Here’s a breakdown of the provided text, focusing on the rules of Attefall and their implications:
The Rules of Attefall:
Core Right: Owners of single-family houses have the right to build a house of 30 square meters without needing building permits.
Extension Right: They also have the right to build an extension of 15 square meters without building permits.Origin and Intent:
The change in law was made in a hurry during the 2014 election campaign. It was intended as a “gift from the alliance to the Villa owners.”
Negative Consequences and Criticisms:
Caused “more bad mood than gratitude.”
Impact on Neighborhoods: The ability to build a 30 sqm house just 4.5 meters from a neighbor’s fence without permits is seen as detrimental to the neighborhood atmosphere. Swedish Democrats’ Proposal (“Sweden’s house”): This proposal, currently being investigated, would allow neighbors to build new villas without permits, but with a specific aesthetic: a “comic book version of a Swedish timbered cabin.” This is viewed negatively.
Exemptions: Culturally protected areas are spared, as building-free measures do not apply there. In these areas, conservation regulations can be used to control building. These areas also have higher prices.Arguments for and Against (The “Is it good or bad?” section):
Argument for (Positive):
It’s challenging to fault those who “take the matter into their own hands” and build their own homes when politics fails to meet the constitutional requirement of securing the right to a home.
Using personal capital to build new houses, rather than inflating existing housing prices, is a “commendable initiative.”
Argument against (Negative):
Inequality: Many people lack the opportunity to build due to financial constraints.
Urban Sprawl and Environmental Impact: The lack of housing in central locations drives the construction of single-family homes further from big cities. This leads to:
Relocation from areas like Stockholm County (net loss of 20,000 inhabitants in 5 years).
Longer commutes.
Increased car usage.
Higher consumption of finite resources. Greater contribution to climate change.
Aesthetic and Societal Reflection:
Expression of Values: Those who can afford it can express their values through their homes, providing a “true and fair picture of today’s society.”
Inspiration vs. Context: Houses built by those who can afford it and care about aesthetics are often guided by online inspirational images rather than the specific location.
Critique of “Wild Areas”: The author suggests that anyone who believes urban construction would benefit from the disappearance of “architectural force” should visit these areas.
Overall Tone:
The author is critical of the attefall rules and the proposed “Sweden’s house” concept. While acknowledging the potential for individuals to address housing needs when the state fails, the primary focus is on the negative consequences for neighborhoods, urban planning, and the environment. The text highlights a tension between individual freedom to build and the collective good of well-planned communities and lasting development.
