affordable housing: can we learn from other countries? · can we learn from other countries?...

Affordable housing: Can we learn from other countries?

Presentation by Darinka Czischke and Jen Pearce

Building and Social Housing Foundation

Joint Centre for Comparative Housing Research / Chartered Institute of Housing East Midlands

Annual Seminar

2 July 2013

Social housing in the EU

• No unique definition

• Wide diversity of tenures,

sizes, types of providers,

allocation criteria…

• Dominant form of

provision in EU/EEA: social

rental housing

Social housing systems in NW Europe

‘Public’ providers

‘Private’ providers

L.A. Public law

bodies

Private law entities (civil or business), non profit Coop For-profit

Assoc Coop Companies/societies Other

Public owners Private or mixed owners

AT * * * * *

BE * * *

DE * *

DK * * *

ES * *

FI * * * *

FR * * *

IE * * *

IT * * * *

NL * Found

PT * * NGOs *

UK * * * * * *

Types of social housing providers in the EU

Emerging trends in provision

• Increasing tenure segmentation (residualisation)

• Growing supply gap between targeted social housing and home-ownership

• Emergence of civil society-driven initiatives

Examples from Western Europe

• Austria: Limited-profit companies

• Nordic cooperative model

• Finland : Right to occupancy

• Germany: Co-housing, self-help housing, etc.

Austrian ‘limited profit companies’ • 22.5 % of primary residences in Austria

• Strong, continuous support for supply-side subsidy

• Stable housing market and modest house price rises

• Cost rent

• Facilitative land policy

• Structured financial arrangements

• Strong legislative framework

• Core features and social task retained throughout 1990s

Nordic housing cooperatives

• Consumer cooperative mutually owned by members, in accordance with Cooperative Principles and Values

• Jointly owned and democratically controlled by members: “one person, one vote”

• Alternative to traditional, municipally owned real estate management

• No use of municipal funds – the cooperative tenancy association becomes self-sufficient

• Profits re-invested in the coop

Housing cooperatives: Sweden

• Members (bostadsrättsförening) formally own the right (bostadsrätt) to inhabit their apartment for an unlimited time

• Right can be traded on the open market

• One of the main forms of home ownership in the country: 17% of total housing stock in Sweden

• Membership of a housing cooperative generally held to be the same thing as owning (as opposed to renting)

Right to occupancy: Finland • Loan from the Housing Fund of

Finland (ARA) of 85% • Purchaser pays 15% of total price • Monthly charge similar to rent • Same security of tenure as home-

ownership • Non-redeemable • Payment is returned after 3

months’ notice • Can be endorsed to / inherited by

child or parents living in the same household

• Allocation through waiting lists

Self-Help Housing

“Self-help housing involves groups of local

people bringing back into use empty properties that

are in limbo, awaiting decisions about their future use, or their

redevelopment”

Self-Help Housing

• Different models; different aims: – Affordability

– Homelessness

– Employment

• Success factors – People

– Property

– Partnership

– Viable finance

Self-Help Housing in Germany

• Berlin – 5000 flats refurbished

• Leipzig – Home-steading programme for

empty flats – Public funding – Security of tenure

• Freiburg – Factories and barracks

transformed into attractive neighbourhoods

• Partnerships with municipalities key

Community Land Trusts • Five central principles

– Community-controlled and community-owned

– Open democratic structure

– Permanently affordable housing

– Not for profit

– Long-term stewardship

• Range of financing models – Funding

– Investment

– Low cost land

Champlain Housing Trust

• Established in Burlington, Vermont in 1984

• Affordable to households on 57% of local median income

• 2,200 properties for rent and LCHO

• Resale formula to share equity

• Pioneers: now 200 trusts throughout the USA

Core elements

• Stable institutional and financial framework (Austrian LPC’s)

• Meeting a wide range of objectives (Nordic coops)

• Flexibility (Right to occupancy)

• Citizen’s engagement (self-help housing; CLTs)

Conclusions

• Much to be learnt from other contexts

• Need to think beyond traditional models of provision

• Need to be careful about how we transfer: recognition of context

World Habitat Awards

• International award run by BSHF on behalf of UN Habitat since 1985

• Identifying good practice

• Guiding principles: innovation, sustainability, transfer

Thank you

www.bshf.org

www.worldhabitatawards.org

bshf@bshf.org