Bygga om dialogen - The regeneration dialogue/EU commission presentation
1. The Regeneration Dialogue
In the Regeneration Dialoguewe are tryingto develop
businessmodels that combinesolutions to
environmental, socialand economic challenges in
areas where this is most needed.
The background isthe following; 1965-1975, in a
country of then 7 million inhabitants, Sweden built
650,000new apartments, based on prefabricated
parts. In the total multi-story housingstock this makes
up 33 per cent, almost as high as in the Czech Republic
In Malmo, a city of 300,000 inhabitants, 30,000
apartmentsof this kind werebuilt.
In Sweden as in the rest of the EU these areas are
often characterized by high unemployment rates,
especially amongyoungpeople, and growingrelative
Many of these buildingsare now 40 to 50 yearsold
with huge pent-up investmentneeds. To reach the
climate targets and future-proof thesebuildingsin
Sweden would requireinvestmentof at least €
65,000/apartment= total of € 422 million. In the
whole of EU weare talking of very large sums.
Webelieve in pilots and prototyping. That is why we
now are concentrating our work in the borough of
Collaboration with various, property owners
Together with these landlordswehave made
calculations of investmentsneeded to “futureproof”
their buildings, to ensurethey are still habitable in 40
years. They landed on total investmentsof €110
million in 1700 apartments.
Half of the total investmentaimed at energy
reductionsof 50%, the rest towardskitchens,
bathrooms, green areas, etc.
Butinvestmentsof this magnitudewould require
rent-hikes of up to 50%. Notsociably acceptable
because there are no affordablehousing to go to for
peoplebeing pushed out; shantytowns ? For present
tenants to be able to remain in Lindängen wehave
calculated there is a deficit in the investmentbudget
of € 60 million.
Wedecided to comparethese € 60 million to the
social spendingin Lindängen by the city, health-
service, employment service, nationalinsurance
agency and the judicial system, dueto the low
employmentrate. If you break this down in public
spendingduringoneelection period (4 years) you end
up with a total of € 200 million.
These costs fall into differentcategories.
Webelieve these costs are in one way or the other
found in every EU-country, especially in EU 15.
Weput the question to the economist doingour socio-
economic calculations: “How many peopleneed to
save € 60 million?”
And they came up with the followinganswer; That is
one outof 20 in workingage today on public
You might think social costs are exceptionally high in
Sweden, but they are now actually very close to the EU
15-average. That is why we believe these types of
calculations might be usefulfor many EU-countries.
This has been a cumbersomeprocess, so why should
we bother to do it? Wesee benefits such as:
Fosters systems thinking and innovation – notleast
in the publicsector
Fosters better use of existing resources –
introducesa social investmentperspectiveon
Creates a foundation for public/private/third
Helps create a strategy for smart, sustainable and
Lays the ground-work for areabased impact
I will not go into this: but we are in discussionswith a
number of partnerson how to capturepotential
savings in the public sector trough a impact
investmentapproach, maybe tied to a area based fund
for environmentaland social sustainability.
What we are doingnow:
Peer-reviewingsocio-economic model: tryingto make
them replicable for others
Wideningpilotbase trough partnershipswith EU-
cities interested in developingthe same methodology.
Maybewith cities in the Basque countriesand Croatia
Wealso have an on-going ESF-funded researchproject
for prototypingthese kindsof investmentmodels.
Wehave a continuingdiscussion with EIB
Two international videoconferences in cooperation
with London-based Social Life and Cisco on place
makingand impact iinvestment.