The Schwyz government and Swiss homeland security have been at loggerheads for years. The latest object of dispute is a farmhouse in Illgau that is over 700 years old.
Again and again the demolition of old wooden houses leads to conflicts with homeland security. The Nideröst house, originally in Schwyz, was rebuilt in Morgarten.
Schwyz is one of the proud founding members of the Confederation, and probably no other canton has more wooden houses dating from around 1291. But more and more of these historically valuable contemporary witnesses are being demolished. The most recent example: the Wepfenen residential building in the municipality of Illgau. The place has become known mainly because it is one of the most conservative communities in the country.
As the Swiss Homeland Security wrote in a media release on Thursday, the demolition of the house, dated 1305, took place in the past few days. The log building was part of the formative, identification-creating appearance of the central Swiss cultural landscape. “Unfortunately, the wanton destruction of another cultural asset of European importance is a fact,” says Isabelle Schwander, President of the Schwyz Homeland Security Service. So facts have already been established.
“Abortion is illegal”
But Schwander doesn’t want to simply accept the demolition. “Swiss Heritage Protection is working with us to defend ourselves against the illegal demolition of the medieval wooden house by means of criminal charges and complaints,” she explains. Investigations on site would now have to show whether fractions of the irretrievably destroyed cultural assets could still be saved.
The demolition in Illgau is not the first case of careless handling of historical buildings in the canton of Schwyz, which caused a stir throughout Switzerland. For example, the fate of the Nideröst house, the oldest wooden house in Europe at over 800 years old, is badly remembered. The building, originally located in the main town of Schwyz, had to make way for a shopping center in 2001.
After the wooden beams had been stored in a shed in Goldau Zoo for years, the house was rebuilt in Morgarten in 2015. Various monument preservation experts described the result as a failed reconstruction that has very little to do with the original. The demolition of three other medieval wooden houses in the municipality of Schwyz in 2013 also led to a fierce controversy.
Further investigations will have to show whether the demolition in Illgau is actually illegal, as Homeland Security claims. According to information from the NZZ, the action did not take place against the will of the authorities. These are based primarily on the fact that the Wepfenen residential building is not part of the canton’s protective inventory and is therefore not protected against demolition.
A commissioned archaeological report comes to the conclusion that the house was built around 1305 or shortly after at the current location. With the exception of the north facade, all of the facades from the foundation building have been preserved, as well as the roof construction and most of the interior walls.
The building was also changed significantly over the centuries, for example by an extension in the 17th and 18th centuries. Century, possibly already in the 16th century. The building was also expanded in the 19th and 20th centuries. According to the report, further renovation work was carried out in 1987, during which the scope of the historical substance was reduced.
Based on this assessment and an inspection, the municipality of Illgau came to the conclusion that the house should not be treated as worthy of protection. On the other hand, from a professional point of view, the cantonal preservation of monuments came to the recommendation that the building should not be razed to the ground, especially due to its old age.
Guarantee of ownership before protection
The Schwyz government council finally decided last September that the Wepfenen house did not meet the requirements for a protected property and was therefore not included in the canton’s protection inventory. “There is simply not enough medieval and modern building stock to speak of a ‘high proportion’,” states the government council. This is not enough for “an ultimately massive intervention in the property guarantee”.
However, this government decision is not binding for homeland security. Such a decision can be reviewed as part of the approval process, i.e. the building application, explains Schwander. “We had no opportunity to participate in the decision of the government council, which is not legally binding on us according to the Federal Supreme Court.”
According to Schwander, who has presided over Schwyz homeland security for three years, the government has learned nothing from past mistakes. “On the contrary, it has gotten worse. The government council often lacks any understanding of building culture and history. Too much is irrevocably destroyed.”