Media Evolution | Toward an Economy of Care and Repair

See the axonometric drawing on page 61.

How can we weigh up the evidence for and against a model of demolition and reconstruction? Demolition destroys embodied value which can take decades to rebuild. We need to make the false economies of demolition-driven development legible. – Finn Williams, City Architect, Malmö Stad

We have observed that the book value of these properties is significantly lower than their current market value, which indicates that there is potential for further investment and increased value. – Jannice Engman, Project Manager, MKB Fastighets AB

People are increasingly concerned about rising rents and escalating living costs. It’s already a challenge financially, and in addition to covering essentials like food, you have to allocate more of your budget to rent. – Mariam Abdelghani, HGF Viola

See images on pages 54-55: top left: 1968 The original building elements analyzed; bottom left: 1979 The merger of two flats into one; top right: 1987 Multiple apartments become one group apartment; bottom right: 1988 New restaurant and new entrances.

Though costly with low immediate returns, projects can still be justified if we consider the broader area’s long-term value increase, as seen in Augustenborg’s Greenhouse, which will eventually make them financially viable. – Martin Grander, Associate Professor in Urban Studies, Malmö University.

Public housing has long been subject to cascading externalities that shape its trajectories and imaginaries: short-term political decisions, skewed media portrayals, and vested economic interests overshadow and diminish its intrinsic economic, social and material value. In contrast to recent trends of demolition, privatization, and densification in Denmark, the UK, France and elsewhere, which serve to undermine post-WWII construction as a cornerstone of the welfare state, our visions build and expand on the societal ideals and objectives emblematic to the Million Program by engaging the technical, social, financial, and legislative protocols that condition urban environments such as Rosengård¹.

These visions at hand, while less glamorous, immediately visible, or politically expedient, seek to capture alternative ways of engaging with and shifting the prevailing economies that shape our built and imagined environments. Using Landskanslisten 2 in Örtagården, Rosengård1, as our paradigmatic case study, these “rehearsals” chart our method, process, and practice, in the form of provocations that engage with existing financial and regulatory regimes in order to pre-vision a future in which care, repair, and equitable redistribution are prioritised².

Rehearsing Landskanslisten 2

The entry point for our rehearsals are the financial models which govern public housing in Sweden and in Malmö, e.g. the Malmömodellen and the 2011 Housing Act. Specifically, we focus on a latent potential in the difference between the book value of the property (calculated from the original investment of construction in 1968, plus modifications, renovations, and investments made since) and its current market value; this difference can be seen as a surplus value, as unrealized gains. For MKB Fastighets AB, (the owner of Landskanslisten 2), this surplus is valued at 28.8 billion SEK.

This surplus value is typically used in the private market to increase risk or pay out dividends. We propose an alternative that leverages this latent potential:

What if public housing companies could use this localised surplus value to support the viability of much-needed development, whether through the redistribution of existing budgets, through future maintenance and strategic transformations, or in new construction of higher quality?³

What follows might be thought of as an outline for a theatrical drama in a quasi-Baldessari fashion that takes this alternative proposition as its starting point. Each act is an experiment across communal stewardship, adaptive reuse, and tenant-centered development, aimed at bringing tenants, property managers, and architects into conversation, and thus to rehearse alternative futures for Landskanslisten 2.

ACT 1—Rehearsing a Rent Freeze: Toward Communal Stewardship⁴

This inaugural act unfolds in a near future in an agora on Hårds Väg, where tenants and representatives from MKB assemble in the shade of the trees to question the prevailing idea of property as a mere market commodity, and rethink it as a communal space whose value is determined not by market fluctuations, but by its role as a shared resource. This act rehearses a suspension of incremental rent increases tied to market fluctuations, such as inflation and rising costs of building materials. These have led to a situation where a tenant in Örtagården can find that their rent consumes the majority of their total income. What goes unregistered in a conventional spatial lexicon is that the rent freeze is not merely an instrument for financial adjustment, as it might be seen in a conventional spatial lexicon; rather, it holds the potential to spark new tenant organization and collective action. Beyond financial relief, it shifts toward communal stewardship and a self-governed model where tenants have agency over maintenance and resource allocation.

ACT 2—Rehearsing Changeability: Changes that Change Less

Political narratives around upgrades or alterations to public housing in Denmark (the “parallel society, “ghetto” lists), the UK (estate regeneration), and France (“rattrapage” and mixité sociale) have led to radical transformations that erode the cultural, social and material fabrics of public housing in favor of opportunistic political or economic gain. By contrast, Sweden’s peripheral position presents a potent opportunity to rehearse a different future – one that builds upon and expands the qualities already present⁵ .

This second act pivots the flexibility and adaptability intrinsic to buildings from the Million Program. Built in 1968, Landskanslisten 2 has seen numerous modifications to its building envelope, functionality, and structural framework by means of historical additions, extensions and refurbishments, programmatic transformations, and comfort standard upgrades; these demonstrate its ability to evolve in response to the changing social and economic needs of tenants. Drawing on these lessons, this rehearsal balances resource consciousness with resident-driven upgrades. Instead of top-down mandates, architects, tenants, and MKB collaborate to map and analyse earlier modifications, and to develop a strategic catalogue for future adaptations that prioritize environmental sustainability and tenant usability. This model extends beyond MKB’s current 2032 operations plan, affording a framework to support the building’s longevity and relevance for current and future generations of tenants. Key interventions include reversible modifications and an infill strategy (through e.g. cutting party walls), using biogenic elements to allow for adaptable spaces, mixed-use tenures and lasting communal spaces.

ACT 3—Rehearsing Revaluation: Surplus as Service⁶

Due to its robust construction and flexibility, Landskans- listen 2 has seen its market value rise far beyond its original investment. However, replicating such buildings today would prove difficult and costly. Current property valuation models and practices assess projects in isolation, overlooking long-term value increases within individual properties and in its broader context, thus contributing to an uneven distribution of resources and stagnation in socio-economically disadvantaged areas.

In this final act, we rehearse a model that circumvents the constraints of Malmömodellen in order to enable new construction. We propose redistributing surplus value from adjacent properties in order to fund localized, selective densification in the service of current tenants. Inspired by Rosengård's architectural adaptability, this model includes a strategy of adaptable permanence and transformability that provides spaces for work, care and culture, with the flexibility to evolve into student housing, guest apartments, elderly homes, or otherwise. Suspending the Malmömodellen in 2025 could by 2040 allow surplus value from Örtagården to fund high-quality, affordable housing, thereby challenging conventional construction practices and redefining the relationship between standard property valuation and social infrastructure.

Project Leads

Love Di Marco, architect and lecturer at KTH, based in Stockholm.
Margarida N. Waco, architect, writer, and doctoral fellow at the Institute for the History and Theory of Architecture (gta) at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zürich).

Contributors

Jelena Mijanovic, manager of circular economy at Ramboll Sweden
Natalie Hase, architect and co-founder of 08 demolition
Peter Ström, graphic/web designer and educator based in Stockholm
Tobias Hentzer Dausgaard, architect and industrial PhD fellow at the Aarhus School of Architecture & Rønnow Leth & Gori

Special thanks

Emma Cedermarker Belec, Erik Stenberg, Finn Williams, Frida Alkestrand Christensen, Frida Grundahl, Henrietta Dõmõtõv, Jannice Engman, Mariam Abdelghani, Patrik Jönsson, Patrik Lundberg, Markus Nilsson, Martin Grander, Miljöambassadörer Rosengård, Reeta Hafner, Sabina Jallow, Torben Klitgaard, and property caretakers in Örtagården—Dzemalj and Elvir. We give our thanks.