The house is not a symbol of ‘evil’

Fortunately for everyone, and unfortunately for the newspapers and populists who had staked their hopes on it, there has been no ‘Maricarmen Abascal’ case in Italy – the 87-year-old woman evicted in Spain; and, above all, no similar street protests have emerged; even the students’ tents, which have already disappeared, bear little resemblance to the strength and purpose of the acampadas, or the housing protests in France. The problem of the (un)sustainable cost of housing obviously exists, even in a country where 70 per cent of households own their own homes. According to Istat, around 3.3 million Italians live in conditions of severe hardship, and the Bank of Italy’s Annual Report on the Regional Economy has highlighted that the rise in rents far outstrips the rise in wages. Furthermore, the housing crisis affects major urban centres: there is a reason why the frenzy (or rather, the bubble) of investigative reporting has hit Milan. The difficulties in securing accommodation at fair prices are real; according to the Observatory on Affordable Housing (OCA), housing costs should not exceed 30 per cent of income. This has contributed to making housing, everywhere, the symbol of an ‘evil’ caused by corruption, powerful interests and the financial sector: the right to housing is the battleground for the new social conflict. But this, which seems like an incontrovertible fact, requires two clarifications to prevent it from becoming a misrepresentation.

The first article is on judicial populism. It is indisputable and significant that the investigations in Milan did not begin because of unlawful evictions or property developers’ usurious practices – in short, not because of the ‘housing crisis’. They began as complaints from middle-class urban residents against alleged planning violations: the building in the courtyard, the one casting a shadow – and from ideologically driven committees. It was then left to the public prosecutor’s office to develop the theme of the ‘whirlwind of corruption’ that collapsed spectacularly yesterday. No one paid any attention to those truly harmed by the investigations and seizures – the ‘suspended families’ left homeless. This judicial populism, in turn, fed on an ideological narrative disconnected from reality, which, instead of identifying solutions (no ‘Fanfani Plan’ ever materialised), blamed everything on the ‘neoliberal’ model, ‘predatory finance’ and corrupt politics.

The second point, however, concerns the unrealistic way in which the construction industry is discussed. Fulvio Irace, a respected architectural historian at the Politecnico, said in a recent interview with Rai that “we mustn’t be naïve; architecture follows the money (just ask Michelangelo, ed.), but a balance is needed – the city’s development is at stake. We need to think about how to harness Milan’s dynamism without missing the boat’. The problems of sustainable construction – in all areas under heavy housing pressure – have deep-rooted causes. Ten years ago, the Fondazione Cariplo was invited to Brussels to present the Italian model of social housing, which was cutting-edge at the time. But no public policy has followed up on this initiative from the third sector. Once the crisis hit, the City of Milan’s ‘Piano Casa’ was launched (the national scheme has only just begun) to make municipal land available for subsidised housing through an agreement with developers on costs and rents. So far, it has not got off the ground, for the simple reason that the proposed parameters are too restrictive for developers in a city like Milan, where the cost of new-build construction ranges from 3,500 to 4,400 euros per square metre.

Ideas are needed. The CEO of Lombardini22, a major player in the construction sector, has put forward the provocative proposal of a ‘€10-a-day home’ for young people: this is only possible provided that long-term (patient) investors are involved. Carlo Cottarelli has estimated that Milan needs 9,300 new homes a year until 2038, but forecasts for the new-build market stand at around 2,600; this, particularly for social housing (ERS), is caused by restrictions and obligations imposed on builders that drive up costs too much. To achieve sustainable goals, there is no need to cry out that ‘the city is driving young people away’; instead, we must, for example, make it possible to live in the metropolitan area: this is a question of transport, not bricks and mortar. Incomes need to be adjusted, but that is not the builders’ responsibility. And we need to have a realistic understanding of construction costs, particularly the fact that there is also the cost of capital: this is a resource just like bricks; it must be acquired and remunerated. And interest rates range from 5 per cent on solidarity funds to 10 or 15 per cent on international financial funds. There are no free halls of residence, no social housing that can be financed at zero cost, nor any Fanfani housing schemes backed by IOUs. The great deception peddled by proposals for social housing to be built ‘for free’ or at the expense of the developers stems from failing to view housing as an economic problem to be managed, but merely as a banner to be waved in the streets.