Based on interview material relating to the current wave of housing renovation in Swedish cities,this article will analyse the profit-driven, traumatic and violent displacement in the wake ofcontemporary large-scale renovation processes of the so-called Million Program housingestates from the 1960s and 1970s. We maintain that the current form of displacement(through renovation) has become a regularized profit strategy, for both public and privatehousing companies in Sweden. We will pay special attention to Marcuse’s notion of‘displacement pressure’ which refers not only to actual displacement but also to the anxieties,uncertainties, insecurities and temporalities that arise from possible displacement due tosignificant rent increases after renovation and from the course of events preceding the actualrent increase. Examples of the many insidious forms in which this pressure manifests itself will begiven – examples that illustrate the hypocritical nature of much planning discourse and rhetoric ofurban renewal. We illustrate how seemingly unspectacular measures and tactics deployed in therenovation processes have far-reaching consequences for tenants exposed to actual or potentialdisplacement. Displacement and displacement pressure due to significant rent increases (which isprofit-driven but justified by invoking the ‘technical necessity’ of renovation) undermines the ‘rightto dwell’ and the right to exert a reasonable level of power over one’s basic living conditions, withall the physical and mental benefits that entails – regardless of whether displacement fearsmaterialize in actual displacement or not.

This article analyses the political and ideological transformations underlying the gradual privatisation and deregulation of the mid-twentieth-century Keynesian model of housing provision in Sweden. We identify a series of three political and ideological shifts in housing policy and urban form since the 1930s: regulating Folkhem housing, deregulating Folkhem housing, and back to business in housing. We argue that even though the Folkhem parole of ‘housing for all’ differs extensively from the current situation where the market is ‘housing the privileged’, segregation trends have, from the Folkhem to the postwelfare period, been shaped by both state interventions and market forces. Second, we argue that there is a continuing trend through which newly constructed housing has metamorphosed from a basic human right for the working class into an expression of individual distinction and ‘style’ for the upper middle and middle classes. While privileged classes, more than ever before in modern Swedish housing history, have the possibility to choose new forms of housing, the most impoverished groups live in residual and often stigmatised peripheral housing areas. One main conclusion is that recent forms of housing for privileged groups signal a cultural and ideological shift towards new, more elitist conceptions of housing and privilege.

This article analyses the political and ideological transformations underlying the gradual privatisation and deregulation of the mid-twentieth-century Keynesian model of housing provision in Sweden. We identify a series of three political and ideological shifts in housing policy and urban form since the 1930s: regulating Folkhem housing, deregulating Folkhem housing, and back to business in housing. We argue that even though the Folkhem parole of ‘housing for all’ differs extensively from the current situation where the market is ‘housing the privileged’, segregation trends have, from the Folkhem to the post-welfare period, been shaped by both state interventions and market forces. Second, we argue that there is a continuing trend through which newly constructed housing has metamorphosed from a basic human right for the working class into an expression of individual distinction and ‘style’ for the upper middle and middle classes. While privileged classes, more than ever before in modern Swedish housing history, have the possibility to choose new forms of housing, the most impoverished groups live in residual and often stigmatised peripheral housing areas. One main conclusion is that recent forms of housing for privileged groups signal a cultural and ideological shift towards new, more elitist conceptions of housing and privilege.