Kyiv

Kyiv has one of Europe’s highest homeownership rates: about 93.3% of urban housing is owner-occupied, and only 5.7% is officially rented, though actual rental figures are likely higher due to the informality of the market. Publicly owned housing is marginal, constituting approximately 1% of the urban housing stock.

In March 2025, the median price to buy an apartment in Kyiv was about 1,280 euros per square meter. For rentals, a typical one-bedroom apartment cost around 410 euros per month (about 13 euros per square meter), with a two-bedroom averaging 651 euros and a three-bedroom 1,046 euros monthly. Rental demand is robust and prices have increased rapidly, driven by population displacement and reduced supply.

Publicly owned housing and social housing are not identical in Kyiv. Publicly owned stock refers to property held by the state, now minimal after decades of privatization. Social housing is a specific, highly limited program targeting the most vulnerable populations, with only about 1,000 units nationwide, and is not available to the general public. There is little legal or institutional support for expanding social housing, so its role in the housing market is negligible.

Overall, Kyiv’s market is dominated by private ownership and informal renting, with public and social housing playing only a tiny and weakly defined role. All values are converted to euros at the prevailing rate.

Kyiv faces a severe housing crisis fundamentally reshaped by Russia's full-scale invasion since February 2022. The scope of the crisis is massive: over 4.6 million Ukrainians have become internally displaced persons, with more than 1.2-1.3 million Ukrainian families losing their homes due to the war. The World Bank estimates at least 73 billion euros are needed to rebuild destroyed and damaged housing stock nationwide.

In Kyiv specifically, only two-thirds of residents own their housing, while the remainder rent or live with relatives. Despite high homeownership rates traditionally, the war has created enormous pressure on the housing market. A staggering 85% of Kyiv residents now want to improve their housing conditions, indicating widespread dissatisfaction with current living situations.

The most affected groups are internally displaced persons who have fled from dangerous regions to the capital, creating unprecedented demand for safe, quality housing. Many IDPs are forced to live in compact settlements that often fail to meet basic standards. Young people aged 18-34 face particular difficulties, with 38% unable to secure bank loans for housing purchases despite government programs.

The crisis is exacerbated by severe supply constraints. New construction in Kyiv has dramatically declined, with only 2,920 new dwellings started in 2024 compared to 12,133 in 2022. Meanwhile, demand continues to surge from displaced populations seeking safety in the capital, creating a fundamental supply-demand imbalance that defines the current housing emergency.

Kyiv’s city administration is prioritizing affordable and sustainable housing within the broader national context of wartime recovery and reconstruction. A comprehensive State Housing Policy Strategy is under development, emphasizing transparent, financially viable solutions for groups most affected by the war—especially internally displaced persons (IDPs), veterans, and young families. Key communicated targets include expanding access to affordable housing through new rental and ownership models, improving mortgage programs, state-supported credit, and launching effective financial instruments.

Concrete initiatives include:

• The construction of dedicated affordable housing complexes in the Kyiv region with around 700 apartments for IDPs, integrating supportive infrastructure like schools and community centers, and employing a rent-to-own model to allow gradual purchase by tenants.
• Allocation of 50 million euros (to cover about 1,100 IDP families) and the eRecovery programme, with a planned 650 million euros investment until 2027 nationwide, part of which is for Kyiv.
• Strategic partnerships with international donors (such as the EBRD and philanthropists) and NGOs like Habitat for Humanity, focusing on sustainable housing finance, scaling mortgage accessibility, and promoting long-term system reform.
• Legislative efforts to replace outdated housing regulations and develop a unified, modern social housing fund, as well as pilot projects with digital tools (e.g., “eOpora” chatbot) for rapid housing assistance and allocation.

Policy is increasingly shaped by collaboration between local authorities, national government, and international organizations to ensure access, resilience, and sustainability in housing solutions for Kyiv’s most vulnerable.

Housing cooperatives in Kyiv—locally known as Zhytlovo-Budivelni Kooperatyvy (ZhBK)—are community-led entities enabling residents to collectively pool resources for constructing housing. In Kyiv, the cooperative sector remains a niche, mainly assisting middle-income groups and serving as a solution for completing stalled development projects, especially those abandoned by commercial developers. The model promotes affordability, transparency, and social integration. However, housing cooperatives make up only a small fraction of Kyiv’s housing stock, with the vast majority privately owned; precise figures are unavailable, but national cooperative housing accounts for a minor share compared to models in Western Europe.

Recent years have seen increased attention toward cooperative housing, driven by wartime displacement, housing shortages, and the limitations of traditional ownership and rental models. Kyiv’s municipal administration and national authorities now prioritize legislative reform to modernize rules and enhance protections for cooperative members, aiming to clarify responsibilities and introduce clear oversight. Municipal programs encourage cooperatives as part of broader efforts for affordable housing—in particular for internally displaced persons—drawing on digital transparency tools and partnerships with NGOs and international donors. These strategies foster collective building, facilitate social cohesion, and may expand the cooperative sector’s footprint, yet its development remains gradual amid deep-rooted privatization and informal rental dominance.