A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Housing Affordability via Decommodification and Public Investment: A Comparative Analysis of Vienna and San Francisco
Vienna leads the world in affordable housing due to its century long, sustained political commitment and investment toward de-commodifying housing. This commitment is evident in the size of its subsidized housing as a portion of its total housing stock, the design, access, and quality of its subsidized stock, and the size of its funding on producing affordable housing. In contrast, San Francisco is consistently one of the most expensive cities in the world, as previous, market-based policies simply have not produced adequate housing. While it is attempting to rectify the situation, it’s clear that a new agenda should be endorsed. Vienna’s approach appears superior but would need significant political support and financial investment to address San Francisco’s housing. As a percentage of their city budgets, annualized spending on affordable housing amounted to a more than fivefold difference between Vienna (4.3%) and San Francisco (0.8%). San Francisco is far behind in the maturity of its development ecosystem, and should embrace the simple, but not easy, path that Vienna began a century ago. Ultimately, sustainable funding needs to be raised locally through bonds or taxes.
Housing Affordability via Decommodification and Public Investment: A Comparative Analysis of Vienna and San Francisco
Vienna leads the world in affordable housing due to its century long, sustained political commitment and investment toward de-commodifying housing. This commitment is evident in the size of its subsidized housing as a portion of its total housing stock, the design, access, and quality of its subsidized stock, and the size of its funding on producing affordable housing. In contrast, San Francisco is consistently one of the most expensive cities in the world, as previous, market-based policies simply have not produced adequate housing. While it is attempting to rectify the situation, it’s clear that a new agenda should be endorsed. Vienna’s approach appears superior but would need significant political support and financial investment to address San Francisco’s housing. As a percentage of their city budgets, annualized spending on affordable housing amounted to a more than fivefold difference between Vienna (4.3%) and San Francisco (0.8%). San Francisco is far behind in the maturity of its development ecosystem, and should embrace the simple, but not easy, path that Vienna began a century ago. Ultimately, sustainable funding needs to be raised locally through bonds or taxes.
Housing Affordability via Decommodification and Public Investment: A Comparative Analysis of Vienna and San Francisco
Lee, Steven (author)
2023-08-30
doi:10.46569/ua.v42i0.3665
Urban Action; Vol. 42 (2023): Urban Action 2023 Double Issue ; 82-90 ; 10.46569/ua.v42i0
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
DDC:
720
Muharem H. Karamujic: Housing affordability and housing investment opportunity
| Online Contents | 2016
Muharem H. Karamujic: Housing affordability and housing investment opportunity
| British Library Online Contents | 2017
Muharem H. Karamujic: Housing affordability and housing investment opportunity
| Online Contents | 2016
Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: Case Study of San Francisco
| British Library Online Contents | 1999
Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: Case Study of San Francisco
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1999