Housing that is produced and housing that is needed

0

Housing that is produced and housing that is needed

Mismatches

Main objectives of the project

A recent report highlights the housing crisis in Ghana, with an annual need of 70,000 units and a deficit of 250,000 units. Current delivery rate meets only 21% of demand. Housing is expensive, and low incomes make it unaffordable for many. Even low-cost government housing is beyond the reach of most households. The main obstacles include high land costs, financing challenges, expensive mortgages, inadequate infrastructure, complex approval procedures, limited building materials, institutional coordination issues, and governance for shelter provision. The goal is to provide affordable and sustainable housing with infrastructure and address these challenges by improving land supply, extending infrastructure development, promoting local building materials, and increasing access to credit.

Date

  • 2010: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: UN-HABITAT

Location

Continent: Africa
Country/Region: Ghana

Description

A recent report, Housing as a Strategy for Poverty Reduction in Ghana (2010), highlights how the Ghanaian housing problem is ‘a national development crisis’ as there is a current annual need of 70,000 units, in addition to the accumulated deficit of 250,000 units ‘needed to de-crowd urban households from over 10 to 7’ occupants per house. In the coming twenty years an average annual delivery of 133,000 is needed, far more than the current delivery rate of only 28,000 units (equating to only 21 per cent of demand). 

Housing in Ghana is simply too expensive and incomes are too low. A low-cost government housing project house costs a minimum of 9,000 USD. However, this is prohibitively expensive for low-, and even many middle-income households. The report states ‘given the current minimum wage is 1.3 cedis per day (0.87 USD), it will take someone on the minimum wage 17 years to service the loan, excluding interest, and committing his or her entire salary to it’. 

Therefore, a quick calculation indicates that if he or she spends half their income on servicing the loan (still a considerable proportion of income), it will take 34 years to pay off the principal only. Furthermore, this assumes he or she has formal, reliable fixed employment contract, has the required down-payment, and has the credit worthiness to secure a loan in the first place, all of which are not common for many Ghanaian households. In Ghana and throughout Africa, even for a ‘low-cost’ government house, there are evidently many obstacles to obtaining and retaining housing that households can afford. 

The most vulnerable groups are the urban and rural poor, most of whose houses are built with poor quality materials and with little or no basic services and infrastructure, such as adequate drainage and waste disposal systems. Key factors hindering the effective delivery of housing in Ghana include the following: 

The cost of land and its accessibility; 
Financing; 
The high cost of mortgages; 
Infrastructural development; 
Development approval procedures; 
Availability and cost of building materials; 
Institutional coordination; 
Governance for shelter provision.  

Therefore, the ultimate goal of the country’s housing policy is to provide adequate, decent and affordable housing that is accessible and sustainable with infrastructural facilities to meet the needs of Ghanaians. This will be complemented by the following policies that address the challenges listed above. 

Improve the supply of serviced land available for housing, especially for the target groups. 
Extend infrastructural development to all parts of the country and ensure access to all citizens through a clear infrastructure policy and development programmes. 
Develop, produce and promote greater use of local alternative building materials of acceptable quality to effectively respond to the housing construction needs of the majority of the country’s population. 
Provide greater access to credit, especially for the target groups. 

Authors:

Conferencias VI Congreso Internacional de Arquitectura ‘La ciudad que queremos’

0

Conferencias VI Congreso Internacional de Arquitectura ‘La ciudad que queremos’

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Urban Design

Main objectives of the project

La Fundación Arquitectura y Sociedad organiza un Congreso Internacional de Arquitectura de forma bianual en Pamplona desde 2010.

Date

  • 2022:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: La Fundación Arquitectura y Sociedad

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Pamplona
Country/Region: Pamplona

Description

La sexta edición del Congreso, bajo el título ‘La ciudad que queremos’, y dirigido por el arquitecto y sociólogo José María Ezquiaga, mantiene la línea de investigación y debate sobre el fenómeno urbano. Con la participación de figuras consolidadas del pensamiento y la práctica sobre la ciudad junto con representantes de las nuevas y de las futuras generaciones, buscando un intercambio de experiencias y deseos que se traduzca en ideas y propuestas para un mejor futuro para todos. Incluye conferencias de Anne Lacaton, Joan Clos, Mohan Munasinghe, Feniosky Peña-Mora, Mª Áneles Durán o 300.000 km/s.

Authors:

Affordable Housing Supply Programme of Scotland

0

Affordable Housing Supply Programme of Scotland

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Promotion and production
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2021: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Department of Social Justice, Housing and Local Government
  • Promotor: Government of Scotland

Location

Country/Region: United Kingdom

Description

The Scottish Government in the United Kingdom has developed strong capabilities in needs-based strategic planning for housing grant allocation and delivery. It has established an Affordable Housing Supply Programme to deliver 50,000 affordable homes, including 35,000 for social rent, between 2016 and 2021. It recently published an updated “Housing to 2040” policy statement, which aims to deliver an additional 100,000 affordable homes, including 70,00 social rental homes, by the first half of 2032. By working with local authorities, the Scottish Government has channelled increased capital investment to address well-evidenced and locally established housing needs. It has also created a dedicated Housing Infrastructure Fund to address development blockages. Furthermore, the Government continued to employ funds to renovate vacant dwellings and established a new fund to increase affordable housing in rural and remote island areas.

Authors:

Cooperation through the “Urban Agenda for the EU” Housing Partnership Action Plan

0

Cooperation through the “Urban Agenda for the EU” Housing Partnership Action Plan

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Financing
Urban Design
Promotion and production
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2018:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: City of Vienna
  • Promotor: City of Lisbon
  • Promotor: City of Riga
  • Promotor: Scottish Cities Alliance
  • Promotor: City of Poznan
  • Promotor: Government of Slovakia
  • Promotor: EUROCITIES
  • Promotor: Government of Latvia
  • Promotor: Government of Luxembourg
  • Promotor: Government of the Netherlands
  • Promotor: Government of Slovenia
  • Promotor: European Commission (DG REGIO and contributions from DG NEAR and DG EMPL)
  • Promotor: International Union of Tenants
  • Promotor: European Investment Bank
  • Promotor: Faculty for Urban Studies, Science Po – Paris Institute of Political Sciences
  • Promotor: Housing Europe

Location

Continent: Europe
Country/Region:

Description

The Housing Partnership of the Urban Agenda for the EU used an evidence-based and consultative process, enhancing knowledge and promoting action to improve legal and financial conditions for EU cities to invest in new or renovated affordable housing.

The Partnership involved representatives of EU Member States, cities, housing providers and tenants, as well as EU institutions and programmes. The partners prepared papers on ten selected themes and consulted extensively with the public, as well as with the European Commission and Parliament.

The EU Housing Partnership Action Plan proposed several key actions. These included improving support and policy guidance to develop European affordable housing, EU-level dialogue on housing matters, reformed funding structures or state aid rules, and improved housing issue monitoring through the European Semester process.

Authors:

Soft urban renewal in Vienna, Austria

0

Soft urban renewal in Vienna, Austria

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2010: Rehabilitación

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Vienna Housing Rehabilitation

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Vienna
Country/Region: Austria, Vienna

Description

Soft urban renewal, implemented under the 1984 Vienna Housing Rehabilitation Act, is a non-disruptive approach that avoids demolishing historic buildings or displacing residents. It focuses on financial incentives for private homeowners and follows a decentralized and participatory method for building and neighborhood improvements. The emphasis is on improving housing standards without causing social segregation or gentrification. The scheme has successfully reduced substandard housing from 320,000 to less than 125,000 units through rehabilitation efforts. It has created affordable rehabilitated housing without changing ownership, resulting in over 715,000 fully equipped apartments. The approach prioritizes affordability, social inclusion, and the needs of vulnerable households. Redevelopment is managed by district offices, supported by private architects or non-profit building associations and funded by the city. These offices collaborate with tenants and owners to enhance housing stock, including green courtyards and communal facilities, while promoting connections to public transport. There are currently 13 district offices that actively involve vulnerable and socially marginalized households with the support of city funds. It is considered “soft” or ”gentle” as it does not involve the demolition of historic buildings or the construction of entirely new urban areas, nor does it displace and compulsorily rehouse residents living in renewal areas.

Legislated under the 1984 Vienna Housing Rehabilitation Act, the soft urban renewal created financial renovation incentives for private homeowners and was implemented through a decentralized and participatory approach to building and neighbourhood improvement.

Much effort has since gone towards improving housing standards, while avoiding social segregation and gentrification. The urban renewal has involved strategic subsidization of private housing rehabilitation, rather than the demolition of historic buildings. Public authorities first look at bringing empty flats into use and developing communal areas and then later address whole blocks of flats and creating new urban areas.[3] An evaluation of this scheme in 2010 found that soft renewal had made substantial improvements to living conditions in Vienna. From 1984 to 2001, through rehabilitation, houses that were categorised as substandard were substantially reduced – from approximately 320,000 (39 per cent of the total stock) to less than 125,000.

The renewal activities produced a large stock of affordable rehabilitated housing with avoiding a forced change of ownership or occupancy. One important result was the avoidance of social segregation and gentrification. A total of 2,160 buildings with 142,000 apartments were improved as part of the process of soft renewal and the number of fully equipped apartments rose from about 328,000 to more than 715,000.[1]

Notably, limited profit affordable housing is in relatively good condition, in part due to the business model which funds it that requires regular maintenance and periodic renovation. Chapter II on funding and financing affordable and inclusive housing has extensively elaborated on this matter. The soft renewal approach, which is both decentralized and interdisciplinary, prioritises affordability and social inclusion objectives, avoids forced change of ownership and enables rehabilitated housing to remain affordable to existing occupants. Particular attention is given to the needs of vulnerable households (the elderly and new migrants).

The redevelopment is managed by offices in each city district. These are run by either private architects or non-profit building associations and are financed by the city. They work with both tenants and owners to improve the housing stock; for example, by enhancing green courtyards, and making proposals for communal facilities and connections to public transport. There are now 13 district offices (Gebietsbetreuungen) which can also apply for city funds to involve vulnerable or socially marginalised households more actively.

Authors:

Housing Fund of the Republic of Slovenia

0

Housing Fund of the Republic of Slovenia

Mismatches New family structures
Financing
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 1991:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Housing Fund of Republic of Slovenia (SSRS)

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Cerknica
Country/Region: Slovenia

Description

The objectives and specific targets of the Fund have evolved, but remain focused on the construction, renovation and maintenance of apartments and residential buildings, targeted at groups with particular needs such as families, young people, the elderly, and Roma populations. The main instruments used to achieve this have involved co-financing with long-term favourable loans and interest rate subsidies, and investments in new innovations and international research. The Housing Fund is a public authority and actively invests directly in housing and also co-invests in local community housing programmes, complementing the efforts of municipalities and non-government organizations. It also purchases land and houses directly on the market. Since 2006, non-profit dwellings regulated under the Housing Act have been let at relatively regulated low rents. Consequently, they are in high demand among prospective tenants, but have proven less attractive to investors. With its own construction and purchase projects on the market, the Fund provides an additional quota of publicly available rental housing, tying rent calculation to the real estate investment or purchase value. It offers eligible tenants a stable rental relationship under pre-known conditions for an indefinite period. In 2019 CEIB (also discussed in this chapter) provided the Fund with a long-term loan of EUR 50 million.

Issues tackled

Currently the Fund directly owns 3,042 non-profit rental-housing units and a further 787 dwellings which are let at cost-based rents. Two companies owned by the fund own another 2,056 apartments, which they rent out at non-profit rent. These dwellings are located throughout Slovenia. The Fund is intensively building affordable rental apartments throughout Slovenia, and by 2023 it will provide 2,194 new public rental apartments.

The Fund is now focusing on effective administration for public rental dwellings. Thus, between 2017 and 2020, its activities have included:

Co-investment in new public rental housing units, including residential units, under a co-financing programme
Establishment and operation of the Public Service for Rental Management and Records system
Management of mixed portfolio of formerly non-profit, commercial, and sheltered housing
Providing new public rental housing units for young people, young families and the elderly, the utilization of rental buying-in and shared ownership instruments
Development of new projects on land owned by the Fund
Financial incentives for housing in the form of soft loans
Sustainable construction and complete renovation of the housing stock for all products and programmes of the Fund
Technical standards for the home-building industry
Cooperation in development projects in housing construction
Strengthening and implementing the Fund’s development role in housing
Efforts to obtain funding from EU funds
Acquiring assets for and in the framework of partner projects.

Authors:

Mikrofond EAD and Habitat for Humanity in Bulgaria

0

Mikrofond EAD and Habitat for Humanity in Bulgaria

Mismatches
Financing
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2008: Construction

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Mikrofond EAD
  • Promotor: Habitat for Humanity

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Bulgaria
Country/Region: Bulgaria

Description

In 2008, the Habitat for Humanity International established a partnership with Mikrofond EAD, a microfinance organization in Bulgaria that focuses on underserved regions and communities.

They have run a project together to deliver housing microfinance services to clients in housing poverty throughout Bulgaria.[1]

Before the partnership, Mikrofond offered only business loans, but it saw an opportunity to introduce consumer loans for home improvements. The size of the loans provided was EUR 1,750 (USD 2,365) and the average payment duration is 31 months.

Habitat for Humanity Bulgaria (http://hfh.bg/bg/) and Mikrofond also jointly provide financial education programmes to their clients. These cover budgeting, saving, debt management and financial planning, along with raising clients’ awareness about the benefits and risks of using credit.

[1] Habitat for Humanity, “Shelter Report 2014” (see sect. Microfinance for self-building and modernising housing, footnote 175).

Authors:

Badajoz, Spain

0

Badajoz, Spain

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Financing
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2023: En proceso

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Department of Housing and Architecture, Junta de Extremadura

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Badajoz
Country/Region: Badajoz, Spain

Description

This project is an open negotiation between the different parties involved in the development of the city.

The development of the project began with the the commissioning of the first detailed diagnostic study of the whole area which identified the restoration of the Santa Engracia UVA as a priority intervention, so much for its urgency as its viability.

Plan Especial de Reforma Interior (P.E.R.I) establishing the framework for planning the restoration of the district and process of regeneration.

The PERI proporsals for the programme, public, space and building the neighbourhood were organized around eight strategically prioritized lines, which sought to restructure the neighbourhood and recover its relationships.

Strategic lines that link neighbourhood-inhabitants: identity, generational change and accessibility.
Strategic lines in relation to the cultural environment: visibility, recuperation and connection with the city and territory.
Strategic lines in relation to the natural environment: sustainability and landscape.
The project is included in a life fund programme and is currently in development.

Authors:

From silos to systemic reform – The National Housing System strategy of Malta

0

From silos to systemic reform – The National Housing System strategy of Malta

Policies and regulations
Financing
Promotion and production
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2020:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: Housing Authority of Malta

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Santa Venera
Country/Region: Malta, Valletta

Description

Malta has recently pursued a new vision for housing policy development. Taking a culturally sensitive approach has been central to this, reflecting on new realities brought about by economic progress, migration, and new household formation trends. This perspective stresses the value of social relationships in homes and neighbourhoods, as well as the importance of participatory governance to accommodate a multi-ethnic and heterogeneous population.

In August 2020, the Ministry for Social Accommodation launched its first National Housing System strategy. This followed the 2018 work of the Parliamentary Secretariat for Social Accommodation, which sought to diversify the housing market by using short, medium and long-term goals. These included private rented sector regulation, affordable housing development, and specialized housing programmes regenerating abandoned or dilapidated properties.

Authors:

Inclusionary zoning law in the United Kingdom

0

Inclusionary zoning law in the United Kingdom

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Financing
Urban Design
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2007:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: United Kingdom Government

Location

Continent: Europe
Country/Region: United Kingdom

Description

The two main sources of investment in new social housing in the United Kingdom are central government funding and planning agreements between private developers and local authorities, under which the developer contributes land, housing or cash as a condition of planning permission.Planning obligations to support the provision of social housing are known as Section 75 Agreements in Scotland and Section 106 Agreements in England and Wales[1]. Agreements must be directly relevant to the proposed development, prescribe a given portion of housing that is affordable and compensate for loss or damage created by a development (for example, loss of open space), or mitigate a development’s impact (for example, through increased public transport provision). Around a third of all affordable housing delivered in Scotland between 2007 and 2012 involved some form of development contribution.[1] In England, section 106 supported the development of 28,000 affordable homes in 2019, almost half of all such units.[2] Despite their significance, the United Kingdom Government planning reform has proposed the abolition of section 106 agreements in the future.[3] Scottish land policy continues to support affordable housing development through securing land for such development. Any land gained through development contributions is transferred to registered not-for-profit social landlords. Only landlords operating on a not-for-profit basis can receive land development contributions and provide social housing. The usual arrangement between a local authority and a private developer is that, before 30 per cent of the market units have been completed, land for 25 per cent of the residential units will be passed on to a registered social landlord at nil value.[1] The registered social landlord will normally then develop the affordable housing land.[2]

Since 2016 the Scottish government has increased investment in affordable housing alongside pro-social land policies, producing more than 50,000 additional units in just three years. This has taken place in combination with needs assessment and social housing investment plans, which are discussed in subsequent chapters on governance and finance.

Authors: