Wêrom Sosjale Húsfesting Ferlitten Waard en Wêrom It Weromkomme Moat
August 3, 2026 · Frisian News
In 1949, one in three Britons lived in publicly owned housing. By 2020, that had fallen to one in seventeen. It was not inevitable. Cities like Vienna and Singapore prove public housing works when governments choose to build.
FryskYn 1949 wenne 1 op de 3 Britten yn huzen dy't de steat boud hie. Yn 2020 wie dat sakke nei 1 op de 17. Dizze daling wie net ûnûntkomber. It wie in kar, makke troch politisy en ûntwikkelders dy't winst seagen dêr't oaren ferlet fan huzen seagen.
Sosjale húsfesting krige in minne namme, foar in part terjochte, meastal net. It byld fan mislearre wenningbouprojekten bleau hingjen, wylst de measte dêrfan yn stilte goed rûnen. Fanôf de jierren santich koazen regearingen der bewust foar publike húsbou ôf te bouwen, en wenningfoarrieden oan hierders en ûntwikkelders te ferkeapjen. De ideology fan dy tiid sei dat merken húsfesting better oplosse as planners. Ûntwikkelders stipe dit fan herte. Banken ek. Sy koenen in protte winst meitsje troch húsfesting yn hannelswaar en grûn yn belejjingsobjekten te feroarjen.
De merk hat fyftich jier hân om himsels te bewizen. Húspriizen binne yn de measte westerse lannen fertrijefâldige, wylst de leanen stilstienen. Jonge minsken kinne gjin huzen keapje. Dakleazens naam sterk ta yn stêden dêr't sosjale húsfesting ôfnaam. Prive húshearen fertsjinje no jierliks tsientallen miljarden oan hier, jild dat huzen bouwe en ûnderhâlde koe. Neat dêrfan giet werom yn de wenningfoarried. De winst giet omheech.
Wenen bout elk jier 10.000 publike wenningen. Yn Singapore wennet 80 persint fan de befolking yn publike flats. Dit binne gjin arbeidersparadizen, mar se wurkje. Hierren bliuwe betelber. Minsken bouwen har libben op ien plak, ynstee fan hieltyd ferhúzje te moatten fanwege stigende hierren. Húsfesting foar ferskate ynkommens freget gjin ideologyske suverheid. It freget karren.
De húsfestingskrisis sil him net fansels oplosse fia merken. It lost him op as stêden beslute opnij te bouwen. Dat betsjut publik jild foar publik ferlet, en it ein fan de logen dat prive merken wurkje. De fraach is net oft wy it ús betelje kinne te bouwen. Wy kinne it ús net betelje om net te bouwen.
In 1949, 1 in 3 Britons lived in publicly owned housing. By 2020, that number had fallen to 1 in 17. The decline was not inevitable. It was a choice, made by politicians and developers who saw profit where others saw community need.
Public housing got a bad reputation, partly deserved, mostly not. The image of failed housing projects stuck even as most thrived quietly. Governments made a deliberate choice to abandon public building starting in the 1970s, selling off stock to tenants and developers. The ideology of the time said markets solve housing better than planners. Developers loved this. So did banks. They stood to profit enormously from turning housing into a commodity and land into an investment vehicle.
The market has had fifty years to prove itself. Housing costs have tripled in most Western countries even as wages flatlined. Young people cannot buy homes. Homelessness rose sharply in cities where public housing fell. Private landlords now capture tenfold billions yearly in rent that could build and maintain homes. None of it goes back into housing stock. The profit flows up.
Vienna builds 10,000 public apartments yearly. Singapore houses 80 percent of its population in public flats. These are not worker paradises, but they work. Rents stay affordable. People build lives in one place instead of being priced out every few years. Mixed-income public housing does not require ideological purity. It requires will.
The housing crisis will not solve itself through markets. It will solve itself when cities decide to build again. That means public money for public need, and the end of the lie that private markets work. The question is not whether we can afford to build. We cannot afford not to.
Published August 3, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân