The three sets of regulations that can directly influence what happens to a property that is even potentially worth protecting are ISOS, Denkmalschutz and KGS. They are tightening their meshes more and more, and the probability that your property may unexpectedly end up in such a register has increased significantly in recent years.

ISOS - the diffuse and arbitrary protection inventory with a pale aftertaste

The abbreviation stands for Inventory of Sites in Switzerland Worthy of Protection. It is a database that records and protects important historical sites and sites of local character throughout the country. The ISOS is intended to serve as an instrument for the preservation and maintenance of Switzerland's cultural heritage. It enables the systematic recording and documentation of sites that are important for their history, architecture or cultural identity. For their owners, this means that they are subject to special protection regulations and must fulfil certain conditions in order to preserve their historical integrity.

ISOS was established in Switzerland in 1981 by the Federal Office of Culture (BAK). The initiative for this came from the FOC itself. The aim was to carry out a comprehensive inventory of sites in Switzerland worthy of protection and thus contribute to the preservation of the country's cultural heritage.

The population neither voted on the ISOS nor gave the federal government the mandate to draw up such an inventory. At the beginning, or until the first judicial decision, it was not even clear whether it was binding on the owners, especially since owners never had the opportunity to object to an ISOS classification.

With this first court decision on the basis of ISOS in 2009, the inventory suddenly took on a binding significance for owners, marking a clear turning point for every property included as part of the 1,200 protected sites. Until today, no more rezoning can be carried out in many locations in the cities because of the protection of the townscape.

For ISOS, it is important that an old one-and-a-half-storey housing estate from the 1940s is preserved in a four-storey residential zone, as people planted their own vegetables in the front gardens there during the Second World War.

The predicate "worth protecting": almost only burden, hardly any joy

Basically, the status «worthy of protection» means that a building or garden «might» have certain historical, architectural or cultural features worthy of preservation. In and of itself something gratifying. Not, however, if you as the owner have no say or influence whatsoever, but only restrictions, even in the case of properties and gardens that are only classified as «potentially worthy of protection».

It is not so easy to find out whether something is worth protecting. Because any internet research on this usually remains unsuccessful. Except in large cities such as Zurich, «worthy of protection» is marked in the geographical information system. In municipalities, you first have to ask the building authority about the protection status of a property or a garden.

If a property is worthy of protection, the authorities usually cannot even provide information about who made this assessment and why the entry exists in the first place. If you would like to know more about this, an in-depth cultural-historical clarification is necessary, which can only be triggered by a building application or a provocation procedure carried out at the request of the landowner.

The provocation procedure Normally, the clarification of a building's or property's worthiness of protection is carried out by experts from the Department of Monument Protection. They examine the object with regard to its historical, architectural or cultural significance and assess whether it meets the criteria for protection. The decision is made by the municipal building authority. If, after these clarifications, protection is desired on the part of the authorities, the municipality tries to draw up an "administrative law agreement" with the landowner. If no agreement is reached, an order is issued twelve months after the initiation of the provocation procedure. An owner can appeal against this order, which is publicly advertised, within thirty days. If the property is not worthy of protection, it is released from the inventory of buildings worthy of protection. However, there is a risk that associations such as the Heritage Society will challenge this decision. Basically, the procedure takes at least nine to twelve months. During this time, changes are absolutely prohibited. The often unsuspecting owner also faces enormous legal costs if no agreement is reached with the municipality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, the state has created a fiche about your property. But unlike the last fiche scandal in Switzerland, where a parliamentary commission (PUK) was set up in 1981 and the scandal was investigated, no one is crying out today. Although it is of course a scandal when a property suddenly appears on a list that is not open to public scrutiny without the owner's knowledge and thus unexpected obstacles are placed in the way of a sale, renovation or the construction of a replacement building.

Somewhat more transparent, but no less restrictive: cantonal or communal monument protection

If an individual house is classified as a building worthy of protection regardless of its surroundings or townscape, this means that it is subject to special protection regulations. These can vary depending on the canton and municipality, as monument protection in Switzerland is largely regulated at cantonal and municipal level.

The positive thing about this status is that you know about it when you buy or when it is protected, and you may even have a say or the possibility of contesting it. Protected properties usually have a corresponding entry in the land register.

As a rule, strict conditions and restrictions are associated with the classification as a building worthy of protection. This may mean that certain historical and/or architectural features must be preserved or restored during renovations or conversions. It may also be prescribed to use certain materials or construction techniques in order to preserve the character of the building.

Similar principles apply to gardens. A garden that is designated as worthy of protection may have certain design elements, historic vegetation or a particular landscape composition. Here too, protection regulations may prescribe how the garden should be maintained and designed in order to preserve its historical or cultural value.

Already in 2016, around 272,000 individual properties with special monument conservation qualities were recorded, over 75,000 of which were subject to owner-binding protection measures.

Source: Bundesamt für Statistik

The royal class of restrictions: the KGS

If your property - as was the case with the «ISOS entry» or the «status worthy of protection» - has made it unnoticed by you into the inventory of cultural assets of national or regional importance KGS, depending on the situation, the real estate super-GAU may have been reached.

The inventory is issued by the Federal Council at the request of the cantons. At its meeting on 13 October 2021, the Federal Council approved the Swiss Inventory of Cultural Property with objects of national and regional importance for the last time. It lists important cultural property from the fields of monument preservation and archaeology as well as collections in museums, archives and libraries for which measures need to be planned to protect them from danger in the event of armed conflicts, disasters and emergencies. The Federal Office for Civil Protection is the patron of this inventory. The foreword was written by Defence Minister Viola Amherd herself.

Even with regard to the entry in this inventory, for the time being there is no possibility for the owner to raise an objection. If one is mistakenly in the inventory, a Federal Council decision is needed to get out again.

Additional tightening through the adopted climate protection law

All these inventories with their regulations are turning Switzerland into an open-air museum. Yet we should be densifying and absorbing the significantly increased demand for space on the current settlement area. But the above laws, ordinances and decrees actively work against these spatial planning goals.

With the adoption of the Climate Protection Act in summer 2023, the situation for such properties will become even more explosive. This is because old, protected house façades with interiors that may even still be protected cannot be insulated in a climate-neutral way. Nor can they be heated in a climate-neutral way. And the external appearance must certainly not be disturbed by solar panels.

Who is responsible for this situation? Ultimately, the general public, which allows the following institutions:

Main protagonist number 1: Homeland Security

Swiss Heritage defines its mission as follows:

«Together with its sections, the Swiss Heritage Society is committed to more building culture. We stand up for the built heritage and for valuable urban and rural spaces. We are supported by energetic members and patrons.

The exact tasks include

• Monument protection
• Landscape protection
• Cultural property protection
• Awareness raising and education
• Lobbying and advocacy

Heritage protection identifies, documents and protects historic buildings, monuments, archaeological sites and other cultural objects from deterioration, destruction or alteration. This includes the establishment of protective regulations, guidelines and requirements for the preservation and maintenance of these objects.»

Particularly disturbing and still an unsolved mystery is why Homeland Security does not take any action against unsightly building art.

Anyone who once again travels through Switzerland by train and looks out of the window will quickly realise how many «attacks» have been made on building culture. In retrospect, not every architect has proven to be a creative artist. Not every landscape architect has always had only brilliant ideas. Why the association tries to preserve everything old instead of making a relevant contribution to creating something new of architectural value is not known.

Of course, there is no accounting for taste. For landowners, however, the association is definitely a nuisance because it puts its interests above the rights of the owners and tries to enforce them by means of emotionally stressful as well as time-consuming and cost-intensive processes. In the city of Zurich, as this article in the Tages-Anzeigers shows, Heimatschutz has for the time being extortionately delayed the introduction of the new building zone regulations. With a list of sixteen properties that were to be assessed for their worthiness of protection, the city was literally forced to make concessions for the future. Of course, this list was not public and owners could not defend themselves at first.

In addition, the city has undertaken to take the ISOS into account in the next overall revision of the BZO. The councillor Odermatt, who is responsible for this, said in a conversation that the ISOS was only allowed because in the future "no overall revision of the BZO is conceivable". That is probably true ... at least for the rest of his term in office. And after him, the deluge.

Main protagonist number 2: the preservation of historical monuments

The tasks of a cantonal or communal monument preservation office are closely linked to the protection and preservation of the cultural heritage within a particular canton or commune.

This state institution regularly places its demands above the interests of the owners. Although you are the property owner, this authority can dictate to you which colours you have to live with in your four walls, how your garden should be maintained, which windows you have to install or which historical fixtures you are allowed to marvel at every day in your property.

The question is justified: Do such drastic measures make sense in a private space to which no outsider has access?

The challenge for the future: finding the right measure

Of course, special historical buildings of social, historical or architectural relevance, especially those owned by the state, cantons or municipalities, should be subject to protection. However, if, as is the case today, around 270'000 properties, the majority of which are privately owned, are prevented from renewal and urgently needed densification by the protection of historical monuments alone - and another indeterminate number of properties in the ISOS inventory of 1'200 protected sites - we consider it indispensable to repeatedly bring the topic into the public discourse.

Stay mindful, vote wisely and look closely at the programmes of the politicians you elect to parliament in November.