Vienna has been declared a renters’ utopia – here’s why | Justin Kadi – The Guardian

A Report on Vienna’s Housing Model and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Vienna’s housing policy is frequently cited as a best-practice example for achieving urban sustainability and social equity. The city’s approach provides a compelling case study for the implementation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Social Housing Framework and Contribution to SDG 11

Composition and Scale of Social Housing

Vienna’s housing market is distinguished by its substantial social housing sector, which constitutes a significant step towards achieving SDG 11.1 (ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing). Key characteristics include:

• The social housing stock accounts for approximately 43% of the city’s one million housing units.
• This stock is divided between municipally owned council housing and units provided by limited-profit housing associations.
• Eligibility extends beyond low-income groups to include middle-class households, a policy that actively promotes social mixing and directly supports SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Socio-Economic Impacts and SDG Alignment

Measurable Benefits for Urban Sustainability

The positive impacts of Vienna’s housing strategy are quantifiable and demonstrate clear progress on several SDGs. The model contributes to a more equitable and healthy urban environment, in line with SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

• Affordability: Rental costs in the social housing sector are approximately 30% lower than in the private market, alleviating financial pressure on households and contributing to poverty reduction (SDG 1).
• Housing Quality: The quality of social housing, particularly units managed by limited-profit associations, is often superior to private alternatives, promoting better living conditions and well-being (SDG 3).
• Market Regulation: The large-scale availability of social housing exerts downward pressure on rents in the private market, extending affordability benefits across the city and fostering a more inclusive community (SDG 11).

Governance, Stability, and Historical Context

Origins and Sustainable Financing

The foundation of the current system was laid during the “Red Vienna” period of the 1920s, which prioritized social welfare. The system’s endurance is a testament to long-term political commitment and a sustainable governance model, reflecting the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• The model has evolved from primarily council-led construction to an increased role for limited-profit housing associations.
• A significant portion of financing is sourced from a 1% levy on all employee salaries in Vienna, creating a stable and continuous funding stream for sustainable housing development (SDG 11).

Policy Resilience Against Privatisation

Vienna’s social housing sector has demonstrated remarkable stability, resisting the privatisation trends that have diminished social housing in other major European cities. Despite the introduction of a “right to buy” scheme and the sale of some federally owned stock, the relative share of social housing has remained stable since the 1990s. This resilience underscores the strength of the city’s institutional framework and its commitment to housing as a public good (SDG 16).

Challenges to Equitable Access and Inclusivity

Allocation System Complexities

While the system provides broad benefits, its accessibility presents challenges that could hinder progress towards fully achieving SDG 10. Issues include:

• A complex, bureaucratic allocation process based on waiting lists that factor in need, income, and residency duration.
• The existence of separate allocation channels for housing associations adds another layer of complexity.
• Financial barriers, such as tenant down-payments for certain properties, can exclude some prospective tenants.
• The system may inadvertently favour long-term residents or those with the knowledge to navigate its intricacies.

Private Rental Market Pressures

Deregulation of the Tenancy Act, intended to spur investment in upgrading the private rental stock, has had mixed results. While housing quality has improved, the changes have led to a loss of inexpensive housing options. This trend disproportionately affects newcomers to the city, creating a barrier to affordable housing and working against the core objective of SDG 11.1.

Conclusion: Policy Lessons for Sustainable Urban Development

The Vienna housing model offers critical insights for cities worldwide striving to meet their SDG commitments. The primary takeaways underscore that housing affordability and quality are outcomes of deliberate and sustained political choices.

1. Long-Term Commitment: Sustained political will and long-term investment in social housing are fundamental to making housing affordable and of high quality, directly advancing the goals of SDG 11.
2. A Holistic Housing Regime: Vienna’s success stems from a comprehensive regime that treats housing as a basic human need rather than a purely market-driven commodity. This approach, involving a partnership between public authorities, developers, and financial institutions, is a practical application of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
3. Importance of Governance: Understanding the institutional framework—how it was established, how it functions, and how it adapts to challenges—is the most valuable lesson for other cities seeking to create more sustainable and equitable housing systems in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article connects to SDG 1 by discussing housing as a “basic need” and a key component in improving the “living conditions of the working class.” The provision of affordable and high-quality social housing directly addresses poverty by reducing the financial burden of housing costs on low- and middle-income households, which is a fundamental aspect of poverty alleviation.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article highlights how Vienna’s housing policy helps reduce inequality. By making social housing available to a broad range of income groups, not just the very poor, it prevents social segregation and promotes a more inclusive urban environment. The policy’s effect of dampening rent levels in the private market also contributes to reducing economic inequality. However, the article also points to existing inequalities in access, noting the system can be complex and favors long-term residents over newcomers.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire discussion revolves around Vienna’s urban housing policy, focusing on the provision of “decent homes for all,” affordability, and the stability of the housing market. The article explicitly analyzes how political choices and long-term commitment to social housing can create a more sustainable and livable city, directly aligning with the goal of making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.

   This target is directly addressed throughout the article. The text focuses on Vienna’s success in providing “decent homes for all” through its large social housing sector. It explicitly discusses the key elements of this target:

   • Affordability: The article states that rents in the social housing sector are “about 30% less” than in the private market and that the policy “dampens rent levels” across the city.
   • Adequacy and Safety: It mentions that the “housing quality, meanwhile, is often higher” in the social sector, and that policies in the 1980s aimed to address the “deterioration of the stock” in the private rental market.
   • Access for All: The article examines the scale of access, noting that social housing accounts for “some 43%” of all units. It also critically assesses the challenges to universal access, mentioning that the allocation system is “complex” and can be a barrier for newcomers and those who cannot make “tenant down-payments.”

2. Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services…

   This target is relevant as the article frames housing as a “basic need.” Vienna’s model is presented as a way to ensure access to this essential service, particularly for the “working class” and low- to middle-income households. The stability of tenure and lower rents in the social sector provide economic security, which is a key component of this target. The article notes that the system originated from policies to “improve the living conditions of the working class,” directly linking housing to poverty reduction and access to basic services.

3. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.

   The article connects to this target by describing how Vienna’s social housing is not just for low-income individuals but “caters to middle- and even some upper-middle-class households.” This approach fosters social mixing and prevents the ghettoization often associated with housing projects limited to the poor, thereby promoting social inclusion. By making a significant portion of the city’s housing affordable, the policy enables broader economic inclusion. However, the article also implies a failure to fully meet this target by noting that the system can exclude “newcomers to the housing market.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Proportion of population living in social or affordable housing.

   The article provides a direct metric for this, stating that social housing accounts for “some 43% of the roughly 1m housing units in the city.” This is a clear indicator of the scale of access to affordable housing (relevant to Target 11.1).

2. Housing cost burden or rent-level differentials.

   The article quantifies the affordability of social housing by stating that “newly rented units in the limited-profit and council housing sectors cost about 30% less” than in the private market. This percentage difference serves as a direct indicator of housing affordability (relevant to Target 11.1).

3. Stability of the social housing stock.

   Progress can be measured by tracking the share of social housing over time. The article notes that in Vienna, “social housing has not declined in relative terms, but has retained a stable share of the housing market since the 1990s,” contrasting this with cities like London and Berlin. This indicates the sustainability of the housing policy (relevant to Target 11.1).

4. Quality of housing stock.

   While not providing a quantitative metric, the article implies this indicator by stating that “housing quality, meanwhile, is often higher, particularly in the limited-profit housing stock.” It also mentions the “upgraded substantially” private stock following deregulation. This can be measured through surveys on housing conditions (relevant to Target 11.1).

5. Accessibility and barriers to housing.

   The article implies indicators of inequality in access. These include the complexity of the allocation system (“a waiting list that factors in… housing need and living situation as well as income”), financial barriers (“tenant down-payments”), and disadvantages for specific groups (“newcomers to the housing market”). Measuring wait times or the proportion of applicants who are newcomers could track progress (relevant to Targets 10.2 and 11.1).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theguardian.com