Paris has 17 times more social housing per 1,000 inhabitants than Barcelona

BarcelonaHaving a powerful residential stock at an affordable price requires not only financial resources, which it does, but also consistency and continuity in policies, according to the different models and strategies regarding housing in the European Union (EU). Paris, the city of light, has 17 times more social housing per 1,000 inhabitants than Barcelona, according to data on this type of property in both cities. Maintaining this proportion, since the municipality of the French capital has around 22% more inhabitants than the Catalan capital, in the former there are 127 social apartments per 1,000 inhabitants compared to 7.6 in Barcelona, although in recent years the drive for this type of housing has increased.

As a result of a sustained commitment to housing and the purchase of apartments to make them affordable, the French capital has managed to maintain a proportion of social apartments close to 15% of the total stock of primary residences. Currently, social housing in Paris totals more than 271,000 residences with prices below market rate, with an annual supply per 1,000 inhabitants that is 5 to 6 times that of the Catalan capital, where there are about 13,000 homes and about 600 are added each year, representing between 1.5% and 2% of the main residential stock. The goal is to reach 15,000 next year.

One of the sources from which the French capital has drawn is the policy of purchasing homes to then offer them at a price below market value, explains Carme Trilla, one of the leading experts in the field, president of the Hàbitat 3 Foundation and the Metropolitan Housing Observatory of Barcelona (OHB), among other positions. They have also applied the 30% reserve for social housing in new developments, a regulation that was approved in the Catalan capital, still in force, but with very low results, and which Mayor Jaume Collboni tried to reform.

Trilla recalls that the free market in Paris has "brutal" prices, as happens, for example, in London, but the space occupied by social housing allows for mitigating this, even though there is growing demand. The problem in Barcelona is that, although the commitment has increased for 10 years, the proportion of social housing is still low. And this means that the high price levels of the free market sector do not have much of a counterweight.

European models

The French capital has demonstrated that acquisitions are the fastest and most efficient formula for increasing social housing stock. "Purchasing is much more immediate and effective, but it requires many resources," adds Trilla. In fact, mechanisms such as the right of first refusal, the direct purchase of packages and developments, and the concerted agreement of finished, empty, or stalled developments owned by Sareb, the bad bank, by the Generalitat or transfer and management agreements with city councils; they exist, but what is needed is a lot of money, he explains.

France is the leading country in the European Union (EU) for social housing production, with an annual contribution of between 75,000 and 100,000 apartments each year. They do this through various regulated formulas linked to city councils, supramunicipal bodies, or non-profit entities. It is part, together with Germany (based on the reference to average prices in zones and with limits on the signing or updating of contracts), of one of the four major models applied in the EU in housing policies, with different variants among the countries. Some of its characteristics are a powerful rental sector that can be private with rent and price control and legal security for tenants. The beneficiaries of social housing are many more than in other countries because it is not aimed only at vulnerable populations.

Spain, like Italy, Greece, and Portugal, represents a system that has promoted ownership as the main mechanism for savings and social protection for families. The proportion that social housing accounts for of the total is very low – it ranges from 1.7% to 5%, depending on the country. In Spain, for example, renting represents 24% of the total and ownership 74%, but within the former, social housing accounts for between 2% and 3%, and within that, only one-fifth is public and the remaining 80% is private, explains Trilla.

Another model characterizes Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Austria. These are states in which housing, effectively considered a fundamental right, is provided either by the public sector or non-profit entities, which manage a social housing stock that ranges from 20% to 30% of the total. In the Netherlands, it is non-profit entities that account for 28.6% of the residential stock. The most prominent case is Austria, where the capital, Vienna, stands out, where the land is public and in the 30s of the last century it was decided to promote public housing and it is a policy that has been maintained. Furthermore, this type of housing is open to a good part of the population, including the middle class, which avoids social segregation and ghettos.

And another one is the model of the Eastern countries and, outside the EU, the United Kingdom, where the state intervenes in a residual way and the main provider is private. Public or social housing is essentially destined for the vulnerable population. In the Eastern countries, ownership prevails due to privatizations in the former communist states.