How do cities tackle affordable housing provision?

By Gabriela Debrunner, Research Fellow at International Federation for Housing and Planning,
PhD student at Bern University, Institute of Geography.

Municipal land policy strategies for affordable housing –
An international comparison between the cities of Zurich (Switzerland) and Copenhagen (Denmark).

The cities of Zurich and Copenhagen have something in common in many terms. Not only that they both represent the financial capitals of their countries and have undergone a period of deep structural change due to deindustrialization and re-urbanization. Moreover, in international recognition, they are both acknowledged as «role models» of social housing policy intervention. Meaning that both municipalities show the highest share of social housing property within their states and hence stand representative for active state supply. To be precise, while the city of Zurich comprises 24.6% social housing property (which in this study includes public and non-profit cooperative housing), the city of Copenhagen includes 19% of social housing property in total.

Simultaneously, however, both cities have been affected by global trends of increased commodification and financialization of housing stocks, especially since the global financial crises in 2007/2008. As a result, recent years have witnessed both cities displaying severe and increasing challenges of providing affordable housing for all income-segments as well as trends of residents’ social exclusion, gentrification, and segregation. To counteract these housing challenges, both cities have started to follow different policy strategies: While the city of Copenhagen has primarily focused on the introduction of new public measures, mainly in housing and planning policy (e.g., Social Housing + Program; Segregation policy; 25% affordability quota for new developments) to prevent trends of suburban polarization, the city of Zurich has added a focus on private law intervention (e.g., through raising the share of social housing property up to 33.3% by 2050 or the provision of long-term building leases for non-profit developers). In other words, besides the use of public policy instruments, Zurich expanded its affordable housing policy to a recognition of private law instruments too (e.g., property rights, contracts).

In this study, we aim to compare the two different approaches of municipal land policy and their effects on affordable housing provision. Thereby, we focus on the specific policy instruments and involved actors’ strategies applied for the period after the financial crises. Specifically, we ask: How does affordable housing provision in the municipalities of Zurich and Copenhagen work? How is housing regulated and what kind of policy instruments to ensure affordable housing are applied in each city? What objectives and strategies do involved actors follow? And finally, what effects do these different approaches have on affordable housing provision and what can we learn out of it?

To answer these research questions, we follow a neoinstitutionalist and actors’-centered theoretical approach and comparative case study methodology. Thereby, the mechanisms at play explaining the provision of affordable housing in each city will be assessed in-depth.

Gabriela Debrunner
at IFHP Head Quarters in Copenhagen

Author
Gabriela Debrunner
MSc Human Geography,
CAS Urban Management
Research fellow at IFHP,
PhD student and assistant at Bern University, Institute of Geography
Mail: gabriela.debrunner@giub.unibe.ch