Ending quickly given real estates the housing shortage?
The pressure on cities is increasing. According to the EU Commission, more than eight out of ten people in Europe are expected to live in cities by 2050. The countryside is emptying out. In Italy and now also Sweden, depopulated rural communities are trying to counteract this with house and land sales at nearly giveaway prices. With a large media campaign, Gotene in Southwest Sweden is offering building land at bargain prices, causing a resonance that crashes the local servers. The mayor himself calls it a "crazy marketing action".
ntv.de: Whole regions in Europe are at risk of drying out. Above all, young people are leaving the countryside for the cities. In Sweden and Italy, places affected by this depopulation are meeting with real estate offers at rock-bottom prices. Can bargain hunters in Germany soon look forward to such campaigns?
Daniel Fuhrhop: We have an extreme housing shortage in our cities. On the other hand, there are many houses on the countryside that are not really used or are even empty. In that sense, it makes sense to help people find housing in remote areas ...
Is it then sensible to sell houses and plots of land on the countryside at ridiculously low prices?
One cannot simply say that without reservation. The Italian model has its charm. It's houses that have been waiting for a new owner or occupant for a long time. Destroying the land, as it is done in Sweden, is problematic for me.
Why is that?
Imagine, in close proximity to beautiful old buildings or farms, new buildings would suddenly emerge. Then the idyll would be over. Reviving old houses in close proximity would be even more difficult. We have already converted enough arable land into building land in Germany. That is ecologically problematic, not to mention that it can also accelerate the decline of crisis-stricken rural areas. Giving away or selling land cheaply does not automatically mean that one is promoting a rural region.
What should a community do instead, in your opinion?
It should look at what it already has: the houses and the people who live there. It can support the sale and renovation of old houses. Ultimately, it comes down to who owns the houses and whether the community can intervene.
What models are there in Germany that could serve as examples?
We have wonderful models that show that one can attract people to the countryside without paving it over or destroying the rural idyll. For example, the "Jung kauft Alt" program. This model was invented in Hiddenhausen near Herford and is now offered in over 100 communities in Germany. The Federal Government plans to roll out this program nationwide via the KfW in the summer!
This is deliberately not about empty plots, but about old houses that are empty and have buyers. Since we already have buildings, we don't have to build new ones. That saves space, and it also saves the climate. There are also programs called "secure renting". This helps landlords because they receive a guarantee that the rent will actually flow. Here, social housing is promoted, which is completely lacking on the land.
Many people are hesitant to buy an old house at a marketable price because they cannot assess how much more they will have to spend on repairs.
The program "Jung kauft Alt" helps buyers with a home appraisal. If they actually buy and move in, they receive annual subsidies for several years. Those with children receive a little extra money.
Despite your criticism: The discount action in Sweden is causing huge resonance. People feel like they're getting a gift, and they just can't help but bite...
Money helps in any case. Even small subsidies have a significant impact. In return for 10,000 Euros, some are suddenly willing to invest several hundred thousand Euros ...
Publicity-effective campaigns also seem important if you want to attract people back to the countryside. The servers in Sweden have crashed after the media reported on the action. Do rural communities really need more good media experts?
It's not that simple with rural living. Of course, there are many regions that unfairly have a bad reputation. Media experts can certainly polish that up a bit. I once half-jokingly suggested that one could even rename some places, for example Duisburg, which has a bad image, to Duesseldorf Nord, because Duesseldorf has such a great image. But rural areas often bring practical disadvantages for daily life.
What are you thinking about?
I'll just give two examples: traffic and work. Public transportation usually doesn't work well. I have to financially calculate that, even if I get a house for free. There are certainly costs - in addition to possible repairs - that I don't have in the city. And not everyone can choose where they work. Even though work has become more flexible with home office since the Corona period. There are now beautiful co-working spaces on the countryside with workstations that you can only find in Prenzlauer Berg or Schwabing. But the downsides must also be seen. I'll say: Even a "gifted donkey" should look closely. There's still a lot to do - even for politics. For example, abandoned railway lines need to be activated and bike lanes built in a wide radius around the cities.
The Swedish small town that offers building land for almost nothing sets conditions: The new owners must build within two years. Does that really help the town?
Few locals will profit from holiday homes. But there are also other risks that the sale of the plots brings with it: Are the buyers speculators? Do the new property owners keep the plots or sell them to new owners with a large profit in five or ten years? What will be built there? In the end, it might just be luxury apartments for the super rich, who only spend two days a year there. That doesn't help the countryside. Instead of giving away building land where people are lacking, we should rather see to it that we fill existing houses with people. Through incentives to settle in old houses in small towns. That helps the countryside and relieves the pressure on the housing market in the cities.
Interview with Daniel Fuhrhop by Diana Dittmer
The Italian model of selling houses and land at low prices to stimulate rural development has its advantages, but the destruction of land for new construction is ecologically problematic and can accelerate the decline of rural areas. Rural communities should focus on reviving existing buildings and supporting the sale and renovation of old houses instead of giving away or selling land at low prices.
Instead of providing building land at bargain prices, rural communities could incentivize settlement in old houses in small towns to help the countryside and alleviate the housing pressure in cities. This approach would be more beneficial than offering land at low prices, which could result in luxury apartments for the wealthy and contribute to the decline of rural areas.
