I wonder why they would accept this, because the landlord might have missed out on a lot of rent raises in that time.
I can be very persuasive.
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 donât 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 âhigher pricesâ you disrupt the market and the result will be probably not what you wanted.
2 Likes
that is actually what happens not just in Madrid, but in all big cities in Spain (as well as other âtensionedâ 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
3 Likes
The concentration of reasonable liberal posts in this thread is quite unusual for this forum 
1 Like
I would apply this basic filter: Zurichâs 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 âunheilige Allianzâ when the left and the right join forces against the rest.
I would not know how any particular party really argued (or âguidedâ 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 âWo-wo-Wohnige!â.[$]
Below is what the NZZ[
] wrote about that parliament ⌠ahem, parlour and decision:
âFuturistic Fever Dreamâ: The dream of building housing for 150,000 people over Zurichâs 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 onceâbut 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. âYou can explain to your voters why there shouldnât be any additional housing,â 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 partyâs view, entail unnecessary spending. With the track roofing, however, it broke out of this straightjacket and dared a grand vision for once. âZurich needs visions,â 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 âtempting.â He found it ânice how casually the FDP talks about money.â This reminded him of the 19th-century Liberalsâpeople 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 obligationâin 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. âOne is allowed to dream, even in the Zurich city council,â said GLP city councilor Nicolas Cavalliâeven if the idea was the âmost expensive package in historyâ and came, of all places, from the FDP.
The AL also liked the ideaâbut was skeptical about the FDPâs wish to involve private developers. âThis raises fears that an enormous object for speculation will be created here,â 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 BrĂźesch (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 expensiveâespecially if you want to build properties with good residential quality on top of it. âThat certainly wonât produce affordable housing,â he said.
In addition, construction in Zurich would have to take place during ongoing rail operations, and the track fields are already highly dense todayâthere is hardly any room for pillars. âNot feasible,â was BrĂźeschâs verdict.
30 to 60 Billion Francs â 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: âurban planning madness.â
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 francsââwithout a single apartment being built.â Kollerâs conclusion: âThis is a modernistic-futuristic fever dream.â
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 FĂźrer (Greens) said it was âirritatingâ 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 âfuturistic fever dream.â
- 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 didnât see it at the time). I remember â young and also leaning left at the time, more than 20 years ago â being impressed that an SP politican had that kind of a life style.
The previously cited Tagi is just Blick for the SP and the Greens.
2 Likes
âkeep your friends close, and your enemies closerâ
(cannot remember the origin of the Quote)
2 Likes
Thank you very much.
2 Likes
Iâll paraphrase:
First they came for the apartments in Zurich
and I did not speak out
because I donât want to live in Zurich,
then they came for the apartments in Schwyz
and I did not speak out
because I donât want to live in Schwyz,
then they came for the apartments in Thurgau
and I did not speak out
because I donât want to live in Thurgau,
then they came for the houses in Aargau,
and there was nobody left
to speak out for me
There is no reason to not assume that eventually the whole of Switzerland will be gentrified to shit.
Without even discussing the fact that people live in Zurich, because (SHOCKINGLY) they also work thereabouts. So as long as 20% of the countryâs GDP is generated there, if you want to keep the dirty poor people with no right to live there away, you need to also find a way to let them go to work.
what default risk? There is a deposit, mandatory liability insurance, and one of the best debt collection and enforcement mechanisms around. Youâre also calculating 3% rent yield, but conveniently leave out the appreciation of the property.
Real estate in Switzerland is like everything else. The moment people get on the property ladder, they kick everyone else off with consistent fighting anyone else building anything close to themâŚ
1 Like
The keyword here is work. 18% of people in ZH is 65+ YO AKA âin retirementâ. Many of them have plenty of savings, others donât. Why live in an expensive city in retirement? I donât know the answer. Iâm one of those pesky foreigners who will GTFOH and go live to some place where the money goes further.
Thatâs a bit extreme. At any point in time, thereâs an old building somewhere with low rent. So, thereâs a place to live with paying less (comparatively to other places).
The issue here is that market dynamics work in the very opposite way of peopleâs intuition. When people says âIâve been living here for 40+ years while paying low rentâ, this shouldnât give the confidence to believe this will keep going in the future. Itâs precisely the opposite. The low rent apartment is very tempting for a renovation to be returned to the rental market at twice the price (or higher). I guess it can be concluded that the lower the rent, the higher the chances to be kicked out for apartment renovation AKA gentrification. All that means moving from one apartment to the next. Inconvenient, tiring, and feeling insecure? Yes. But, as pesky foreigner Iâve chased higher income and lower expenses (rent included).
When I see other immigrants clinging to a sense of belonging to an expensive city, I simply donât understand. There might be people whose families lived there for generations, but comparatively I came down an airplane yesterdayâŚso, no feelings, only prices.
I guess weâre slighty off topic, but why not. Iâll include some on-topic anecdotes as a fig leaf.
Iâm originally from Lucerne, been in Zurich since I started my studies ⌠ahem ⌠
⌠almost 40 years ago.
I wouldnât mind moving eventually (from the expensive city of Zurich). Not even for tax or other political reasons, just to live at some place adequate for our needs that is also nice â e.g. I wouldnât mind moving to the PfnĂźselkĂźste (left side of Lake Zurich), still cool (temperature wise) from the Alibskette hill range, close to the lake, etc. Yes, also lower taxes, but how hard is that when you leave the city of Zurich ⌠$
Checked with my wife the other day whether she would ever consider moving elsewhere after retirement. The question will come up within a couple of years, maybe two years, maybe ten years: we rent a single house thatâs anyway too big since the kiddo moved out, plus once our 87 year old landlord passes away, I expect the heir to sell the house to get a better return than the about 1.44% she currently gets on the property value (minus house maintenance costs, etc).
Wife looked at me sideways ⌠she has her roots in the city, sheâll never leave the city. She wouldnât even consider moving to a neighboring town. Moving to a different Stadtkreis is already a bit of a stretch, although she would consider moving closer to the center of the town. Her friends since basically Kindergarten live in the city, she wants to be close, like bicycle ride close.
So, yes, deep roots might be why some people wonât move and continue to live in an expensive city in retirement.
Espapes me, too, somewhat, but I can see how one can arrive at that conclusion.
$ Apologies to the folks living in Lausanne, Neuchâtel, Bern, Basel, Genève, etc.
2 Likes
Thatâs so interesting. Lived in 12 countries, moved countless times. I found a partner here, otherwise, i would be probably in country #15 by now. I still cannot live in one place, so I pullulate among 3. I am happy as a pig discovering, and get bored to death sitting on the same place, meeting the same people, seeing the same things, listening the same storiesâŚ
Some years ago, I read that there was a gene(1) that was overwhelmingly present on specific populations, particularly linked to itinerancy or nomadic lifestyle. So, I guess that after all, that b*tch that called me âgypsyâ in Austria, was rightâŚ
Yet, coming back to the Rent Control Initiative; wouldnât that be an intervention in private property rights?
@Your_Full_Name how do you do the footnotes? 
(1)Around 20% to 30% of the global population carries the DRD4-7R genetic variant, often popularized as the âwanderlustâ or âadventureâ gene.
This mutation is located on the DRD4 gene (chromosome 11) and regulates dopamine signaling in the brain. Those with at least one copy of this 7R+ allele tend to require higher dopamine stimulation, which is linked to a heightened desire for exploration, novelty-seeking, and risk-taking
3 Likes
I guess it makes sense, even if I donât fully understand it or feel it. And if thereâs the money to pay for it, why not? And no need to think about it anymoreâŚpass me a beer, whatâs the next football match?
When thereâs no money, thatâs the big questions start. Are the emotional ties (AKA attachment) of an individual to a physical location (e.g. city) or a community (e.g. neighbors) something to be protected society? Something like, gulp!.. a human right? Or is the protection of these emotional ties a personal responsibility issue?
@Izzy thanks, I was starting to worry if this lack of attachment to a population center was just another psychopath trait. Thankfully, we can attribute it to nomadic heritage.
Well, time to ride to the MTB single track to which Iâve developed some attachment 
1 Like
Boomer style HTML. For the record, I am Gen X, though.
Footnote.[F]
[F] Add some native HTML tags and hope for the best.
1 Like
If somebody borrows 80% to buy a property and a small crash happens a few years after the purchase (so not much capital repaid), a 5% drop in the valuation of property will make the bank call the owner to cough up more capital.
As a reminder, in the 90âs the real estate swiss market crashed by some 35%.
Regulation change all the time, this might be good but costs can wildly inflate.
So if everything goes well, real estate can be seen almost as passive income.
If things donât align, you can go broke.
And anything in the middle.
Ofc this is wrt âsmallâ investors, 10-20 properties max Iâd think.
Big pension funds are vastly immune from the above, luckily, as they have to pay you a pension at some point.
You canât really make use of the appreciation until you sell.
My aging eyes hate your footnotes.
2 Likes
Iâve always seen the land and property speculation as a sign of an underdeveloped country.
Iâve grown up in a country where 80% of people stay long with the parents until they have enough for the down payment to take a mortgage. The small percentage of rented out properties were a wild west, where the landlord would demand higher rent week by week.
I live on the Schwyzer end of the Sniffle coast - well, above it - and yes, back in the day we were usually a degree or two cooler than ZĂźrich. However, it hit 36 in my garden yesterday. In the shade! Nothing is normal anymore.
What we donât get is the temp drop at night. Iâm between the Rossberg and the lake, ca 800m. Although it looks like we are on a straigtht slope down towards the lake we actually seem to be in sort of a saucer, cooler air doesnât reach us. In contrast, we used to live on the right side of the lake and while the balcony roasted in summer we could count on a significant temperature drop at night.
Just info to file away if you ever got serious about the Sniffle coast. Itâs not always cooler - at least anymore.
Now that I am older, Iâve started to better understand this viewpoint.
I was a nomad in my young adult days, could and did pick up and happily transplant - or reinvent - myself anywhere. But now that Iâve more life behind me than in front of me, my community has taken on a far greater importance. As we grow older, itâs our friendships that sustain us. Itâs not the place, itâs the people.
Big question is: can you, at this age, honestly expect to find community in a new place? That is where my hesitancy towards making a permanent move away lies.
So not likely to sell the house anytime soon, even if on paper it would make sense to do so. But as you learn from growing older - what in life makes sense?
2 Likes
Maybe a retirement community?
2 Likes