A Mo­ra­to­ri­um on New Con­s­truc­tion by Char­lot­te Mal­terre-Bar­thes

On June 27, at Werdmühlenplatz 6 in Zurich, the launch of A Moratorium on New Construction by Charlotte Malterre-Barthes took the form of an engaging public conversation. With contributions by Margarida Waco and David Ganzoni, moderated by Blanka Major and Julian Wäckerlin (ZAS), the evening didn’t just present a book, it questioned the very fundamentals of contemporary architectural practice. 

The book, structured around nine thematic chapters, is the result of a broader research process and a series of international conferences held over the past few years. It offers a framework for rethinking: what if we no longer took for granted that building is always the answer?

Malterre-Barthes draws from architectural history, political theory, and environmental urgency to argue that ceasing new construction is not only technically feasible but morally and environmentally necessary. “To stop building is to freeze the stock […]”¹. It’s a provocation, but a precise one, exposing the ways in which architecture, as practiced today, contributes to ecological degradation, gentrification, and a form of spatial violence too often hidden behind well-rendered facades.

One of the most powerful aspects of the book is its ability to bridge critical theory and architectural practice, weaving together diverse strands of thought that span political analysis, environmental critique, and design experimentation. It connects long-standing theoretical frameworks with emerging architectural approaches committed to circularity, non-extractive methods, and social responsibility. The chapters move from a critique of raw material extraction and greenwashing (Chapter 4: Halt Extraction) to the transformation of professional and academic structures (Fix the Office, Reform the School), and finally, a call to Take Care of what already exists. Each step invites a reassessment of the assumption that growth must always take the form of new built matter.

The first three chapters: Stop Building, House Everyone, and Change Value System, articulate the ethical contradiction at the heart of today’s housing crisis. Can we stop building and still house everyone? At the launch, David Ganzoni highlighted this tension clearly: a city must not only care for its current residents, but also plan for those who will arrive. In Zurich, where demand far exceeds supply, can we really afford to stop?

A recent study published in June 2025 by the Federal Office for Housing and ETH Zurich, titled Bautätigkeit und Verdrängung in der städtischen Schweiz. Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen, sheds light on this question. It shows that the most active construction zones are also where eviction is highest and affordability is lowest. In many cases, housing is being added, but not for the people who need it most. And often, what replaces demolished buildings is not denser or more efficient.

In Zurich specifically, new constructions have led to larger units but not significantly more people per square meter. The city also has the highest rate of evictions due to demolition or full renovation among all Swiss cities: 1.02% of the resident population was affected between 2015 and 2020. Moreover, in 63% of cases, new housing in Zurich comes from demolition-reconstruction operations, and these replacements are often less socially inclusive. The new occupants tend to have significantly higher incomes (in Zurich, +38.7% median increase compared to those evicted) and are generally younger, indicating a clear process of social filtering².

Compared to Zurich, other major cities show slightly more balanced trends. In Geneva and Basel, for example, the share of demolition-based new construction is much lower (around 36%), and while Lausanne and Geneva register even higher income gaps between evicted and new residents (over +100%), these cities have significantly expanded their housing stock since 2000. Zurich, on the contrary, has seen a relative decline in construction volumes, despite efforts to reduce average living space per person [2]. In this sense, Zurich appears both more exclusionary and less effective in addressing demand, a paradox that intensifies the relevance of Malterre-Barthes' critique.

As Emmanuelle Borne writes in her Essai “Ce que le matrimoine fait à l’architecture” (espazium.ch, June 23, 2025), we must question for whom the city is being densified, and what knowledge—often female, care-centered, and non-heroic—is excluded from dominant urban planning narratives³. This reflection on overlooked values resonates with Chapter 3 of Malterre-Barthes’s book, Change Value System, where she argues for a broader and deeper understanding of what constitutes architectural worth, reminding us that heritage should not only be about safeguarding the past, but also about protecting the future. 

“A moratorium on new construction is, perhaps ironically, constructive, as it seeks to articulate a new world-making project for architecture” ⁴. Far from utopian, this gesture is presented as a productive constraint, an architectural project in itself. Its strength lies in how it embraces contradiction: recognizing that architects operate within existing political economies, yet must still act, imagine, and design otherwise.
As the final chapter Take Care suggests, perhaps the most radical form of architecture today is the one that takes care, of what already exists, of those who inhabit it, and of the future we want to “build.”

Notes

 

[1] Malterre-Barthes, Charlotte. A Moratorium on New Construction, Sternberg Press, 2025.
 

 

[2] Kauer, F., Lutz, E., Büttiker, D., Kaufmann, D. (2025). Bautätigkeit und Verdrängung in der städtischen Schweiz. Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen, Bern, DOI: 10.3929/ethz-b-000741248
 

 

[3] Emmanuelle Borne, “Ce que le matrimoine fait à l’architecture.” Espazium.ch/fr, 23.06.2025.
 

 

[4] Ibidem