Trä- och Möbelföretagen (TMF) welcomes a serious discussion about garden cities and the architect Karin Kjellson raises several important questions on DN Debatt (5/3). However, the unspoken premise that what is good for central Stockholm also benefits the rest of the country needs to be broadened. Because just as it usually happens when the architects of the big city raise the issue, it is rarely about what is good for Sweden, but more about how the planning for the people of Stockholm should be designed.
A few days ago, TMF held a seminar on how future transport policy and community planning affect the conditions for new garden cities. Professor Jonas Eliason, director of accessibility at the Swedish Transport Administration, highlighted the problem that the discussions so often tend to be about the situation in central Stockholm, while Sweden’s challenges look completely different. The same perspective is regularly repeated by Professor Hans Lind in the housing policy discussions.
Because the fact is that the fundamental problem in Sweden is not that too many people live in large detached houses. The problem is that too many households live in small and cramped apartments and with limited access to green spaces. How people want to live is an important question that arouses great interest. Preference surveys are regularly conducted to follow this, and all show similar results. In a Demoskop survey, a large proportion of residents in apartments answered that they would rather live in detached houses. In Byggföretagen’s survey on how young adults want to live, three out of four answered that their housing dream is to live in a detached house. Overall, a series of surveys show that approximately 70 percent of all households prefer to live in detached houses.
But despite the dream in the case of single-family houses, there are significantly fewer people who live as they wish. The challenge of housing policy is therefore to normalize the construction of the classic single-family houses that citizens want. Spacious and with its own garden. The construction of single-family houses in Sweden is today the lowest in 100 years and significantly lower than in the Nordic countries and other comparable countries. This type of housing environment is also ecologically, socially, and economically more sustainable than traditional high-rise buildings.
Karin Kjellssson suggests that land availability would be a problem. Yes, in central Stockholm perhaps, but not in Sweden. Only 1 percent of Sweden’s area is occupied by residential buildings. In total, only 3 percent is built on in any way. This fact makes us one of the world’s most sparsely populated countries. There is definitely no physical shortage of land to maximize the welfare of citizens by allowing them to live as they wish. When the traffic is soon electrified and emission-free, there will be no problem with creating more idyllic noise villages just a few kilometers away from the center, which is what it is all about in Sweden and also Stockholm’s crown municipalities. In conclusion, it can be added that it would rather be reasonable to experiment with typical million program areas in the present and get them to cultivate the characteristics of the garden city rather than vice versa.
Trä- och Möbelföretagen (TMF) welcomes a serious discussion about garden cities and the architect Karin Kjellson raises several important questions on DN Debatt (5/3). But the unspoken premise that what is good for central Stockholm also benefits the rest of the country needs to be broadened. Because just as it usually happens when the architects of the big city raise the issue, it is rarely about what is good for Sweden, but more about how the planning for the people of Stockholm should be designed.
A few days ago TMF held a seminar on how future transport policy and community planning affect the conditions for new garden cities. Professor Jonas Eliason, director of accessibility at the Swedish Transport Administration, highlighted the problem that the discussions so often tend to be about the situation in central Stockholm, while Sweden’s challenges look completely different. The same perspective is regularly repeated by Professor Hans Lind in the housing policy discussions.
Because the fact is that the fundamental problem in Sweden is not that too many people live in large detached houses. The problem is that too many households live in small and cramped apartments and with limited access to green spaces. How people want to live is an important question that arouses great interest. Preference surveys are regularly conducted to follow this, and all show similar results. In a Demoskop survey, a large proportion of residents in apartments answered that they would rather live in detached houses. In Byggföretagen’s survey on how young adults want to live, three out of four answered that their housing dream is to live in a detached house. Overall, a series of surveys show that approximately 70 percent of all households prefer to live in detached houses.
But despite the dream in the case of single-family houses, there are significantly fewer people who live as they wish. The challenge of housing policy is therefore to normalize the construction of the classic single-family houses that citizens want. Spacious and with its own garden. The construction of single-family houses in Sweden is today the lowest in 100 years and significantly lower than in the Nordic countries and other comparable countries. This type of housing environment is also ecologically, socially and economically more sustainable than traditional high-rise buildings.
There is definitely no physical shortage of land to maximize the welfare of citizens by allowing them to live as they wish.
Karin Kjellssson suggests that land availability would be a problem. Yes, in central Stockholm perhaps, but not in Sweden. Only 1 percent of Sweden’s area is occupied by residential buildings. In total, only 3 percent is built on in any way. This fact makes us one of the world’s most sparsely populated countries. There is definitely no physical shortage of land to maximize the welfare of citizens by allowing them to live as they wish. When the traffic is soon electrified and emission-free, there will be no problem with creating more idyllic noise villages just a few kilometers away from the center, which is what it is all about in Sweden and also Stockholm’s crown municipalities. In conclusion, it can be added that it would rather be reasonable to experiment with typical million program areas in the present and get them to cultivate the characteristics of the garden city rather than vice versa.