"The sharing of spaces is an ideal championed by a fairly small segment of people"

"By transforming buildings during their renovation in such a way as to reduce private spaces and increase shared areas, it would be possible to offer each resident more square metres while reducing the overall area per person," wrote, in a previous opinion piece, 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 amortizes the renovation and transformation of the building. Everybody wins!"

Following the many reactions prompted by this idea of greater sharing of spaces, we wanted to know the opinion of stakeholders and experts in the real estate sector. It is now the turn of Fabien Anex, president of USPI Vaud (Swiss Union of Real Estate Professionals) and director of M&B property management SA.

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

The mathematical approach presented in this analysis holds up. However, I have serious doubts about the large-scale adoption of the lifestyle that would be implied by sharing certain common areas.

Take the example of sharing a kitchen. The concept of a shared kitchen in a residential building is interesting in theory, notably for encouraging social ties or optimizing space use. But in practice, it raises numerous constraints. The kitchen is a highly personal space, often rooted in cultural, religious or simply domestic habits. Sharing this space not only requires great tolerance, but also clear and strict rules regarding hygiene, scheduling and mutual respect.

In a conventional building, where residents' profiles are very varied, sharing living spaces appears to me to be a source of tensions. Examples exist, but they generally work in contexts of voluntary and regulated cohabitation, such as with so‑called "housing cooperatives." But with the idea of applying this model on a large scale, I think this sharing has more limits than advantages.

People often talk about the "necessity" of reducing living space, but in reality this necessity rarely factors into individual choices.

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

From a practical point of view, it seems to me that renovating an existing building — notably as part of an energy renovation — is "simpler" to implement and generates fewer disturbances than a project aimed at converting private spaces into common areas.

Concretely, an energy renovation mainly targets the building envelope, with few interventions inside the dwellings. By contrast, transforming a floorplan to share areas requires heavy work: demolition of walls, reorganization of access, overhaul of electrical and plumbing systems, etc. In short: more expensive work, longer, more intrusive and more disruptive for residents.

From this perspective, I do not consider the transformation of private spaces into shared zones a realistic or effective route to catch up on construction delays.

For years we have heard about the need to reduce the size of dwellings, but the sector seems deaf to this demand...

It is important to recall a fundamental fact: the real estate sector responds to user demand. People often talk about the "necessity" of reducing living space, but in reality this necessity rarely factors into individual choices. The vast majority of tenants and buyers remain guided by their own interests: at an equal price, they will systematically favour dwellings offering more space. Let's be clear: I do not know anyone willing to voluntarily choose a smaller area, simply "for the good of society."

Another societal observation: the evolution of family models. In 1980, one in three marriages ended in divorce. Thirty years later, it is one in two. This phenomenon has a direct impact on space needs. Where a family of four occupied 100 m², there now need to be two dwellings of about 75 m² each. Thus we go from 25 m² per person to 37 m² per person.

The real estate sector did not wait for warnings to act: CO₂ emissions related to residential and non-residential buildings fell by 44% in 2022 compared with their 1990 level.

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

First — and as Professor Thalmann reminds us — the real estate sector did not wait for warnings to act: CO₂ emissions related to residential and non-residential buildings fell by 44% in 2022 compared with their 1990 level. This decrease is largely explained by the acceleration of energy renovations, made possible thanks to strengthened support measures.

Among these are subsidy programmes, as well as some simplification of administrative procedures. On this point, efforts can still be made regarding renovation permits. A persistent obstacle lies in the complexity of trade-offs between energy requirements and the preservation of built heritage. This delicate balance constitutes a significant brake on renovation projects, which needs to be improved.

Moreover, I note that it is particularly difficult to "value" an energy renovation project. Yet it would sometimes be possible, when renovating a residential building, to simultaneously create new dwellings while improving the building’s insulation.

I experienced this concretely in projects carried out in Lausanne and Écublens that faced two notable obstacles. On the one hand, heritage constraints — for example, the prohibition on piercing new roof windows for aesthetic reasons. On the other hand, opposition from neighbours, who refused any raising of the building, even by a few centimetres.

Had we obtained permission to simply create four roof windows, or had neighbours' oppositions been lifted, we could have created six additional dwellings while reducing the cost of renovation work and thus avoiding a rent increase after the work.

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

The situation in the non-residential rental market is not clear to my eyes. On the one hand, a study conducted by Lausanne Region forecasts a shortfall of nearly 400,000 m² of non-residential space by 2040. On the other hand, the current oversupply seems to contradict this trend — at least for the moment. But if the study proves correct, we are merely postponing the problem.

Furthermore, the areas where these administrative spaces develop are not necessarily located in neighbourhoods intended to accommodate housing. And the volumes of the spaces are adapted to administrative uses. Located on the outskirts, sterile and distant from social amenities (schools, nurseries, restaurants, etc.), these buildings often require major transformations to be made habitable. These adaptations, which are costly, inevitably end up being passed on to sale prices or rents. In other words, repurposing deserves to be examined, but it cannot in any case be generalized as a solution to the housing shortage.

As for the sharing of spaces, I continue to think that it is an ideal held by a relatively small segment of people. And it is highly likely that some of them would reconsider their convictions when they actually had to share their kitchen or guest room on a daily basis...

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