to their calculations, 150,000 people could live on the one-and-a-half-kilometer-long and up to 200-meter-wide railway area that extends between the main station and Altstetten station.

In a city where many complain about a lack of housing, this idea seems obvious. But nothing will come of it. The FDP even managed the feat of uniting both the SVP and the SP against them in the city parliament. “You can explain to your voters why there shouldn’t be any additional housing,” FDP parliamentary group leader Emanuel Tschannen hurled into the room on Wednesday as defeat loomed.

Like Alfred Escher Once Was The FDP faction is usually on the defensive in the city parliament. It fights against typically left-wing ideas that, in the party’s view, entail unnecessary spending. With the track roofing, however, it broke out of this straightjacket and dared a grand vision for once. “Zurich needs visions,” Tschannen said. Anyone who says no from the outset because the costs are too high and the view from the train might no longer be nice under a covered track area is thinking too small.

There was certainly sympathy for the request in the council chamber. The newly elected city councilor and head of building construction, Tobias Langenegger (SP), called it “tempting.” He found it “nice how casually the FDP talks about money.” This reminded him of the 19th-century Liberals—people like Alfred Escher, without whom there would be no Gotthard Tunnel today.

However, Langenegger also pointed out the enormous challenges. For instance, the structural engineering would have to be so solid that 40-ton trains could derail and crash into the support pillars without affecting the properties above. If one wanted to cover the tracks, it would therefore be necessary to build 10 meters high first in order to create sufficient space between the tracks and the superstructures.

Nevertheless, the city council was ready to examine the idea without obligation—in the form of a postulate. At the same time, however, Langenegger announced that the city administration would not devote too much energy to it, as they had more important things to do with the upcoming revision of the building and zoning regulations.

The Center Party and the GLP would also have been open to a non-binding study request. “One is allowed to dream, even in the Zurich city council,” said GLP city councilor Nicolas Cavalli—even if the idea was the “most expensive package in history” and came, of all places, from the FDP.

The AL also liked the idea—but was skeptical about the FDP’s wish to involve private developers. “This raises fears that an enormous object for speculation will be created here,” said Mischa Schiwow.

The idea was ultimately sunk by a male and a female politician who normally operate on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Real estate expert Reto Brüesch (SVP) was professionally involved as an owner representative in the construction of an administrative building in Aarau and another building at Stadelhofen. In his experience, the SBB (Swiss Federal Railways), which have examined and partly implemented many such ideas, are not particularly fond of the concept of track roofing. It is enormously expensive—especially if you want to build properties with good residential quality on top of it. “That certainly won’t produce affordable housing,” he said.

In addition, construction in Zurich would have to take place during ongoing rail operations, and the track fields are already highly dense today—there is hardly any room for pillars. “Not feasible,” was Brüesch’s verdict.

30 to 60 Billion Francs – Excluding Apartments Then came the appearance of Stefania Koller, an architect and town planner by profession, and an SP city councilor. As a professional, she allowed herself to categorize the project, she said. Then she delivered her judgment: “urban planning madness.”

The roof would loom 15 meters in the air, not 10. Building houses there would be difficult. In Wipkingen, where houses stand over underground tracks, residents feel vibrations despite all efforts.

For the main station cover alone, the concrete costs are estimated at 2 to 4 billion francs. If you add the planning and development costs, you end up at 30 to 60 billion francs—“without a single apartment being built.” Koller’s conclusion: “This is a modernistic-futuristic fever dream.”

How accurate this cost estimate is is difficult to gauge. But that building over tracks is fundamentally expensive is demonstrated by the planned bicycle bridge from District 4 to District 5, which is budgeted at 80 million francs.

The FDP would have been willing to soften its motion into a non-binding postulate. But the other factions would not even agree to that. Brigitte Fürer (Greens) said it was “irritating” that the city council wanted to examine the idea and uselessly keep the administration busy. The council rejected the idea by 71 votes to 39.

English Summary

  • Project Rejected: The Zurich city parliament heavily rejected (71 to 39 votes) a visionary proposal by the FDP to build a concrete roof over the 1.5-kilometer railway track field between the main station and Altstetten to create housing for up to 150,000 people.
  • High Political Opposition: The idea united the political left (SP, AL, Greens) and right (SVP) against the FDP. Left-wing politicians feared private property speculation, while right-wing real estate experts argued the project was entirely unfeasible under running rail operations and would never yield affordable housing.
  • Immense Costs & Technical Hurdles: Experts highlighted severe technical challenges, including strict structural safety margins against train crashes and inevitable acoustic vibrations for residents. An architect in the parliament estimated the foundational concrete structures alone would cost billions, bringing total costs to an estimated 30 to 60 billion francs before a single apartment is built, branding the project a “futuristic fever dream.”
  • No Feasibility Study: Due to the high costs and the city administration being busy with zoning law revisions, parliament refused to grant even a non-binding feasibility study to investigate the idea further.

$ I was at her place once or twice. They at the time only owned one of the two apartments they currently own, and none of the Dachterrasse IIRC (or I just didn’t see it at the time). I remember – young and also leaning left at the time, more than 20 years ago – being impressed that an SP politican had that kind of a life style.

:hugs: The previously cited Tagi is just Blick for the SP and the Greens.
2 Likes
48

“keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”
(cannot remember the origin of the Quote)

2 Likes
49

Thank you very much.

2 Likes