who follows this blog from the beginning has had the opportunity to read more than once criticism to political (in) that encourage urban and always use the building the second case, seen as a panacea to the ills of the mountain.
We think it's a little 'how to cure a cold by immersing the patient in the icy water. The cold, maybe even pass, on the other hand is probably pneumonia.
And doubt should have caught others, so it seems by reading this comment on Valbrembana News. Comment particularly interesting, in our opinion, why inserted in a report on the abandonment of the mountain by the companies, the news that goes hand in hand with this other .
's post today, however, does not want to talk about Brembana Valley, but more generally because of second homes can not be the solution to the problems of mountain areas that lose population, businesses, and more generally attractive.
Again, the answer did not invent, you try. How many years do not bother to planners Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development (Bundesamt fur Raumentwicklung).
After work started in 2008 and lasted about two years to June 2010 UFST published a report entitled "Second Homes. Cantonal Director Planning Guide." It can download free here .
Already in the preface it hits the mark: "In the tourist regions, a sustainable territorial development is of fundamental importance for the maintenance of a high attractiveness and competitiveness of the competition between themselves in holiday villages and tourist areas . Orderly development in the construction of second homes is an essential tool in this regard. The high demand for second homes, the fact that the hospitality industry than the bed occupancy is much lower and the unintended consequences related to the extension of settlements in the recreational areas are, in tourist areas, particular challenges for spatial planning is at municipal, cantonal and regional levels and ".
E in Chapter 1, it goes much further: "Depending on the special interests, the effects of a strong growth in second homes are perceived very differently: the local housing without intensive construction of second homes, afraid of losing important revenues for its economic existence. For tour operators in a sufficient variety of second homes in size and characteristics ensures the attractiveness of a bed in a tourist area. The hotel industry sees instead threatened their existence due to the persistent pressure to allocate the space for other purposes . The local population in search of housing is compared with land prices and rents very high. Once over the high season, holiday villages take on a ghostly appearance, characterized by entire neighborhoods with the blinds drawn. Last but not least the natural sites and recreational areas, which are of fundamental importance for tourism, are-you threat from the proliferation of second homes ".
It's enough to intervene, they must have said this week. And a first step was to determine the threshold "of attention" and "alarm" (my definition, ed) on page 11 of the report says "To define the need for intervention PLANNING, the percentage of second homes than the total available housing is certainly an important criterion, but not the only one. A percentage of 30% or more of second homes is often considered sufficient evidence to intervene. If the percentage exceeds 50%, in most cases the need for action is uncontested ".
30%, 50%, far removed from some of our reality, where second homes make up over 90% entire housing stock private.
Here, however, hides its head in the sand, or worse, we show convinced of the inevitable goodness of policies in favor of second homes, small Cetto Laqualunque grow in our valley, with The difference is that the at least, in addition to concrete, it also promises the "Pilu".
Nonsense "inter-view," not at all planning of large-area, all to apply the same recipe everywhere, without distinction. They call it "diversity of supply, and can even tell you not to laugh while doing so that the market prices of new homes remain more stable.
to build a comprehensive and coordinated, to identify goals and measures, do not think really, the culture of land management has simply disappeared from the horizon of public administrators. Worse, the territory is defended only if its protection does not prevent the long march of brick and annuity land, if so, the resolutions will melt, s'invocano friends, back off the bonds, the laws are changed.
With obstinacy worthy of a better cause you continue to watch only one side of the coin, that of the turnover generated by the construction, maintenance, use of second homes. Turnover there is, of course, and the production of local GDP, occupies a place of great importance, as they put in proportion than that of hotels, like the Swiss study shows unequivocally with the table on page 38: with nearly 4 times the allocation of beds, the 200,000 second homes in tourist sites, generating a turnover of 45% of that of 3300 hotels. E if this comparison is already ruthless efficiency that is even territorial devastating "The hotels generate approximately CHF 13 million turnover in the tourism sector per hectare of land to construction, while the second homes only produce a turnover of CHF 0.375 million per hectare. In other words, second homes need 35 times more soil to reach the same turnover of hotels " .
One thing, this, that alone is enough to bury the politics of second homes. Unless, of elections, the votes (or more) you give them the masons.
We think it's a little 'how to cure a cold by immersing the patient in the icy water. The cold, maybe even pass, on the other hand is probably pneumonia.
And doubt should have caught others, so it seems by reading this comment on Valbrembana News. Comment particularly interesting, in our opinion, why inserted in a report on the abandonment of the mountain by the companies, the news that goes hand in hand with this other .
's post today, however, does not want to talk about Brembana Valley, but more generally because of second homes can not be the solution to the problems of mountain areas that lose population, businesses, and more generally attractive.
Again, the answer did not invent, you try. How many years do not bother to planners Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development (Bundesamt fur Raumentwicklung).
After work started in 2008 and lasted about two years to June 2010 UFST published a report entitled "Second Homes. Cantonal Director Planning Guide." It can download free here .
Already in the preface it hits the mark: "In the tourist regions, a sustainable territorial development is of fundamental importance for the maintenance of a high attractiveness and competitiveness of the competition between themselves in holiday villages and tourist areas . Orderly development in the construction of second homes is an essential tool in this regard. The high demand for second homes, the fact that the hospitality industry than the bed occupancy is much lower and the unintended consequences related to the extension of settlements in the recreational areas are, in tourist areas, particular challenges for spatial planning is at municipal, cantonal and regional levels and ".
E in Chapter 1, it goes much further: "Depending on the special interests, the effects of a strong growth in second homes are perceived very differently: the local housing without intensive construction of second homes, afraid of losing important revenues for its economic existence. For tour operators in a sufficient variety of second homes in size and characteristics ensures the attractiveness of a bed in a tourist area. The hotel industry sees instead threatened their existence due to the persistent pressure to allocate the space for other purposes . The local population in search of housing is compared with land prices and rents very high. Once over the high season, holiday villages take on a ghostly appearance, characterized by entire neighborhoods with the blinds drawn. Last but not least the natural sites and recreational areas, which are of fundamental importance for tourism, are-you threat from the proliferation of second homes ".
It's enough to intervene, they must have said this week. And a first step was to determine the threshold "of attention" and "alarm" (my definition, ed) on page 11 of the report says "To define the need for intervention PLANNING, the percentage of second homes than the total available housing is certainly an important criterion, but not the only one. A percentage of 30% or more of second homes is often considered sufficient evidence to intervene. If the percentage exceeds 50%, in most cases the need for action is uncontested ".
30%, 50%, far removed from some of our reality, where second homes make up over 90% entire housing stock private.
Here, however, hides its head in the sand, or worse, we show convinced of the inevitable goodness of policies in favor of second homes, small Cetto Laqualunque grow in our valley, with The difference is that the at least, in addition to concrete, it also promises the "Pilu".
Nonsense "inter-view," not at all planning of large-area, all to apply the same recipe everywhere, without distinction. They call it "diversity of supply, and can even tell you not to laugh while doing so that the market prices of new homes remain more stable.
to build a comprehensive and coordinated, to identify goals and measures, do not think really, the culture of land management has simply disappeared from the horizon of public administrators. Worse, the territory is defended only if its protection does not prevent the long march of brick and annuity land, if so, the resolutions will melt, s'invocano friends, back off the bonds, the laws are changed.
With obstinacy worthy of a better cause you continue to watch only one side of the coin, that of the turnover generated by the construction, maintenance, use of second homes. Turnover there is, of course, and the production of local GDP, occupies a place of great importance, as they put in proportion than that of hotels, like the Swiss study shows unequivocally with the table on page 38: with nearly 4 times the allocation of beds, the 200,000 second homes in tourist sites, generating a turnover of 45% of that of 3300 hotels. E if this comparison is already ruthless efficiency that is even territorial devastating "The hotels generate approximately CHF 13 million turnover in the tourism sector per hectare of land to construction, while the second homes only produce a turnover of CHF 0.375 million per hectare. In other words, second homes need 35 times more soil to reach the same turnover of hotels " .
One thing, this, that alone is enough to bury the politics of second homes. Unless, of elections, the votes (or more) you give them the masons.
0 comments:
Post a Comment