INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FOR THE CITY
independent school for the city
Menu
close
Menu
close

Social Housing Between Crisis and Creativity

Article by curator and architect Andrea Prins, based on the series Back to School with... Andrea Prins that took place in Spring 2025 and was focused on social housing.

With the embrace of neoliberalism, we welcomed the end of a rare period, according to economist Thomas Piketty. He was referring to the time between 1960 and 1990, when - for perhaps the first time in history - it was possible to earn a decent income simply through one’s own labour. Before that, such level of security was only achievable for those who owned means of production: land, machinery, and/or capital. Since the 1990s, the ability to build a stable life through work has been eroding. Inequality and the marginalization of entire population groups are once again on the rise. Considering Piketty’s analysis of the end of this relatively just era, it comes as no surprise that social housing is also deteriorating - a social achievement we until recently took for granted.

It’s stating the obvious: there is a severe shortage of affordable housing. This hasn’t come out of nowhere but is the result of decades of policy choices - neglecting social housing in favour of building luxury homes. There’s also a quality issue: the affordable homes that have been built tend to have more standardised layouts, even though households today are more varied than ever. On top of that, pressure on construction budgets has led to a reduction in living space. A new type of housing has emerged in many cities: micro-apartments with a layout that resembles a hotel room, which – remarkably - are sometimes even counted as ‘social’ housing in municipal statistics. So much for the crisis.

However, are there hopeful developments as well? That’s what I'd wondered when I curated a lecture series on social housing this spring for the Independent School for the City. Fantastic: three evenings centred around my personal passions. The evenings were demanding. But what stood out – and this counts for every session - was how the audience not only asked nuanced questions and provided well-informed additions, but also really listened to each other. These events went beyond outrage and self-righteousness. This approach by the Independent School seems to be a recipe for evenings where people want to think together. And that contributed to a rich harvest of ideas - with perspective towards the future.

The first evening focused on the quest for affordable housing with well-designed, versatile floor plans. The second session explored the meaning of the term ‘social’ beyond its stigmatising association with ‘in need’. The final evening centred on the widespread obsession with owning a home. From the wealth of insights shared, I’ve chosen three (hopeful) perspectives.

Long live the floorplan!
I’m not the only one concerned about the quality of social housing floor plans, as became clear during the first session. “The erosion is no surprise,” said Fenna Haakma Wagenaar, chief designer at the Municipality of Amsterdam, “because not a single regulation in the Dutch Building Code requires quality in floor plans.” The result is a race to the bottom, with no spatial ambition. Haakma Wagenaar continued: “Call it a fairness gap: social housing turned into cramped boxes, while other apartments just kept getting bigger.” The uniformity in floor plans is also due to the ever-expanding technical spaces, architect Job Floris observed: “There’s less and less room for typological variety in homes. Technology is killing the floor plan.”

Three people on 68 m²: the design of the home includes both a ‘buffer zone’ between the bedrooms and a ‘joker room’ - here a loggia - that serves as an extra workspace or sleeping area, and offers multiple placement options for the kitchen countertop. Project START, Ivry-Sur-Seine. Photo credits/source: Nicolas Grosmond, drawing STAR strategies + architecture

Experiences from abroad show that things really can be done differently. In Beatriz Ramo’s project in Ivry-Sur-Seine, near Paris, spatially rich floor plans are very much alive - and they’re still affordable. The compactness of the social housing comes from smart spatial organisation: the corridors are as short as possible, yet still offer space for storage or an additional workspace. The rooms are also interconnected, creating multiple routes through the home. Long, diagonal sightlines make the apartments feel larger than they actually are. Just as cleverly, the design allows for maximum flexibility of use while preserving privacy for individual occupants. For example, bedrooms aren’t placed directly next to each other - as is common in the Netherlands - but are separated by a ‘buffer zone’: a corridor containing storage or a bathroom. This makes living together more pleasant, even if your child becomes a night-loving teenager. The strength of rich floor plan typologies: they are adaptable and suitable for multiple uses.

Designing Politics
Sieben euro pro Quadratmeter (seven euro per square meter), that’s the maximum social rent in Vienna. In addition to flexible-use homes like those in Ivry, this gives you purpose-designed flats for singles, families, shared living groups, and everything in between. These include ‘joker units’ for separated parents, climbing spaces for children, even a swimming pool in your housing block. You name it! In Vienna, it exists. The concept behind these living environments is called ‘Mixcity’, which emphasises abundant communal spaces and strong care for flora and fauna, explains architect Bernd Vlay during the second evening. “Mixcity also means: not housing just for the lower class.” People with a higher income, looking for good-quality homes at reasonable prices are equally welcome. ‘Social’ that moves beyond ‘neediness’: in Vienna, social housing is a collective, socio-political priority.

Flexible-use floorplans with equivalent rooms and a range of shared spaces. Project Sonnwendviertel 1. Credits/Source: StudioVlayStreeruwitz

In short, this is possible, because in the Austrian capital, developers and architects collaborate closely on project competitions. The city’s housing and sustainability goals are binding in these competitions, forcing developers to be inventive. Good social housing therefore requires different processes than we have in the Netherlands. The second key difference: in Vienna, social housing is subsidised; here, we subsidise homeowners (through mortgage interest tax relief, the so-called hypotheekrenteaftrek), while housing associations are subject to corporate tax. Dutch “non-social” housing is therefore a political choice. The good news? Choices can change. “What we need are activist architects,” said Wouter Vanstiphout, one of the deans of the school and partner at Crimson, during the public discussion that followed. “We need to go on strike!” “Let’s start by allocating homes more diversely,” responded Anne-Jo Visser, director of the Amsterdam Federation of Housing Associations. Due to the ‘appropriate allocation’ policy – matching homes to ‘appropriate’ income levels – concentrations of people facing socio-economic challenges have formed. Visser: “Let’s return to mixed neighbourhoods!”

Housing Literacy
The third and final session focused on an ultimate collective dream: owning a home. And that dream persists, even though buying often leads to serious trouble. One unforeseen event — job loss, divorce, or reckless bankers like in 2009 — and people can find themselves trapped in a debt spiral. The reason we remain hooked on homeownership, despite the risks, lies in a deeper systemic issue, explains Nicolas Bernard (Professor of Law at Saint-Louis University, Brussels). It’s politically convenient. “People increasingly work to cover mortgage costs for increasingly larger homes. That leaves little time for solidarity with others.” Since the 1920s, homeownership (especially among workers) has been promoted as a remedy against the dynamics of social protest. Conservatism and the building economy both benefit.

Many people are unaware of the alternatives, but they do exist: affordable housing as a collective endeavour. According to architect Andrea Verdecchia, cooperatives are no longer a purely idealistic, elitist reality for the happy few. “There is now a pool of experts, and participants come from all stages of life — you no longer need to have endless amounts of free time.” It sounds as if cooperatives might be the social housing solution of the 21st century: affordable, and based on solidarity for everyone. But an open question remains: how can we raise awareness of these alternatives when home ownership is so deeply embedded in the fabric of our society? How do we improve housing literacy?

Homes beyond the nuclear family and as collective property. Project De Nieuwe Meent, Amsterdam. Credits/Source interior photo of row houses: Ioana Enescu; exterior photo and sketches of housing groups by future residents: Time to Access.

Past the oneliners
The three-evenings in Rotterdam made clear that creativity in truly social housing goes far beyond brilliant design. What’s needed is a redesign of the entire system: processes, regulations, subsidies, and land policies must change to break the stranglehold on affordable housing. That means making it easier to live together, scrapping corporate tax for housing associations, and ensuring access to low-cost land for both associations and cooperatives. “Can architects still practise their craft?” asked Merel Pit, editor-in-chief of de Architect, in a recent editorial. “Or are the margins now too tight to deliver real quality in housing?” The sessions show that architects can still do it – especially when they work with municipalities. Because local politics, as seen in Ivry, Vienna, and (to some extent) Amsterdam, is the key. Municipalities can choose to allow investors to take the lead, or to prioritise housing quality, to sell off public land, or to opt for long-term leaseholds. Municipalities, be bold – and commit to housing that goes beyond the market!

Because local authorities can impose additional qualitative requirements, they are the ones standing between people and the bare minimum allowed by Dutch Building Code: narrow one-room units of eighteen square metres, crammed side by side along a long corridor with endless doors. But even with a ambitious municipality like Ivry or Vienna on your side, success doesn’t come automatically. What’s needed is an architect or supervisor who continues to fight for an ambitious quality. Someone who, as Ramo puts it, “dares to be the most-hated person on the project – not just for one meeting, but for years.” But even that is not always enough. To succeed, you need visibility – in the public realm, in the media. Good to hear that journalism sometimes helps.

Additional onformation:

This article is based on the three-part lecture series “Back to School with… Andrea Prins” about the lack of affordable, social housing in the Netherlands, taking place between January and March 2025. Recordings of the lecture series can be found on the Independent School’s  YouTube channel:

The information about minimum apartment sizes according to the Dutch building regulations (Bouwbesluit) comes from Victor Thöne, Municipality of Amsterdam. Source: email correspondence between the author and Fenna Haakma Wagenaar, dated 9 January 2025.

crosschevron-down