How about just having apartments for single people under 60 square metres? Who the hell needs that much room?
So affordable means also shoebox?
Perhaps put some standards in the quality of the construction. You know that it is possible to build an appartment so you don’t applaude your neighbour on a fart he lets out? Or to look at their plate from your balcony?
Also, there is a way to build that your house does not get mold?
Wood might not be good facade material in this climate. Just saying.
It seems to me affordable here will mean – small, even lower quality. Because who cares about maintenance. That is buyer’s responsibility later so cheaper for us.
It seems to me that the answer for Lux City should be an easy one, use vertical space. Also why not turn the Glacis into a property lot. Surely we can still have parking underground and I assume it already belongs to the City/government anyway?
As for other regions, it’s not just about building, it’s about realistically motivating people to live outside the City so it starts with enticing companies to look outside the City to settle down. Old industrial sites like the old Luxlait site between Ettelbruck/Diekirch would be an ideal mixed-used lot for flats and small offices.
That being said I think we have reached peak demand because our economy (and the financial sector) has peaked.
All of this is PR stunt or these people are completely incompetent. Possibly both . They are creating narrative that is not true and that is all people want single family house near the nature. That they are spoiled. Maybe every one wants it but they would be very happy with average 2 or 3 bedroom flat on 4th flour of 50 flat building. In 30-45 minutes radius with car or public transportation from the city. Something you can find in all european countries. But no, Luxembourg will think of something completely useless just to pretend they are doing something hoping not to in-danger ever growing real-estate prices.
Affordable housing SNHBM also looks like PR stunt to me. Do not have personal experiences but as I was told even they are so expensive that very few people qualifying for them can actually afford the mortage.
Different people want different things, but developers here don’t seem to be getting it right in any of the different « archetypes ».
Some people would prefer to live in an apartment (less maintenance), in an urban environment, with commerce accessible by foot. Problem: the places where we build vertical don’t feel like that. For example in cloche d’or or in Kirchberg, so much of the commerce is concentrated in the shopping malls and you don’t really get a neighborhood life. Ok to build vertical but what about using the ground floor of all the buildings for cool shops, cafes, dry cleaners, sports studios, crèches, etc?
I used to live in bigger cities, in apartments, and whenever I see the residential buildings in Kirchberg they just feel a bit « sad ».
Some other people would prefer a nice little house, with a garden etc. The country is quite small so driving 10 or 15 or even 25 minutes out of the city is not an issue. However, all of the new houses I see being promoted there are objectively ugly. Supposedly modern architecture with just no charm and more often than not you’re sharing a wall (or two) with your neighbors. Prices are high so money is not necessarily the blocking point to building nice. Why not have houses with better architecture, in pretty suburbs, with trees etc?
To me that’s one of the biggest struggles. I feel you could go for urban living or suburban living but here you don’t really get a truly good version of either, especially when put in context with the prices.
The shitty example they cite is 7 people living in 3 bedroom house. Do these people even consider if that’s how they want to live? Earn high wages and then use those wages to pay to landowners and taxes to cover for pensions of the retirees.
Differently.. Like… With the hole in the middle of the building?
Meanwhile CSV in Kehlen is suggesting tiny houses
Everyone here has a good point. I also see fonds du Kirchberg actions being not aligned with the objectif of affordable housing. They make construction with architect from other countries with strange and not suitable facade that are extremely expensive at the cost of the future owner who would rather pay less or have a better interior. After that they sell some of those super expensive home to snhbm for affordable housing.
9 comments
How about just having apartments for single people under 60 square metres? Who the hell needs that much room?
So affordable means also shoebox?
Perhaps put some standards in the quality of the construction. You know that it is possible to build an appartment so you don’t applaude your neighbour on a fart he lets out? Or to look at their plate from your balcony?
Also, there is a way to build that your house does not get mold?
Wood might not be good facade material in this climate. Just saying.
It seems to me affordable here will mean – small, even lower quality. Because who cares about maintenance. That is buyer’s responsibility later so cheaper for us.
It seems to me that the answer for Lux City should be an easy one, use vertical space. Also why not turn the Glacis into a property lot. Surely we can still have parking underground and I assume it already belongs to the City/government anyway?
As for other regions, it’s not just about building, it’s about realistically motivating people to live outside the City so it starts with enticing companies to look outside the City to settle down. Old industrial sites like the old Luxlait site between Ettelbruck/Diekirch would be an ideal mixed-used lot for flats and small offices.
That being said I think we have reached peak demand because our economy (and the financial sector) has peaked.
All of this is PR stunt or these people are completely incompetent. Possibly both . They are creating narrative that is not true and that is all people want single family house near the nature. That they are spoiled. Maybe every one wants it but they would be very happy with average 2 or 3 bedroom flat on 4th flour of 50 flat building. In 30-45 minutes radius with car or public transportation from the city. Something you can find in all european countries. But no, Luxembourg will think of something completely useless just to pretend they are doing something hoping not to in-danger ever growing real-estate prices.
Affordable housing SNHBM also looks like PR stunt to me. Do not have personal experiences but as I was told even they are so expensive that very few people qualifying for them can actually afford the mortage.
Different people want different things, but developers here don’t seem to be getting it right in any of the different « archetypes ».
Some people would prefer to live in an apartment (less maintenance), in an urban environment, with commerce accessible by foot. Problem: the places where we build vertical don’t feel like that. For example in cloche d’or or in Kirchberg, so much of the commerce is concentrated in the shopping malls and you don’t really get a neighborhood life. Ok to build vertical but what about using the ground floor of all the buildings for cool shops, cafes, dry cleaners, sports studios, crèches, etc?
I used to live in bigger cities, in apartments, and whenever I see the residential buildings in Kirchberg they just feel a bit « sad ».
Some other people would prefer a nice little house, with a garden etc. The country is quite small so driving 10 or 15 or even 25 minutes out of the city is not an issue. However, all of the new houses I see being promoted there are objectively ugly. Supposedly modern architecture with just no charm and more often than not you’re sharing a wall (or two) with your neighbors. Prices are high so money is not necessarily the blocking point to building nice. Why not have houses with better architecture, in pretty suburbs, with trees etc?
To me that’s one of the biggest struggles. I feel you could go for urban living or suburban living but here you don’t really get a truly good version of either, especially when put in context with the prices.
The shitty example they cite is 7 people living in 3 bedroom house. Do these people even consider if that’s how they want to live? Earn high wages and then use those wages to pay to landowners and taxes to cover for pensions of the retirees.
Differently.. Like… With the hole in the middle of the building?
Meanwhile CSV in Kehlen is suggesting tiny houses
Everyone here has a good point. I also see fonds du Kirchberg actions being not aligned with the objectif of affordable housing. They make construction with architect from other countries with strange and not suitable facade that are extremely expensive at the cost of the future owner who would rather pay less or have a better interior. After that they sell some of those super expensive home to snhbm for affordable housing.