Housing policy: Who Does It Best? - Part 1

Context and resource overview

The resource is a podcast episode titled “Housing policy: Who Does It Best? – Part 1”, published by The Europeans and written/reported/produced by Katz Laszlo, with editing by Jasmin Baoumy and Katy Lee. It is hosted by Dominic Kraemer and Katz Laszlo and draws on interviews with housing researchers and practitioners (including University of Amsterdam researcher Cody Hochsenbach and Finnish Housing First expert Juha Kahila) to compare how European places address housing insecurity and inequality.

Why housing policy matters for society and sustainability

The episode frames housing as a daily-life policy issue that influences social stability and political trust. It notes that housing stress affects people’s mental health, takes up “brain space,” and shapes job choices; research cited in the episode links housing insecurity to decisions to delay or not have children. It also connects housing and climate goals: the discussion states that “housing energy” accounts for about 26% of emissions, and argues that owner-occupiers are more likely than landlords to invest in home sustainability upgrades.

Rising costs and widening inequality across Europe

The episode cites EU-wide trends: average housing prices in the EU rose almost 50% over the last decade, while wages did not keep pace; in the Czech Republic and Hungary, prices more than doubled. The reporting argues that today’s “housing crisis” is better understood as a “housing policy crisis,” driven by political choices that have prioritized profit and property wealth over the right to housing. It highlights the role of family wealth: parental gifts and inheritances can reach tens or hundreds of thousands of euros and increasingly determine who can buy, contributing to what the episode calls an “inheritocracy.”

Renters vs homeowners: a structural gap

Using cross-European findings described by Cody Hochsenbach, the episode contrasts housing cost burdens: renters often spend around 30–40% of income on housing versus about 10–16% for homeowners. It also describes a trend in which homeowners’ housing cost share has been stable or slightly decreasing, while renters’ share has increased—widening the gap. The episode additionally notes how profits can accrue within housing systems: one cited example is a large Dutch housing corporation making 906 million euros in a year, while renters pay substantial monthly shares without building assets.

Policy examples: Vienna, Finland, and Paris

Vienna is presented as a reference point because roughly 50% of its housing is social housing, giving the city leverage to limit rent inflation and political pressure from private interests; eligibility can extend beyond only the lowest incomes, and some rental homes can be inherited, narrowing security differences between renters and owners. Finland is highlighted for adopting Housing First during the 2008 financial crisis, investing 270 million euros over 10 years to provide housing unconditionally as a route to reducing homelessness. A Finnish study cited in the episode (2012) concluded Housing First saved about 15,000 euros per person per year compared with street homelessness or temporary accommodation.

Scale of homelessness and unused housing

The episode reports that homelessness across Europe increased by about 70% over the past 10 years and that Finland is the only European country where homelessness is not increasing. It cites an estimate of roughly 700,000 people sleeping on the street in Europe on any given night and references reporting that Europe has about 38 million empty homes, underscoring the claim that homelessness outcomes reflect policy decisions.

A current investment approach: Paris

As an example of active, present-day intervention, the episode points to Paris’s efforts to expand social housing and constrain short-term rentals. It cites a 2024 investment of 528.8 million euros in social housing measures, including converting government buildings, building additional floors on existing structures, and purchasing buildings back from the private market to increase public control of supply.

Conclusion and continuation

Part 1 positions housing outcomes—affordability, inequality, and homelessness—as consequences of governance choices and previews Part 2’s promised “plot twist” focused on deeper housing economics and systemic solutions.