The city has too many of its own bars

After 18 years it’s over. That’s how long Markus Duner ran the popular “Primitivo” open-air bar on Zurich’s Oberen Letten. But the city of Zurich, which owns the restaurant, has had enough. She is not renewing the lease with Duner, as she recently announced. This is bad news for the innkeeper and his employees. “You only deal with a company that you don’t appreciate,” said Duner in the NZZ disappointed.

Since then, the city has had to defend itself, which is why it is handing over the institution to new hands after almost two decades. There is criticism above all because the new tenant – Maag Music & Arts AG – is a large, commercial entrepreneur in the event sector. The city favors the “Goliath” Maag against the “David” Duner, it is said.

Not only with the “Primitivo”, again and again new tenders and changes of tenants in gastro facilities owned by the city of Zurich cause trouble. Most recently, for example, at the historic “Barfüsser” or the “Bauschänzli” in the Limmat. What’s wrong? Or: Is anything going wrong at all?

Basically, it is logical that the city regularly advertises its restaurants. Otherwise there is the danger of felt and cronyism, also of outdated gastronomy concepts that ignore customer needs. The public sector has a special responsibility here.

The city can be blamed for the fact that some tenants perceive the procedure as arbitrary. In the case of the “Primitivo”, the city’s property management said there was “a moral obligation” to re-advertise the premises after two extensions and 18 years of tenancy and to give other candidates a chance. It would be better to argue on such issues with clear, transparent guidelines rather than morality.

The crux of the problem, however, is different. The City of Zurich has almost 80 restaurants and kiosks in their portfolio – an absurdly high number. These include well-known houses such as the “Neumarkt”, the “Adlisberg”, the “Waid”, the “Fischerstube” or the “Falken” in Wiedikon. The city is present in all circles and is therefore an influential player in the highly competitive Zurich gastronomy market – even if, as it emphasizes several times, it does not host itself, but “only” acts as the owner. Five years ago, after a request from GLP in Parliament, the city gave an investment value of over 100 million francs, and the building insurance value was almost 200 million francs.

The extremely broad pickling portfolio is justified in various ways. None of the arguments are really convincing. When it comes to commercial use of the ground floor areas of official buildings, one can at best turn a blind eye. But when the city wants to use restaurants like the Grand-Café Lochergut to “liven up the neighborhood”, things rattle badly. Anyone who knows the area around the Lochergut knows that there are a few shortcomings – but certainly not a lack of gastronomic offers.

The maintenance of excursion restaurants or businesses with event halls should not be a state task. There is no need for a municipal gastro homeland security service in Zurich. The city should part with as many areas as possible.

Intervening in such a way in a market that works well, as in the case of the gastronomy in Zurich, is not only unnecessary, but also harmful in the worst case. For example, when a city-owned restaurant directly competes with a privately-owned one. It is obvious that this is the case, especially in the lively old town with its very high density of pubs.

Of course, there are also disappointed tenants in the free market. But a private owner is free to keep a tenant with whom he is basically happy for as long as he wants. He has no obligation to regularly cause trouble and insecurity – not even a moral one. This is another reason to fundamentally rethink the city’s gastronomy policy.