"No way back, Sweden will never be what it was"

[Deleted]

Yeah in Seattle the government is waaaaay too concerned about historical buildings. I'm all for preserving history, but not at the expense of people affording their rent.

Hahah Seattle and historical buildings... isn't your oldest building made in like the late 1800s?

[Wells]

Hahah Seattle and historical buildings... isn't your oldest building made in like the late 1800s?

This is America. Nothing is old.

[Deletedaccount1]

Japan's education system already fully prepares their citizens for general living, both self and social. Anyone worrying about their future has no idea what's good for Japan.

Sorry fam but this isn't true.

[Deianeira]

Does ethnicity mean something else in english than it does in swedish? In Swedish ethnicity revolves around primordialism, which means someone black can't be japanese.

So you mean a black child adopted and raised by Swedish parents is or even CANT be Swedish? lmao, really that is so telling man.

[Radeghost]

Nationalist parties are invariably racist because they tout the superiority of one ethnic/national group over the others.

good to be racist then

[nextormento]

That the market doesn't respond is incorrect. In fact, we haven't built as much as we have now since the 70s. The problem with our housing crisis comes down to a lot of things, but most would agree that the primary reason is bureacracy which makes construction very expensive. You simply can't make a profit off newly-produced buildings if you have a rent that a student or asylum seeker can afford because of all the laws you have to follow.

Most who?
Builders? buyers? owners? exactly the kind of interested parties who should not have a say on regulation: if it was up to them, we'd construct with the lowest possible standards.
Building engineers?, bricklayers?: exactly the kind of professional with very low training on city planing.

Construction needs to be kept expensive, for a host of reasons. And needs to be kept cheap for a host of other reasons.
It needs to be affordable -so cheap-, yes. But it needs to be sustainable.

That it is expensive is the main drive to live on top of one another: apartments, instead of single detached homes. When we loose those requirements, cities sprawl horizontally (see any city in the US). Which in turn makes infrastructure (sewage, water supply, internet, etc.) a whole lot more expensive to set up and maintain. It also detracts transport companies from setting shop: because they'd rather operate in dense neighborhoods.

Sprawl, loose regulation, only distributes costs to the city, and thus the citizen: people who might not even own a house.
It massively impacts the middle class, cutting their social mobility through the strata.
It's effectively subsidizing the housing industry, and increasing social inequalities. This is why I labeled the response @Wells gave as right-wing.
A blanket suggestion for looser regulation is irresponsible, and giving simple solutions to complex problems.

This, mind you, is not a request to make housing stupidly expensive. It's a balancing act; one professionals in the field (whoever is responsible for city planning; in my country it's architects, but it can be others) tackle every day.
There probably exist room for looser regulations in some areas or tighter ones in other areas: there's a few hundred levers to pull up and down.

[Deleted]

I don't know, you should ask that to the far right.
It's really hard to understand why they would give up a tolerate and free society in order to install a nationalist authoritarian regime.

Why not ask the mushroom people of Nova Scotia instead? Or what does far right have to do with any of this again?

[Deleted]

Most who?
Builders? buyers? owners? exactly the kind of interested parties who should not have a say on regulation: if it was up to them, we'd construct with the lowest possible standards.
Building engineers?, bricklayers?: exactly the kind of professional with very low training on city planing.

Construction needs to be kept expensive, for a host of reasons. And needs to be kept cheap for a host of other reasons.
It needs to be affordable -so cheap-, yes. But it needs to be sustainable.

That it is expensive is the main drive to live on top of one another: apartments, instead of single detached homes. When we loose those requirements, cities sprawl horizontally (see any city in the US). Which in turn makes infrastructure (sewage, water supply, internet, etc.) a whole lot more expensive. It also detracts transport companies from setting shop: because they'd rather operate in dense neighborhoods.

Sprawl, loose regulation, only distributes costs to the city, and thus the citizen: people who might not even own a house.
It massively impacts the middle class, cutting their social mobility though the strata.
It's effectively subsidizing the housing industry, and increasing social inequalities. This is why I labeled the response @Wells gave as right-wing.
A blanket suggestion for looser regulation is irresponsible, and giving simple solutions to complex problems.

This, mind you, is not a request to make housing stupidly expensive. It's a balancing act; one professionals in the field (whoever is responsible for city planning; in my country it's architects, but it can be others) tackle every day.
There probably exist room for looser regulations in some areas or tighter ones in other areas: there's a few hundred levers to pull up and down.

Just like you said it's a balancing act. But low-income people at this point have barely any social mobility due to the housing crisis. Students have to drop out of programs and courses since they can't find places to live, low-income families are stuck in places where there are no jobs and less opportunities to climb up the social ladder and refugees are stuck in the middle of nowhere or in places where they can't interact with any of the natives. Frankly I think these people won't mind some regulations to be loosened up in order to have more social mobility. Perhaps since you're not a Swede you don't understand the kind of regulations that are in place here... a lot of them are here for good reasons, but it's come to a point where the regulations drive up prices too much. It's not balanced.

Sweden is lucky too; Sweden is a country where most cities can expand vertically since the ground isn't 'important' in the sense that it's mostly forest, so the costs associated with tall buildings doesn't apply in the same sense there. In the south, where there is a lot of agricultural ground, it's obviously a more complex question where what you say is indeed correct. But that's still only about 1/10 of Sweden's total surface.

[Deleted]

Rip.............

[nextormento]

Perhaps since you're not a Swede you don't understand the kind of regulations that are in place here... a lot of them are here for good reasons, but it's come to a point where the regulations drive up prices too much. It's not balanced.

Right. My complaint was at the simple blanket solution, not the specifics of Sweden. There's always more variables to consider. You may very well have way too much bureaucracy in the way: though I certainly could look it up myself, I'm more than fine with taking your word for it.

[Deleted]

Right. My complaint was at the simple blanket solution, not the specifics of Sweden. There's always more variables to consider. You may very well have way too much bureaucracy in the way: though I certainly could look it up myself, I'm more than fine with taking your word for it.

Perhaps you can enlighten me then as an architect; Like I mentioned earlier there's law that living rooms need to be at least 20 m^2 in size for houses built for 4 people. What purpose does this serve other than comfort? For a low-income family is this not a tad too luxurious, considering that a room like that will drive up the price of the house/apartment further?

[Deleted]

So you mean a black child adopted and raised by Swedish parents is or even CANT be Swedish? lmao, really that is so telling man.

Yeah he cant be swedish, seems basic login has been erased from leftists brains.
He can be swedish citizen but never ever ethnic swedish.

Citizenship is something invented by men, Ethnicity is something given by nature.



And someone tell that Didactic sovietic socialist that nationalism has nothing to do with other races. Its minding your own nation, its the opposite of cuck social-liberalism. He seems to not get it through that small underdeveloped skull of his.

I as a nationalist i want every race to do well, I want black and arab people to thrive, IN THEIR OWN FUCKING COUNTRIES.

I let the science decide which race is superior. But i know that each race has their own traits.

I actually think east asians are superior to whites in the IQ area, does that mean im now a Japan nationalist?
I actually think blacks have superior muscle mass than whites (the lazy fucks dont need to workout as hard as me), does that think im now a Zimbabwe nationalist? That is one fucking shithole after whites left ye? Good luck.

These leftist buffons do not understand the difference between being a nationalist and a racist, so let them call us racist, cos one day they might fucking see the true face of racism and realise what that word actually is.

[Deleted]

So you mean a black child adopted and raised by Swedish parents is or even CANT be Swedish? lmao, really that is so telling man.

You don't change ethnicity just because you move to another country or is born in another country than where the seat of your ethnicity is.

- - - Updated - - -

Just like you said it's a balancing act. But low-income people at this point have barely any social mobility due to the housing crisis. Students have to drop out of programs and courses since they can't find places to live, low-income families are stuck in places where there are no jobs and less opportunities to climb up the social ladder and refugees are stuck in the middle of nowhere or in places where they can't interact with any of the natives. Frankly I think these people won't mind some regulations to be loosened up in order to have more social mobility. Perhaps since you're not a Swede you don't understand the kind of regulations that are in place here... a lot of them are here for good reasons, but it's come to a point where the regulations drive up prices too much. It's not balanced.

Sweden is lucky too; Sweden is a country where most cities can expand vertically since the ground isn't 'important' in the sense that it's mostly forest, so the costs associated with tall buildings doesn't apply in the same sense there. In the south, where there is a lot of agricultural ground, it's obviously a more complex question where what you say is indeed correct. But that's still only about 1/10 of Sweden's total surface.

What regulations? Noise? Standards of construction?

If noise, then no. They have been doing construction close to my apartment for about half a year now and it's impossible to sleep once they start working because of the sound levels, they are still within the legal levels but if we'd loosen up that, we'd see people getting damage to their hearing because of the sound levels if they don't wear protection against it if they live close to construction sites.

If standards of construction, then no. We don't need "fuskbygge", the standards are there for a reason, to make sure that we get buildings that people can live in, that are properly vented, that won't fall apart at the slighest strain on the building.

Rent regulations? Only the rich would be able to afford the rental apartments if they were loosened.


The biggest problem with the cost of housing in Sweden is that people are granted loans, often loans that far exceeds what they can pay off and only pay the interest rate on the loan. People are living on money that they don't have.

[Deleted]

You don't change ethnicity just because you move to another country or is born in another country than where the seat of your ethnicity is.

- - - Updated - - -



What regulations? Noise? Standards of construction?

If noise, then no. They have been doing construction close to my apartment for about half a year now and it's impossible to sleep once they start working because of the sound levels, they are still within the legal levels but if we'd loosen up that, we'd see people getting damage to their hearing because of the sound levels if they don't wear protection against it if they live close to construction sites.

If standards of construction, then no. We don't need "fuskbygge", the standards are there for a reason, to make sure that we get buildings that people can live in, that are properly vented, that won't fall apart at the slighest strain on the building.

Rent regulations? Only the rich would be able to afford the rental apartments if they were loosened.

It's not the production part that needs to be loosened, it's the projecting costs - for example, laws about sound reduction between walls have been suggested to be lowered. A lot of rules about the dimensions of rooms can be excessive at times.

Like I said earlier, there's a point where our standards become so high it becomes unpractical.

[Deleted]

It's not the production part that needs to be loosened, it's the projecting costs - for example, laws about sound reduction between walls have been suggested to be lowered. A lot of rules about the dimensions of rooms can be excessive at times.

If standards about sound reduction are to be lowered then that's an apartment I and many others do not want to live in. I can already hear my neighbour talking as if he's sitting next room in my apartment despite me sitting in the living room and him being in his living room, my kitchen is inbetween us too. If the standards of this were to be lowered even more then it would be impossible to live in an apartment if people aren't quiet at all times.

[Deleted]

If standards about sound reduction are to be lowered then that's an apartment I and many others do not want to live in. I can already hear my neighbour talking as if he's sitting next room in my apartment despite me sitting in the living room and him being in his living room, my kitchen is inbetween us too. If the standards of this were to be lowered even more then it would be impossible to live in an apartment if people aren't quiet at all times.

Then don't live there. You apparently have the means to move around freely.

Besides, where do you live, I can't say I live in any luxurious places but I don't have any of the sound problem you seem to have..

[Deleted]

Then don't live there. You apparently have the means to move around freely.

Besides, where do you live, I can't say I live in any luxurious places but I don't have any of the sound problem you seem to have..

I don't have the means to move around freely as it's going to take me 2-3 years to get enough points in the queue system to get a new apartment.

I live close to Mora.

[Deleted]

Nationalist parties are invariably racist because they tout the superiority of one ethnic/national group over the others.

And nobody 'wants' white population replacement. We just enjoy having our economies not be in, you know, recession.

Or how about not grouping everyone together. Just because you lefties want to be a part of a collective that shares the same views, has the same opinions etc. doesnt mean everyone else is that way too. While some nationalist might be racist, I for example am against low quality (low not because of their skin color, but because of their education, what they bring on the job market and values) immigrants if not for any other then then simply because my tax dollars are used to support them as opposed to making life better for me. And since paying taxes isn't optional, they are basically stealing my money and increasing crime.

[nextormento]

Perhaps you can enlighten me then as an architect; Like I mentioned earlier there's law that living rooms need to be at least 20 m^2 in size for houses built for 4 people. What purpose does this serve other than comfort? For a low-income family is this not a tad too luxurious, considering that a room like that will drive up the price of the house/apartment further?

It's an archaic pretense that traces back to early century modernism.

We didn't have many industry standards back then. The re-introduction of reinforced concrete made for very fast, unexpected growth. Most of that growth was, of course, profit driven. That produced dwellings with fairly low standards: small rooms, low ceilings, thin facades that easily let heat escape, no bathrooms, etc.
This, of course, is something the invisible hand of the market can fix: people will request higher standards and pay for it.
But then those older houses were under par, and left the buyers with a property that quickly devaluated: owners felt cheated.
Since the pace of constructing was increasing very fast, that discontent was also growing pretty fast: houses easily become toxic assets.
A house is among the most expensive assets a family can buy, so it's sought to last longer accordingly. And not just last as a place one can live, but one that can be fairly competitive through the years and be sold.
The french proposal was setting standards above what the industry could outpace, and pretend buildings to be a competitive product for over a century: it's a very protectionist way measure favoring the buyer.

These are not policies, but stuff architects wrote. From LeCorbu, to Walter Gropius, or Adolf Loos.
And among those standards, they were obsessed with architectural anthropometry: what size things should have to be appropriate for a human.
The particular of a 20m2 living-room is just that. It's appropriate for the living standards they expected a nuclear family (2 parents, two children) would have: a space to dine, rest, and be the 4 together after work and school.

These ideas were left in the back-burner.
Then we had a couple wars, and had to reconstruct very fast. Architects across Europe saw an opportunity to abandon the crammed and chaotic cities centers, and bought into every modernist tenet: including the very strict and protective norms for how a home should be set up and how big they should be. The US didn't have that problem with wars, so they went post-modern much more quickly.

How that came to be regulated by the state, I'm not sure. Here architects still enjoy a bit of prestige, and a bit of power. So much so that we've managed to still be the exclusive authority in urban planning. The state bends to our profession and our crazy ideas sometimes.

In my mind, there is no practical purpose to that regulation. Not today anyway. Our living standards change faster than we, architects, imagine. We're a field that perhaps honors excessively our own past.
It is probably why we're moving into more interdisciplinary ateliers.

[Deleted]

I don't have the means to move around freely as it's going to take me 2-3 years to get enough points in the queue system to get a new apartment.

I live close to Mora.

So would you prefer living at home with your parents than living in that apartment? I doubt it. That's the point; If you can't afford a good apartment, then you can't afford a good apartment. But people should at least be able to make the choice; Most low-income people can't get a place to live, and I think many would love to live in your apartment given the chance.

- - - Updated - - -

It's an archaic pretense that traces back to early century modernism.

We didn't have many industry standards back then. The re-introduction of reinforced concrete made for very fast, unexpected growth. Most of that growth was, of course, profit driven. That produced dwellings with fairly low standards: small rooms, low ceilings, thin facades that easily let heat escape, no bathrooms, etc.
This, of course, is something the invisible hand of the market can fix: people will request higher standards and pay for it.
But then those older houses were under par, and left the buyers with a property that quickly devaluated: owners felt cheated.
Since the pace of constructing was increasing very fast, that discontent was also growing pretty fast: houses easily become toxic assets.
A house is among the most expensive assets a family can buy, so it's sought to last longer accordingly. And not just last as a place one can live, but one that can be fairly competitive through the years and be sold.
The french proposal was setting standards above what the industry could outpace, and pretend buildings to be a competitive product for over a century: it's a very protectionist way measure favoring the buyer.

These are not policies, but stuff architects wrote. From LeCorbu, to Walter Gropius, or Adolf Loos.
And among those standards, they were obsessed with architectural anthropometry: what size things should have to be appropriate for a human.
The particular of a 20m2 living-room is just that. It's appropriate for the living standards they expected a nuclear family (2 parents, two children) would have: a space to dine, rest, and be the 4 together after work and school.

These ideas were left in the back-burner.
Then we had a couple wars, and had to reconstruct very fast. Architects across Europe saw an opportunity to abandon the crammed and chaotic cities centers, and bought into every modernist tenet: including the very strict and protective norms for how a home should be set up and how big they should be. The US didn't have that problem with wars, so they went post-modern much more quickly.

How that came to be regulated by the state, I'm not sure. Here architects still enjoy a bit of prestige, and a bit of power. So much so that we've managed to still be the exclusive authority in urban planning. The state bends to our profession and our crazy ideas sometimes.

In my mind, there is no practical purpose to that regulation. Not today anyway. Our living standards change faster than we, architects, imagine. We're a field that perhaps honors excessively our own past.
It is probably why we're moving into more interdisciplinary ateliers.

Very interesting. Thanks for the insight