Attractive places - broader impact for the policy on architecture, form and design

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is so nice to be able to begin the final cultural policy debate of the mandate period!

The background to the government's communication is the 2018 proposition on policy for the built environment. At that time, the Riksdag adopted a national goal that architecture, form, and design shall contribute to a sustainable, equal, and less segregated society where all people are given good conditions to influence their shared environment. The goal remains, but the communication indicates a partially new direction. In several parts, it is reasonable, and in several ways, it is good. Our criticism is rather that the government does not take responsibility for the preconditions.

The government writes that more voices should be promoted, that there should be a shared responsibility, and that existing values should be highlighted to a greater extent. I think that is good. It is important that we do not only think anew but also see the value in what already exists, i.e., the environments that people recognize themselves in and which carry history, community, and local pride.

If the government is serious about highlighting existing values, for example, Sweden's 15 World Heritage sites should be a matter of course, as they are places for education, development, tourism, joy, pride, and community. They are also concrete examples of exactly what the communication says it wants to develop, namely historical contexts, cultural tourism, cultural environments, the identity of places, and people's relationship to their surroundings. But the prerequisites for the World Heritage sites do not exist. The government has backed away from its responsibility here.

It is therefore contradictory to speak credibly about existing values and at the same time not take responsibility for some of our most significant existing cultural environments.

Mr. Speaker! In the communication, the government speaks of place development, entrepreneurship, and cooperation. The communication also mentions that the conditions for living, living, and working in the countryside shall be strengthened. Nevertheless, the government repeals the ordinance on cooperative development in Sweden and removes the funding for Coompanion, the organization that truly works from the bottom up with exactly what the communication speaks about: local development, cooperation, civil society, and people's opportunity to collectively influence their own place. Cooperative entrepreneurship is often close to this place and is based on people seeing a common need and organizing themselves to solve it. It can be about services in the countryside, housing construction, cultural activities, and local entrepreneurship.

It is contradictory to speak of more voices and shared responsibility and at the same time pull the rug out from under the actors who actually work with more voices and shared responsibility in practice.

Mr. Speaker! In the communication, the government speaks of community, participation and meeting places, and about how the important experiences are made on the ground. But important meeting places are indeed in the study associations' premises – for everyone and across the whole country. People meet here, learn, organize themselves, create, discuss and build trust. But here, the government and the Sweden Democrats have also cut back. The state support has decreased by a third.

Again: It becomes contradictory to say that one wants to strengthen people's participation and at the same time weaken one of the structures that makes participation possible.

Mr. Speaker! If we also want there to be architects, artists, creators, designers and other cultural creators who can carry the work forward in the future, we must also talk about regeneration, and here the aesthetic subjects in school are central. For many, the path into form, culture, design and architecture begins in the school's art room, music room or craft room – or perhaps in the cultural school. The aesthetic subjects are about children's right to creation and education, but it is also about future professionals.

Again: It becomes contradictory to speak about the importance of architecture, form and design and at the same time not protect the paths into these professions.

The government mentions built environments, a new owner-occupied housing movement, and increased small house construction in the letter. But housing construction has completely stalled, and small house construction has not been this low in 100 years. 700,000 people live in overcrowded conditions, municipalities report that they lack housing, and young people cannot move out from home. It is therefore contradictory to speak of small house construction and aesthetically pleasing living environments while simultaneously pursuing a policy that does not provide any conditions for increased housing construction.

When I read the government's communication, I see several things that are correct in principle. It is good to highlight existing values, it is good to talk about more voices, and it is good to see the connection between architecture, form, design, cultural environments, and people's lives.

The entire infrastructure for what is stated in the letter to be important and should be promoted has been shaken by the government: the cultural cooperation model is being pressured, study associations have received substantial cuts, cooperative development is being weakened, state presence in rural areas is being eroded, housing construction has come to a standstill, and the conditions for art and culture creators are not given the weight they should have.

I agree with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who in their reservation argue that the communication is vague and fuzzy. I also share Vänsterpartiet's concern over the risk of the business sector being given greater power through its economic capital. I miss the one percent rule; it is not even mentioned in the communication.

I agree, however, with the committee that there are advantages to the orientation being overarching and not containing specifying activities, partly because it allows for adjustments over time and gives the relevant actors room to design measures based on their own circumstances, and partly because the policy within art, architecture, form, and design should be cautious. I hope that the vagueness means that artistic freedom is protected and that the professions are given a large mandate in the continued work to achieve the goals for the policy area.

In summary: If the government is serious about the letter, it must also safeguard the infrastructure. It is a matter of both a strong civil society and a strong public cultural policy that actually views culture as a part of the welfare state.

Today, Mr. Speaker and members, it is June 1st!

Rejoice, my soul, at what you have now, you have one hundred summers ahead, and this is the first. When the sun's course reaches its end, then you have ninety-nine left, and some will be the greatest.

Pay close attention to where you stand tomorrow, for even your yard is so fast to walk. Notice that what you get is a hundred summer days per year tomorrow is the second.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Louise, for the poem!

The Government has submitted the report Attractive Places – broader impact for the policy on architecture, form and design, which is to be an account of the work that has been done in this area and a presentation of the direction forward.

The document is noticeably short, only 27 pages. My criticism lies mainly not there and does not actually concern the substantive content, but rather that the document is almost magically vague. Every single sentence seems to be deliberately formulated in a fuzzy way, and the structure is unclear. The three initial directions are then repeated in a very unclear manner in the document. Here and there, some expressed intentions occur, but never anything about how these intentions are to be achieved. No feet are set down, and no measures are presented.

Mr. Speaker! The purpose of the communication is nevertheless to indicate a new direction for the state's work with the national goal for architecture, form, and design. The previous goal remains, and that is good, I think. But what the purpose of the new direction is, or what it actually means, I must unfortunately say that I actually do not quite understand, despite having read the 27 pages a number of times. I will nevertheless attempt an interpretation.

What I perceive the government wants is to somehow shift the center of gravity in the previous goal away from the focus on quality, sustainability, resource efficiency, the social housing policy, the integration goal, and the educational mandate regarding architecture and design, to instead deal more with aesthetics, attractiveness, and a stronger business focus. Garden cities are also mentioned.

In the old goal, it states that "everyone shall be given good conditions to influence the development of the common environment." I do not know if this should be strengthened or changed through concepts such as "broadened ownership" and "more voices."

If I have misunderstood this, someone from the government side is welcome to either request a reply or perhaps even better explain it in the subsequent statements. In any case, my criticism of this product, which I have tried to express in the follow-up motion I have written, is that it is above all a missed opportunity to strengthen and further develop the policy in this area and actually create a clear state architecture policy and a unified policy for design and for social and urban planning.

Mr. Speaker! It was the Green Party that, in a government position, through our three ministers for culture, environment, and housing issues, initiated this entire policy area during the 2014–2018 mandate period. We called it the shaped living environment. We then established a goal formulation and six very clear and far-reaching specifications of how the goals were to be fulfilled. Two agencies, Boverket and Arkdes, received a strong mandate in connection with the policy area.

I have, at least when I have spoken with the sector and its representatives, perceived that it landed very well. The follow-ups and evaluations that have been made have mainly been positive. ”The policy is, even from an international perspective, one of the most ambitious in its field,” wrote Arkdes, for example, in one of the early evaluations.

At the same time, there are of course reasons to develop the policy for the built environment and, not least, to in some way revitalize and strengthen this policy area, after, for example, Arkdes has disappeared as an independent agency and funds have been withdrawn from Boverket. That is what the document should do but does not do.

Unlike the government, the Green Party has the proposals that should be included here. They are in our motions from the general motion period and could have been included directly in the letter, as they are formulated.

Mr. Speaker! The most fundamental and astonishing thing, which I want to begin with, is that the child's perspective is not included in the document at all. Since gestaltad livsmiljö was launched, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, i.e., the Convention on the Rights of the Child, has been incorporated into Swedish law. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children and young people shall have the right to fully participate in arts and cultural life. Children and young people shall also have influence over issues that affect them.

A child's perspective on the policy for architecture and design had clarified and strengthened children's influence over the environments they stay in, but also over the design of their immediate surroundings, i.e., the designed living environments. It is about schools and schoolyards and not least school routes, but also about after-school centers and youth centers, i.e., where children and young people stay.

There are municipalities that have led the way here and that systematically work to increase children's participation in the development of cultural experiences and living environments. The state should come in with clearer guidelines and support – a concrete guidance, quite simply. But it is not included here.

Mr. Speaker! The communication also mentions the Swedish Arts Council's report on access to music venues, which was released in 2024. The opportunity for more live culture could and should have been much better across the entire country. In the report, the Swedish Arts Council identifies a number of obstacles and reasons for this, but also several areas for development. There are also some concrete proposals there, but none of these are included in the government's communication. One notes a problem, therefore, but leaves the package of measures behind.

I and Miljöpartiet do things differently. We are taking the Culture Council's report with us. Last autumn, we introduced a motion titled Cultural Sound Zones and Better Conditions for Live Culture, where we take a broad approach to the entire problem. We propose a package with a series of measures: a state policy for cultural sound zones, which has begun to be implemented in Malmö and Gothenburg, strengthened support for organizers and venue-holding organizations, as well as strong measures against overpricing in the secondary sale of tickets, something we must move away from through a state policy. It is also about the educational chain and, of course, the reconstruction of the infrastructure with rehearsal rooms, music houses, study association premises, and other things across Sweden.

The government's strategy for cultural and creative industries is also, of course, mentioned in the letter. That also came as an initiative from the Green Party's time at the Ministry of Culture.

When we go around and talk to these companies, with the gaming industry and the music scene, this is what we hear: It is very good that this strategy has actually arrived, but it lacks content.

Also here, the communication is a missed opportunity to fill the KKB strategy with actual content.

Preparedness for war and crises and challenges in the surrounding area is also an area in the communication that should have been accompanied by concrete content with measures. Likewise is the case with security issues. Miljöpartiet has the proposals here as well, in our motions.

The concept of security is missing in the document. Safety is included. Safety is the perceived; security is the factual, the statistics. These concepts must hang together in a document like this. They do not here. And both the analysis and the measures are missing for how our public spaces can become both safer and more secure places.

Mr. Speaker! Here are some examples of how this communication is a missed opportunity. I could have moved on and spoken for a very long time about sustainable construction, climate, environment, and resource efficiency. Also, here Miljöpartiet has concrete proposals from the general motion period in the autumn, including in a party motion on circular economy.

In conclusion, I want to say that in a previous debate I posed a reply question to Member Kristina Axén Olin from Moderaterna which I did not feel I received a particularly clear answer to at the time. I intend to ask the question directly now instead of taking a reply later, so perhaps we will save some time.

It is about the part regarding getting views from the citizens. I think, and Louise also mentioned it, that it is unclear how it is to be done. What does it actually mean, what is written in the letter? How is it to be done?

Is it about strengthening the municipal consultations as we did after the elm tree battle in the 70s, when we reformed the planning process so that consultations were included? I think that would be very good, because I think that the consultations have partly lost their legitimacy. Or is it about citizens' referendums on individual projects and works of art? That has been up for debate. In that case, I become more worried.

Mr. Speaker! I see that my speaking time has expired, but I still intended to take another minute because this is our last debate in the Cultural Committee this mandate period and my last address from this rostrum.

For my part, I naturally want to thank you for the trust and the honor I have received to be one of the 349 members. But above all, as chairman of the Cultural Committee, I want to thank all members and substitutes in the committee for this time. You have all contributed to the good atmosphere that we have in the Cultural Committee. Thank you for your work for cultural policy and for culture, but also for sports and sports life, the association life and civil society! Thank you for good conversations and debates!

I also want to thank the Culture Committee's office – Helene who is sitting here, our office manager Carin of course, and Charlotte, Bosse and Maria. Thank you so much! Thanks also to Ann, our former office manager, and Cecilia! They have both left the committee office during the term. Without you in the committee office, we politicians are really nothing at all.

Thank you to the Chamber Office! Thank you to the Speaker's Presidency, who keeps us in order!

In conclusion, a huge thank you to all of you sitting in the gallery and still trying to listen to what we say! I actually think it is only the Culture Committee that draws full galleries during its budget debates. Many thanks!

I vote in favor of the reservation.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The government's communication is titled Attractive Places – broader impact for the policy for architecture, form and design. Yes, Mats, "magically vague" was a funny expression.

But in the communication, the government notes that the impact of the architectural policy goals has not been sufficient. Above all, the business community, civil society, and the citizens have been involved to an all too limited extent. This has hindered the possibility of reaching the goals, and it is something that we Sverigedemokrater have pointed out for a long time.

The Government assesses that the level of knowledge in parts of the industry is insufficient and that the public's participation in the design of our living environments is still too weak. Against that background, the Government presents a new direction for the continued work. More voices shall be included, and the responsibility for the design of our living environments shall be shared between public actors, the business community, and civil society.

It is fundamentally a reasonable conclusion. If we want to create attractive, sustainable and long-term appreciated environments, the responsibility cannot rest on a few actors. The environments that are built today will affect people for a long time to come, generations to come. In that case, it is also important to have more perspectives on site when this kind of decision is made.

Mr. Speaker! The government's initiative is welcome, but we would have liked to see more and more powerful measures presented. The Sweden Democrats will not put a spoke in the wheels of efforts that involve steps in the right direction. At the same time, we see a clear need for a larger grip on architecture policy during the next mandate period.

Architecture policy has for a long time remained in the shadows of the political debate. Often, housing construction is discussed in terms of the number of homes, construction costs, or rent setting. These are naturally also important issues, but all too rarely do we discuss how the environments we build are actually experienced by people.

It is not enough to build a lot. We must also build well. We must build environments that people want to live and stay in and feel pride in. A pleasant living environment and the need for attractive places should not be underestimated. Places that are perceived as beautiful, clean, and well-managed contribute to safety and well-being; there are many reports that show this.

We see repeatedly how questions about new constructions or the design of public environments start as local or regional debates but eventually become national news. There is a simple reason for this: People care about the environments where they live and work. It is an important issue for most.

There is often a shared pride in the living environments we share. When changes are perceived as deteriorations, it evokes engagement, and it is an engagement that we politicians must take seriously and be responsive to.

Many people sometimes experience that decisions regarding new construction and urban development are made over their heads. We must take that perception seriously, because if people feel overridden, there is a risk that trust in politicians and civil servants will decrease.

The Sweden Democrats have therefore begun to highlight the idea of a national architecture policy that can be guiding in new construction. Such a policy should ensure that cultural-historical values are taken into account and that classical architecture is given more space than it does today. It is not about stopping development or forbidding modern expressions, absolutely not. Instead, it is about creating a better balance between the new and the old, because Sweden has a rich cultural heritage that should be utilized and integrated into future construction. New buildings can of course be erected, but they must interact with their surroundings. That is completely central.

Madam President! The Government notes in the letter that citizens have been involved in the work only to a limited extent. This is a significant problem. As I have previously emphasized, our shared living environments play a major role for people. The Government's ambition to include more actors is therefore positive, but concrete tools are also needed that strengthen citizens' influence over the shaping and design of our shared environments.

At its core, it is a matter of democracy. People must be given better opportunities to influence how their residential areas, city centers, and public spaces are developed. Ultimately, it is about respect for the citizens. Those who are to live with the decisions should also be given reasonable opportunities to influence them.

The follow-up of the architectural policy goals has so far not been sufficient. There are therefore reasons to consider a new architectural policy inquiry with a mandate to produce updated and clearer goals. Such an inquiry should, among other things, address the gap that sometimes exists between the profession's assessments and the citizens' experiences. It should also investigate how a greater cultural-historical responsibility can be ensured in new construction and urban development.

When it comes to the government's communication, Mats chose the description magically and unclearly; I would say that it is a small but welcome step in the right direction. The Sweden Democrats will continue to monitor the issue and work to ensure that architecture policy gets a more prominent role in the future.

Madam Speaker! Architecture is not a matter for a small circle of experts. It affects us all every day. Therefore, architecture policy needs to be elevated to a greater extent.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

I also want to, briefly, join in and thank Mats Berglund, who has been chairman of the Culture Committee during these years. You took over after Amanda Lind, who was also a very great chairman. I think the interaction has worked very well between us in the committee, for which I am very grateful.

I also want to thank Malin Danielsson for these years in the role of vice chairman. You took over after Robert Hannah, which also worked very well. I think it has transitioned into a nice, smooth phase and I am grateful for that.

I also want to thank the parliamentary staff and others for these years. I look forward to a new mandate period after the election.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! Architecture, form and design affect all people daily and are fundamentally about quality of life. Vänsterpartiet's goal is a social construction that puts the human being at the center and where all citizens shall be able to live and reside in inclusive, well-designed and long-term sustainable environments.

Functional living environments with prominent aesthetic and artistic values and durable materials increase well-being and thus people's quality of life. The living environment, and particularly the housing, has a fundamental importance for people's health and well-being.

A sense of belonging and pride in the shared environment also contributes to building societies that hold together. The design of our living environments also affects how we can live together. When and how can we meet?

Who is the public environment created for? Vänsterpartiet highlights the importance of child-friendly societies and universal design that enables everyone, regardless of functionality, to stay in a place. The design of the built environment is therefore a matter of equality in society. It requires careful and long-term planning of cities and communities, seen both in the larger whole and in the details. High quality is required in every individual building and place that is designed.

In order to make these connections visible and achieve a political direction that weaves together urban planning and construction issues with aesthetics and form, the Culture Committee and the Civil Affairs Committee collaborated in 2018 to handle the bill Politics for a Shaped Living Environment. I believe it was one of the first bills I was involved in handling.

Perhaps it is the shared responsibility between the committees that has caused us in the Culture Committee to have far too little focus on these issues. I therefore welcome that the government has produced a letter on the area. My concern, however, is that the letter does not quite take aim at the goals that we in the Riksdag have established and that it is very difficult to see what the government's new direction actually means, which several speakers before me have highlighted.

In 2023, the government removed the follow-up assignment for the policy area "gestaltad livsmiljö" (shaped living environment) from the agency Arkdes without placing it anywhere else. We have therefore not received any follow-ups since then. And in 2025, the 15 million that another agency, Boverket, had to work with regarding gestaltad livsmiljö were removed.

A picture emerges for me of a government that relates to the established policy somewhat reluctantly but perhaps does not quite want to admit that they do not want to pursue the decided goals. When you scratch a little below the surface, it feels as if the Tidö parties are perhaps more interested in being politically involved in matters of taste.

One might think it is a bit odd that Boverket is to investigate how this Sverigehuset, which is a type-approved small house proposed by the Sverigedemokraterna, can become a reality and that they are to focus specifically on garden cities. Transferred to other cultural areas, we politicians would in that case advocate for a certain type of film or theater. That is not how we usually act.

Madam President! Who should have influence over the design of our shared environments is a complex issue. I agree with the government's starting point: It is possible to do more to include more people in the design of our public places. Often, today's consultations are a matter for a small, engaged group. From the letter, however, it remains unclear whether it is intended to be a shift in power, from the elected representatives in, for example, municipal boards to increased influence for the business sector where power is obtained through economic capital.

I also miss a discussion on the role of the profession. The specific competence that the artist, the architect, or the designer possesses needs to be strengthened and elevated so that we can reach the goals for the policy area. They cannot be replaced by engaged residents, even though their voice is also important.

Already today, many artists work consciously to involve more people in the process of producing, for example, public artworks or in the design of a place. It is something different than being asked to act as a judge of taste for already finished works.

Madam Speaker! Another area affected in the letter that I am uncertain about is the implication of the public showing that it values the existing. It sounds good in many respects, but with the cultural-conservative orientation that the Tidö parties have displayed, I am worried that the orientation will slow down changes in our societies and make it difficult, for example, for densification and new construction in a situation where we have major problems with a housing shortage.

We actually must be open to developing places for tomorrow's way of living. Today's urban environments, which people want to preserve – we heard a clear example from the Sverigedemokraterna earlier – are the result of new constructions in many different rounds. It is a mixture of styles and trends that we have. We cannot say no to that if we are to also have our fresh elements in the future urban environments.

There were some examples of ambiguities in the report. I will move on to something that is not found there at all: how one intends to work with realizing the goals that we have established here in the Riksdag. In the goals, it states, among other things: "Architecture, form and design shall contribute to a sustainable, equal and less segregated society." The word segregation appears only once in the report, and that is when it is stated that this goal exists, with the wording I have just read out.

Madam Speaker! The existing goals may not be entirely easy to achieve in all parts – I understand that. But it does not mean that one can ignore them. We have actually decided here in the Riksdag that this is what applies. If one wants to do something else, one must come back with a new government bill, with new goals.

For me, it becomes clear once again that this government completely lacks the will and interest to break the segregation in Sweden. Equality can remain on paper, but it is not something one works to achieve. Rather, the enormous tax cuts this mandate period have primarily benefited high-income earners.

For me as a Left Party member, it is obvious that conscious social planning must be combined with a policy for more jobs, leveled income inequalities, better education, and a stop to racism and discrimination. We also need to put a stop to sell-offs and redevelopments in our cities and build cheaper rental apartments in areas where there are few today. Tenants need to have more influence over the rent setting, not less.

Class divisions and segregation are problematic from several perspectives. On one hand, people's freedom and opportunity to realize their dreams are limited, and on the other hand, social cohesion and the sustainability of society are threatened, which risks creating polarization and mistrust between groups.

With that said, it is still very important to point out that one should not compromise on principles of architectural quality for the large group demanding cheaper rental apartments. Beautiful, exciting, and safe environments that the residents have had influence over are extra important in the areas that are currently pointed out as unattractive or unsafe.

Madam Speaker! A large part of the focus surrounding the designed living environment lies on the external design – and I myself have now spoken for almost eight minutes about just the external – while we rarely raise the internal design in the public debate, even though we actually have very many public indoor environments whose design is funded by tax revenue and which are used by our residents daily. It is about schools, libraries, hospitals, sports halls and bus stations, to name a few examples.

In addition to being important meeting places and arenas for us residents, they are also large workplaces for municipal and regional employees, who often have tough working conditions. They need well-thought-out and beautiful work environments. Here, the public sector can lead the way in sustainable material choices and thoughtful design that creates added value.

Madam President! I would also like to take the opportunity to conclude by raising a concern I have that the merger of Moderna Museet, Arkdes, and Statens konstråd causes the work on the gestalted living environment to lose momentum. All different areas must have equally strong standing even in the future, despite this new organization.

Arkdes manages one of Europe's largest architecture collections with over 4 million museum objects, and it is actually now the only state museum that does not charge an entrance fee for adults. That alone is worthy of an ovation!

The Swedish Arts Council has a completely different role and has not had a museum activity. It will be important to ensure that their important role as support for municipalities and other actors is not weakened in the future.

It is central that a future government ensures that this merger, which may be able to lower the state's costs, does not become a reason to cut resources without ensuring that these are retained, the operations expanded, and a boost created for the work across the entire country.

I will also move on something. I stand behind the proposals that Mats Berglund from Miljöpartiet outlined in his speech earlier, so I do not repeat everything he said about children's perspectives, live culture, and safety issues, but move for approval of our joint reservation.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the good work together in the committee during this parliamentary term. This is also my last parliamentary debate – perhaps ever, we shall see – so I want to say that it has been very pleasant to share these four years with you others in the committee. I would also like to extend a big thank you to the office.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker and dear listeners!

When I walk on Hamngatan, I often really wonder how it was possible as late as the 70s to demolish facades, demolish houses and build new. As a politician, I often wonder about which crazy decisions we make today that future generations will shake their heads at and wonder how we politicians were thinking.

I am pleased with the communication that we are now discussing and making a decision on. Few things engage us citizens as much as when new houses are built, when houses are demolished, and when different forms of art installations are created, and that is good and pleasing.

The Government's communication on a new direction for attractive places and broader impact for the policy for architecture, form, and design has some main directions. The first – which I think is most important – is precisely that we shall promote voices and engagement both from private individuals and from civil society and the business community when we shape our new houses or new environments. The direction is also that we shall, above all, try to preserve what is worth preserving and instead cherish our history.

Another point is that we shall strengthen the creative core and the creative industry's opportunities. They are so important in attractive environments and create safety, community, and the commitment that makes us get attractive living environments where we want to work and live.

Unlike the previous communication, the government also writes about that new forms shall be created so that the state interventions receive a systematic follow-up that the goals are met.

We know, Madam President, that commitment and participation lead to greater responsibility and contribute to us all taking responsibility for our homes and our living environments, which also leads to safety. We also know that the construction sector today accounts for 39 percent of Sweden's waste. Of the hazardous waste, 20 percent is from the construction sector, so there is not just one reason why we should become much better at caring for and preserving what we have instead of demolishing and building new.

Hopefully, future generations will not look at us who are here in the chamber today and wonder what we were thinking. Hopefully, we will become better and in the future do not tear down what is so dear to us as human beings, but instead nurture and preserve what we have.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Architecture, form and design are about so much more than buildings, furniture and urban environments. It is about how we shape the places where people live their lives, meet, work and dream. From a liberal perspective, architecture and design are important for creating a society where the individual can develop, feel at home and live a rich life.

We are convinced that every human being is unique and has the right to shape their own life. Therefore, cities, housing, and public environments should be designed with the human being at the center. Good architecture is not just about function, but about creating environments that inspire, welcome, and provide the opportunity to meet.

Successful architecture makes the world more beautiful. One should not set examples, but I do it anyway. Gamla stan with its narrow alleys, colorful facades, and historical buildings is an environment that attracts people from all over the world. We are glad that we have let it remain. Here, the architecture shows how beauty and history can be preserved while the area continues to be a living part of the city where people from all corners of the world meet.

Madam Speaker! Architecture and design are not just about historical environments, fortunately. They shape our lives every day and often without us thinking about it. It can transform a gray, anonymous place into an environment where people want to be. When cities invest in well-designed squares, walking paths, parks, art in the public environment and green spaces, people get space to socialize. It strengthens the community, counters segregation and makes everyday life more pleasant.

Design is not just about aesthetics but also about quality of life. I will take another example. This time from my home municipality, which I do not usually highlight so often. Many years ago, I was responsible for a playground program in Huddinge, where I was a municipal councilor. We wanted to create playgrounds that stimulated creativity together with the children. Such a playground where creativity flowed freely was Lassemajaböckernas Valleby, which was built in a playground in one of our marginalized areas. It was an empty, dull, anonymous, and gray environment that became a place that many want to visit and that those who live in the area are proud of. When you set creativity, architecture, and art free, something happens in an area.

We also see how modern architecture can contribute to a more beautiful and sustainable world. Buildings with natural light, energy-efficient solutions, and thoughtful material choices show that innovation and environmental consideration can go hand in hand. When architects are given the freedom to think anew, they can create solutions that are both functional and aesthetically pleasing. Östra gymnasiet – another example from my home municipality – manifests this well. The light, the space, and the artistic decoration give the students a school to be truly proud of and an environment to feel pride in. The building is also used as an art gallery by the local art association. It simply becomes extra everything when you do it right from the beginning.

From a liberal perspective, diversity is a strength, even within architecture. Cities become more interesting when different ideas, styles, and expressions are given the freedom to exist side by side. Creativity and innovation grow when people are given the freedom to create, experiment, and develop new solutions. But at the same time, we must dare to demand quality. What is built today will affect people's lives for a long time to come. Therefore, we should strive for architecture that is not only cheap and practical but also sustainable, beautiful, and human. It is there that we need to have more voices heard. The Liberals welcome the new direction in the work to achieve the goals for architecture, form, and design. I move to approve the committee's proposal.

Madam Speaker! Today is the final debate in the Cultural Committee for this parliamentary term, which several of my colleagues have pointed out. Some of the things that I, as a Liberal, am a little extra proud of are that during this term we have succeeded in securing the funding for public service for the next eight years and making a major investment in real books – LasseMajaböcker and all others – in schools and introducing libraries with school librarians in all schools.

Now there is a proposal on how the funding of culture should be broadened, and I truly hope that the proposals in the investigation submitted last week are implemented, regardless of what happens in the election. Something we are very much in agreement on in the committee is that culture should have better conditions and more money. This could be one of the keys. But it also means that public actors – the Riksdag and the upcoming government – must invest in culture. I believe that we will have to discuss this further in other debate forums than just here in the chamber, because even though we will not meet again in the committee, we will meet in many other places and discuss cultural policy in the near future.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say thank you for this time. I joined the committee a bit later and received a very warm welcome. A big thank you to the secretariat, here represented by Helene, who always provides us with fantastic materials and ensures that the work moves forward even when we muddle it up, which we sometimes do! A big thank you to Mats, who has led the committee in a fantastically good way and made me feel very welcome, and to all colleagues in the committee! It is one of the nicest committees in the Riksdag, not only because we get to deal with cultural issues but also because it is wonderful people who sit in the committee. With this, I say thank you for this parliamentary term and wish you all a pleasant little summer. We will see each other in more debates ahead.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 June.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)