Modern housing - An environmental common good

The discussion paper “Modern housing – An environmental common good” is authored by Dan Hill, Professor of the Built Environment at the University of Melbourne, and Mariana Mazzucato, Professor of the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London. Published by the Council on Urban Initiatives (CUI) in 2024, the paper draws on contributions from a wide network of academics, mayors, and policy experts across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. It frames housing as a fundamental human right that must also respect planetary boundaries, proposing a shift from financialised development to a common‑good approach.

Over one billion people worldwide lack adequate shelter, while in many high‑income cities housing costs outpace incomes. The built environment sector contributed 37 % of global energy‑related CO₂ emissions in 2021, with construction and demolition waste accounting for more than 30 % of total waste. Between 1990 and 2019, building‑related emissions rose by 50 %, and embodied emissions now dominate as operational gains are achieved. The paper highlights that each new home built often worsens climate and biodiversity crises unless retrofitting and circular practices are adopted.

The authors identify five pillars for a common‑good housing economy: purpose and directionality, co‑creation, collective learning, access & reward‑sharing, and transparency. They cite successful retrofit projects such as the Nightingale developments in Melbourne, which reduce operational emissions by reallocating saved resources to insulation, renewable energy, and shared mobility. Modular timber, cross‑laminated timber, and bio‑based materials (e.g., bamboo, hempcrete) are presented as viable alternatives to concrete and steel, while large‑scale initiatives like Europe’s Renovation Wave aim to boost deep‑renovation rates from 0.2 % to at least 3 % by 2030.

The paper argues that market‑shaping policies—rather than merely fixing market failures—are essential. Examples include Singapore’s Housing Development Board, which delivers 80 % public‑sector housing on long‑term leases, and Vienna’s century‑long public housing programme that integrates energy efficiency and social infrastructure. Conditional public procurement, mission‑oriented funding, and “common‑good balance sheets” that internalise externalities are recommended to align private incentives with climate goals.

Co‑operative housing, self‑build, and community land trusts are highlighted as mechanisms for inclusive participation and reduced extraction. Projects such as Zürich’s Kalkbreite and Barcelona’s La Borda demonstrate how shared ownership can lower per‑household carbon footprints and generate social value. The paper stresses that empowering residents to co‑design, adapt, and maintain their homes increases resilience and reduces the need for new construction.

Financialisation drives over‑building, vacant stock, and speculative price growth. In England, 75 % of post‑2007 housing is rated “mediocre or poor,” while in Germany and China large percentages of new units remain empty. The authors estimate that retrofitting existing stock could be up to twice as carbon‑efficient as new builds and far more cost‑effective—e.g., UK retrofit could cost €275 billion annually versus higher expenditures for new construction. Aligning taxation, land‑use policy, and public financing with common‑good objectives could redirect billions toward sustainable upgrades.

Barriers include fragmented data on material flows, limited circular‑economy adoption in construction, and entrenched financial incentives. The paper calls for interoperable material passports, open‑source design platforms, and digital tools to make supply chains legible. It also notes the need for skilled labour in bio‑based construction and for policy frameworks that support long‑term maintenance rather than demolition cycles.

For a pan‑European audience, the paper offers a roadmap: prioritise deep retrofitting of existing dwellings, scale up timber and bio‑material construction, embed co‑creation and community governance, and redesign fiscal tools to deflate speculative pressures. By integrating the five common‑good pillars, Europe can meet its climate targets while delivering affordable, dignified housing for all, turning housing from a financial asset into a public utility that safeguards both people and the planet.