[ad_1]
The city of Zurich wanted to allow the family housing cooperative to cancel and replace the two oldest of the twenty-five construction phases. However, the Federal Supreme Court is now blocking the plans and thus showing the limits of structural densification.
The city wanted to cancel the older stages of the family housing cooperative (in front of the image), but now the federal court is preventing it.
Not a hundred years ago, the family housing cooperative (FGZ) began to build its first settlements in the Friesenberg neighborhood; Today, around 5,700 people live in the buildings constructed in 25 stages, actually a stately village within the city of Zurich. Some of the older buildings also resemble a village: they are often only a few stories high and surrounded by lots of greenery.
Founding settlement in danger
For this reason, the city council wanted to train the cooperative to develop a building and worked with it to develop a master plan that is indisputable in the essential points. However, the fact that the two oldest construction phases, together also known as the founding settlement, should give way to a denser development, called national security in the plan, which appealed against this measure. In the construction course court he was initially unsuccessful, but won in the next instance, the administrative court, after which the city and the FGZ again transferred the decision to the federal court.
The federal court did not take the matter lightly and even had an idea on the spot, which is not very common in the highest court. In the balance between the indisputable buildings worthy of protection on the one hand, and the densification and creation of affordable housing on the other, it was finally decided in favor of monuments. The complaint from the city of Zurich was rejected.
The early stages of construction of the FGZ
In principle, all parties agreed that the founding settlement is a high-level protected property. Even an appraisal of the city came to this conclusion, even describing the buildings as the “heart and pearl” of Friesenberg. However, in its weighing of interests, the city weighed other public interests more strongly than the preservation of the monument. Above all, the economic use of the land, that is to say: structural compression and the creation of additional cooperative apartments were decisive for the city. The cooperative also raised ecological considerations: new buildings would have a significantly better energy balance.
Importance beyond Zurich
In order to better assess the importance of the founding settlement, the Federal Court has also requested an evaluation from the Federal Office of Culture (BAK). This leads to the conclusion that the settlement of the founders in Friesenberg has “great architectural and historical-social importance that extends beyond Zurich.” The city had opposed the participation of the BAK because it was a decision of communal and cantonal law. The Federal Supreme Court argued against him that the objects could have supra-regional importance.
Structural densification is in itself also an important public concern, it says in the ruling. The argument that demolishing the founding settlement would allow for denser construction is not very difficult in this case. If one has to preserve the stock of historic buildings, this almost always goes hand in hand with not making the most of the land. There are probably other consolidation options in Zurich and in the Friesenberg district, “which are not in such a pronounced conflict with the protection of historical monuments,” according to the Federal Court ruling.
The Federal Supreme Court also writes that the creation of additional affordable living space and improved energy balance are of minor importance in this case. In general, the protection of the founding settlement outweighs other interests. The Federal Supreme Court, however, accommodates the plaintiffs at another point and has reduced the lower court fees: these also compare with those of the Federal Supreme Court “exceptionally high and clearly exceed the standard in Switzerland for similar procedures.”
High costs due to backlog of renewals
Another interesting question is whether the renovation of the founding settlement will be so expensive that the usual low rents for cooperatives are no longer possible. The Federal Supreme Court is pretty dry when it comes to the need for remodeling: this has to do primarily with the pent-up need for renovation. If the FGZ had done this renovation work before, the anticipated renovation costs would be lower and the current rent higher.
It may well be, he continues, that future rentals are “at the limit of what is compatible with the purpose of the FGZ as a non-profit housing cooperative.” “However, the legal form of ownership or its purpose cannot play a role in the protected status.”
The city of Zurich and the responsible city councilor, André Odermatt, declined to comment on the ruling for the time being. Upon request, the media office announced what is always heard in such cases: the lawyers of the building construction department must first examine the sentence in detail, only then will they comment publicly.
A little later, the communications department added in writing that the verdict was taken “with regret.” One thinks that it is a good thing that densification and economic life are basically public interests that could be taken into account when weighing interests, even if the two trump cards had not won this time. In a previous interview with NZZ, Odermatt had made it clear that this was a case of great importance for the structural development of Friesenberg and the city of Zurich.
