From my understanding, the rents on these apartments, which are in a central position not far from HB, have stayed low over the last decade or so.
Now that the blocks have new owners, those owners are now giving a 3-month eviction notice so they can renovate the 25-30 year old buildings and no doubt, up the rent to market levels. Of course, the tenants are up in arms, especially as the new owners initially indicated differently.
On one side I see it as being unfair that there is only 3 months notice. I would have expected something closer to 6-12 months to give people ample opportunity to find something new in what is quite a tough rental market.
However, the owners are not a charity, and they are fully within their right to try and make the buildings more profitable. The current tenants enjoyed the windfall for quite some time. If they can’t afford market rent, then they need to accept that like any other tenant.
I used to pass them on the train and always wondered about those. I had assumed they were some kind of government social housing, but it seems not.
Can they really be kicked out in only 3 months? It seems like very short notice, esp. for a mass eviction which means a lot of pressure to find something else.
Usually the cancellation duration in the rental contract is mutually reciprocal…ie if the tenant can cancel in 3 months, the landlord can do the same.
Removing them may be a different story. It may come to to the landlord switching off all services (power, water, etc) to get them out, still won’t be a good look.
A bit like job contracts? RAV can handle 2-3 people not having a job anymore, but a social plan is needed when terminating the contracts of of 100% of employees (250 people). I don’t think the concept of mass eviction + social plan exists for housing, but it may make sense for a situation like this one. No one in the city wins with 250 simultaneous evictions.
The 3 months notification is legal, but it doesn’t make much sense in the business world. Renovation and construction companies are quite busy, they have looooong backlogs. If they effectively start the renovation work by April 1st 2025, there’s a high probability that the contract was signed no in Nov 2024, but long ago. Also, the design and plannig for renovations takes time, no way this is done in 3 months. So, the 3 month deadline is probably keeping secret about something you already have certainty. What was won by this? Maybe a lawyer can bring some light into this.
I don’t think they can contest the eviction, but the short deadline may be willingly rude.
They can request an extension citing difficulty in finding a new property and they will almost certainly be granted it. People have successfully stayed for years after being served notice due to this.
There is a procedure to follow but the renters association will be their friend.
They can do whatever they want with their property, but they should have taken into consideration that not everybody can pack their stuff and just move at the end of March, it seems like a family oriented community to me and kids need to move to other schools etc.
You do what you have to do as the owner, but do you really have to be a jerk about it? It’s not a few families there, it’s 250 people involved so they should have planned the evictions much more carefully.
This does not look like a Swiss business…I mean if it is, wow, another myth crushed.
I think it is just the opening negotiating position. Some will fight this and stay longer, others will go and probably the final result is something in between.
Tangentially, this is a lesson on the limits of charity by individuals.
One day is all smiles for the PR stunt, next day is the topic of the current discussion. If social housing is the goal, the methods that more or less work are organizations with clear statutes, either NGOs/cooperatives or the local government.
The Röntgenareal housing estate was created on the basis of a competition project. The SBB played a decisive role in awarding the project. When the property was sold in the early 1990s, they stipulated that both office buildings and residential buildings should be built on the site.
In 1998, Leopold Bachmann, a civil engineer and entrepreneur, joined the project as a developer. He had one goal in mind when building the houses on Neugasse: lots of apartments for little money.
Nine seven-story cubes were built, as colorful as chewing gum, some of them sprayed with graffiti, which stand directly on the tracks of Zurich’s main station. 35 apartments each, plus two additional ones, from 1.5 to 5.5 rooms, in 2010 between 910 and 2115 francs. The total of 317 apartments were built in just a few months.
The Röntgenareal settlement was considered a symbol of a new construction method and affordable housing in a central location.
Bachmann built housing estates in Zurich as early as the 1970s. By the time of his death in 2022, he had built 5,000 apartments. He also founded the Leopold Bachmann Foundation, which uses part of the property proceeds to support social aid organizations and projects worldwide.
Nevertheless, Regina Bachmann, daughter of Leopold Bachmann and the new owner of the three Sugus houses, had the building structure and modernization standards of properties 81, 83 and 85 reassessed. The properties were showing their age, according to the termination letter dated November 28, and would therefore be completely renovated.
It may make more commercial sense to give tenants a carrot rather than a stick…ie 1st option on a new lease at a discount that will contractually decrease incrementally…as long as they move out by the end of the year…something like that.
I know. I selected that quote because this is my point of view too, but maybe a bit more stronger or it’s nuanced differently. I see not only a tough rental market problem but also a “social” problem.
The company has to keep to the rules of which there are many. Most renovations are made because of owners wanting to make extra profit (they always made a profit with the old rents) rather than to meet tenants wishes. The system at the moment seems to give too little rather than too much tenant protection.
So despite the vote landlords can evict you if their “purpose” is “renovation”. And it is insane, logistically, for 250 people to move out on a Sunday.
If it was just renovation, they could do what they do at other places - put up portacabin washrooms and kitchen facilities and do a few at a time.
Other rooms can be renovated one at a time.
Sure, an inconvenience for the tenants but not so much as having to move (probably out of Zurich) and to lose neighbours, schools and so and sense of community.
For families with kids, termination or eviction can often be delayed by 1-2 years through legal action. They likely anticipate this and are just getting the process started. I wouldn’t be surprised if temporary housing ads appear until all long-term contracts are over.
I read that apartments are rented for relatively cheap. Meanwhile, an apartment typically requires about 1% annually for maintenance (current and future). It’s possible the current rent barely covers maintenance costs. I’m not justifying the owner’s actions, but what options do they have? If they try to raise the rent by a few hundred, tenants will likely take them to court anyway.