"It is the drop in purchasing power that will impose the sharing of surfaces"

"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 reducing the overall area per inhabitant," wrote, in a previous opinion, Philippe Thalmann.

According to the professor of environmental economics at EPFL, 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 numerous reactions prompted by this idea of greater pooling of spaces, we wanted to know the opinion of stakeholders and experts in the real estate sector. This time we discuss it with Marc Muller, founder of the company IMPACT LIVING.

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

Yes, it is also the idea behind the term "densification raisonnée" ("reasoned densification"). In our daily practice, we observe that older buildings did not make good use of space. Rigorous architectural work, particularly during major renovations, frequently makes it possible to free up volumes within existing structures themselves: better fitted attics, removal of oil tanks in favor of bicycle rooms, etc.

The idea here goes further: it is about rethinking the collective use of space. Yet, in a post-Covid context marked by the war in Ukraine, we see instead an increase in conflict and individualism. Even if space sharing appears technically feasible and relevant from a resource-efficiency point of view, the social conditions for voluntary sharing seem very distant at present.

Would this sharing of spaces allow more resources to be devoted to renovation rather than the construction of new housing — and thus make up for Switzerland's lag in transforming its building stock?

Yes, obviously. However, in the allocation of available labor, we are beginning to perceive the growing tension that can exist between new construction and the energy transition. What is often forgotten is that the building stock is partly at the end of its life. In this context, major renovation is no longer a choice, but becomes an obligation — both for safety and health reasons.

In many cases, it is these structural necessities that trigger, almost mechanically, the works related to the energy transition. The real issue is likely to be: uninhabitability and high energy costs versus new construction. This will probably lead us to the conclusion that those with the financial means will be able to choose by monopolizing the available workforce, and others will not.

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

The market will decide — and, ironically, it is already doing so very well: prices keep rising! Thus, high earners will have large spaces while the less well-off move away from their original living environment, opt for flat-sharing, or extend their stay with their parents. This movement has largely begun and is visible across Europe. It is the decline in purchasing power that will impose the sharing of spaces.

In the housing sector, energy sobriety raises specific issues. Lowering the indoor temperature, for example, can quickly lead to risks of dampness, mold, or even health hazards.

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

In the housing sector, energy sobriety raises specific issues. Lowering the indoor temperature, for example, can quickly lead to risks of dampness, mold, or even health hazards. Unlike mobility, where "driving less" does not pose this kind of problem, reducing a building's energy consumption can directly affect living conditions.

These issues can only be resolved by technical means that are often long to implement and very labor-intensive. Failing that, one must consider a pooling of spaces. It's physical, there is no alternative. 

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

This is a good example of what space sharing entails. What share of the land — and more broadly of built space — do we want to allocate to agriculture, to the repatriation of decarbonized production, to housing, or to services?

With the generalization of teleworking and the rise of online commerce, demand for offices and commercial spaces has dropped considerably. There is a great opportunity to reclaim these spaces. However, to do so often requires changes to municipal regulations and spatial planning. In other words, it is above all a political issue.

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