Wêrom iepenbiere húsfêsting ferlitten waard en wêrom it weromkomme moat
July 23, 2026 · Frisian News
Vienna houses 60 percent of residents in affordable public housing at 500 euros monthly. The United States and Britain abandoned this model in the 1980s, opening the path to today's housing crisis. Evidence from Singapore, Berlin, and Vienna shows public housing works when funded.
FryskIt systeem fan Wenen foar sosjale húsfêsting húsfêst 60 prosint fan 'e befolking yn betelbere appartementen. De measten betelje hier ûnder de 500 euro yn 'e moanne. It systeem wurket. Dochs waard iepenbiere húsfêsting yn 'e Feriene Steaten en Grut-Brittanje yn 'e jierren 1970 en 1980 in polityk doelwit. Hjoed steane stêden foar in húsfêstingskrisis, wylst se it ienige ynstrumint dat dit oantoand oplost wegerje.
De ferskowing wie net tafallich. Yn 'e jierren 1980 ferkeapte de regearing fan Margaret Thatcher gemeentlike huzen oan sittende hierders mei grutte koarting en sleat sa de iepenbiere foarried ôf. Ronald Reagan besunige yn syn earste amtstermyn de federale húsfêstingsfinansierung mei 80 prosint. Beide regearingen fierden dizze stappen as 'befrijing' en 'frijheid.' Se belûken dêrby altyd kar en eigendom. Tekoarten folgen. Doe't de iepenbiere foarried ferdwûn, krigen partikuliere bouwers monopoljemacht oer de húsfêstingsfoarsjenning. Prizen gienen omheech. Ferhierders bepaalden it belied. Gjin tafal.
In appartement mei ien sliepkeamer yn Londen kostet no 1.200 pûn yn 'e moanne. Yn Wenen kostet deselde romte yn in sosjale húsfêsting 350 pûn. Berlyn, dat nei de weriendiging mear fan syn iepenbiere foarried behâlde, hat hierprizen dy't de helte binne fan dy fan Londen. De regearing fan Singapore bout en ûnderhâldt húsfêsting foar 80 prosint fan har ynwenners. Dizze stêden binne net sosjalistysk. It binne pragmatisten. Sy erkenden dat húsfêsting ynfrastruktuer is, net in spekulatyf goed.
It argumint tsjin iepenbiere húsfêsting rêst op karikatur: Sovjet-brutalisme, konsintrearre earmoed, behearsfalen. Wiere iepenbiere húsfêsting (Wenen, Singapore, nei-oarlochsk Grut-Brittanje) sjocht der totaal oars út. Konsintraasjes fan earmoed fersprieden har neidat de begruttings foar iepenbiere húsfêsting útrûnen en regearingen it ferlitten hienen, net earder. Húsfêsting as publik goed ûnderhâlde makke dat it wurke. It as restsjinst foar earmen behannelje briek it. It ferskil is net it model. It is de kar om it te finansieren of út te hongerjen.
Húsfêstingskosten ferbrûke no 30 oant 50 prosint fan 'e ynkomsten foar miljoenen yn it Westen. Dakleazens ferspriedt har. Húshâldens splitsje har om hier te finen dat se betelje kinne. De politike konsensus dy't iepenbiere húsfêsting ferneatige levere gjin fan 'e taseine resultaten. It levere winsten oan bouwers en in generaasje útsletten fan eigendom. As jo wolle dat húsfêsting wurket, moatte jo it sels bouwe. De merk hat fjouwer desennia hân om dit op te lossen. Dat sil net barre.
Vienna's social housing system holds 60 percent of the city's population in affordable apartments. Most pay rent below 500 euros a month. The system works. Yet in the United States and Britain, public housing became a political target in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, cities face a housing crisis while refusing the one tool that demonstrably solves it.
The shift was not accidental. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher's government sold council homes to sitting tenants at steep discounts, gutting the public stock. Ronald Reagan cut federal housing funding by 80 percent in his first term. Both governments celebrated these moves as 'empowerment' and 'freedom.' They always invoked choice and ownership. Shortages followed. As public stock vanished, private developers gained monopoly power over housing supply. Prices rose. Landlords captured policy. No coincidence.
A one-bedroom apartment in London now costs 1,200 pounds a month. In Vienna, the same space in a social housing unit costs 350 pounds. Berlin, which kept more of its public stock after reunification, has rents half those of London. Singapore's government builds and maintains housing for 80 percent of its residents. These cities are not socialist havens. They are pragmatists. They recognized that shelter is infrastructure, not a speculation asset.
The argument against public housing rests on caricature: Soviet-style brutalism, concentrated poverty, management failure. Real public housing (Vienna, Singapore, post-war Britain) looks nothing like the stereotype. Concentrations of poverty spread after public housing budgets dried up and governments abandoned it, not before. Maintaining housing as a public good made it work. Treating it as a residual service for the poor broke it. The difference is not the model. It is the choice to fund or starve it.
Housing costs now consume 30 to 50 percent of income for millions in the West. Homelessness spreads. Families split to find rent they can afford. The political consensus that killed public housing delivered none of the promised outcomes. It delivered profits to developers and a generation locked out of ownership. If you want housing to work, you have to build it yourself. The market has had four decades to solve this. It will not.
Published July 23, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân