“Adapting the size of housing according to family or financial status is a utopia”

“By transforming buildings during their renovation in a way that reduces private spaces and increases shared areas, it would be possible to offer each resident more square meters while decreasing the overall area per inhabitant,” wrote, in a previous opinion, Philippe Thalmann.

According to the EPFL professor of environmental economics, this model can be economically viable. “If the same building houses 40 people instead of 30, it becomes possible to increase rental income while reducing the rent per person. The owner thus makes the renovation and transformation of the building profitable. Everyone wins!”

Following the many reactions prompted by this idea of greater sharing of spaces, we wanted to know the opinion of players and experts in the real estate sector. We close this series of interviews with David Delarive, CEO of Delarive Group.

Could increased sharing of spaces be a serious avenue for the future of the real estate sector in Switzerland?

Yes, sharing is an interesting avenue, with however one major limit: the change in mentality required in Switzerland. We already see the difficulties of making co-owners live together despite a common interest. Sharing implies cohabitation governed by rules, shared usages and mutual respect. Models exist, such as some student house-shares or associations, but they must also cope with changes in lifestyles: arrival of partners, children, pets, vehicles, daily rhythms, etc.

I therefore share the fundamental analysis, but I doubt the real feasibility — and above all the ability to deploy this model on a large scale. On the other hand, concepts inspired by hospitality, like those observed in New York (concierge service, gym, dry-cleaning, rooftop, etc.), allow some services to be shared while reducing apartment sizes. For me, it is not a question of a single model, but of the ability to accept a diversity of approaches — and above all, to encourage a real change in our habits.

Would this sharing of spaces make it possible to allocate more resources to renovation rather than to building new housing – and thus make up for Switzerland’s lag in transforming its housing stock?

Honestly, I am not a specialist in human resources in the construction sector. But from my experience, the workforce goes where profitability is most obvious — and today, that still remains largely in new construction. New construction avoids complex discussions about passing costs on to rents, does not call into question the returns of institutional investors, and remains simpler to model financially.

Renovation, for its part, is hindered by persistent over-regulation: administrative delays at the authorities, frequent changes in regulations, long delays in the approval of master plans (PGA). We also face, on a daily basis, project blockages, often due to oppositions, appeals or services that can last up to ten years. 

The right to object is obviously fundamental in our democracy, but it should be better regulated to avoid abuse. The current result is that some projects see the light of day years after their conception — while uses and needs have, in the meantime, largely evolved, notably with teleworking or soft mobility.

Finally, the question of financing remains a major obstacle. Between perceived risk, regulatory uncertainty and the absence of strong economic incentives, actors hesitate to engage.

The real question is therefore the following: are developers and owners ready to reduce their margins to favor an energy transition focused on renovation? The answer is almost contained in the question... unless building permit lead times become shorter and more predictable.

The real question is therefore the following: are developers and owners ready to reduce their margins to favor an energy transition focused on renovation?

For years we have been hearing about the need to reduce the size of housing, but the sector seems deaf to this demand...

I think the idea of systematically reducing floor areas is unrealistic. It is essential to respect everyone’s space needs: to plan, to work, to host, to simply live. Adapting apartment sizes according to family or financial status seems to me a utopia.

That said, a genuine reflection is necessary in my view for seniors, notably with the massive arrival of baby-boomers into retirement. Many homes are under-occupied today, but concrete solutions are lacking to support these people: mortgage financing, moving assistance, attractive and adapted housing. I am convinced that such support would improve their quality of life — while freeing up valuable housing for other households.

What concrete avenues exist to reduce the climate impact of the Swiss real estate sector?

Innovation, without hesitation. Many solutions already exist: new materials, construction technologies, integrated energy systems. The problem is that the real estate sector is slow to adopt these innovations. Why? Because owners are often institutional investors, with standardized strategies. Any novelty is perceived as a risk, likely to affect the capitalization rate or the net asset value (NAV).

We operate in a model where, as long as it is not mandatory, it is not a priority. It is regrettable, but it is the reality. We must therefore encourage, support, and above all de-risk the adoption of these innovations so that investors consider them viable.

We should not forget that the climate impact does not come only from the existing stock, but also — and significantly — from construction itself. That is why it is essential not only to renovate, but to do it faster, and above all smarter. An effective renovation reduces the overall carbon footprint while meeting current needs.

The real estate sector is currently facing an oversupply of offices. Could these spaces, once reconfigured, meet the growing need for housing that integrates more shared spaces?

Yes, this is an excellent avenue. It has even been implemented in Geneva, as shown by this project where an entire block of offices could be transformed into 196 apartments. It is a common practice internationally, but it remains complex to implement in Switzerland. Permits take a long time to obtain, changes of use are restrictive, and the technical design often proves more complicated than a classic renovation.

And more complexity means more costs, so profitability is harder to achieve — which makes it less attractive to investors. That said, with rigorous planning, targeted financial support and a clear political will, these projects can indeed be part of the solution.

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.