But amid strict building regulations and a lack of investment over a number of decades, successive governments have failed to build enough homes for its long-term residents, let alone the latest arrivals.
Sounds like a lot of culture clash going on with the rapid growth there. I wonder if the policies changed to accommodate the growth, whether it will still be the place that people were attracted to in the first place.
The article notes that they could solve the problem in a couple different ways, but both clash with their culture. One of the problems (and benefits) is that there's a safety net for people who can't afford to buy a house.
If you can't afford a house, the government gives people the ability to stay in a rent stabilized property with a contract that lasts for life. Because the contract is for life, that leaves people who don't have a contract unable to get one since there's a shortage of properties.
Stockholm is in the process of building more properties, but that will make it more congested like other big cities.
Another solution is to raise the rents and put them up to market rents. That doesn't mesh well with their culture.
“I have many, many friends in Stockholm who are living in some of the nicest parts of town paying around $900 a month, that in London or in California would be double or triple the price,” said US entrepreneur Tyler Crowley, who organised the recent protest by start-up workers.
“But it’s hard to impose this kind of American capitalist mentality on a Swedish system,” he added, referring to the Nordic country’s long legacy of social democracy and collective risk sharing.
If they deregulate and allow for more capitalistic policies, it might lose the appeal it had for some.