Our housing ecosystem seems like a never ending game of Jenga — where the property-owning majority and renting minority have a big financial interest in keeping the pieces stable but the politicians are the only ones allowed to play. It always ends in a mess! We have one of least affordable housing markets in the OECD and our house prices, annual price growth, housing overburden costs and building costs are simply unsustainable. What seems very clear based on the housing policies of successive governments is that we are never going to subdivide and build our way to better housing outcomes by relying on for-profit market actors — however these are the primary focus of the Government’s current ‘growth’ agenda. Not-for-profit housing policy interventions and systems have been extremely successful in Europe and offer a ready-made blueprint to improve housing affordability and quality outcomes here — especially for those who earn too much to qualify for social housing but too little to obtain a mortgage or market-priced home. These matters are the focus of my research.

There are obvious benefits that can arise from state enabled not-for-profit housing systems and providers.

  • The ingoing cost is much lower than traditional standalone housing because the land and buildings are owned by the cooperative or not-for-profit housing provider, the funding cost is lower, economies of scale can be gained, the individual apartment cannot be mortgaged, sold on the open market or sub-let and the profit margin is removed from the equation and the focus is on delivering quality housing at the lowest possible cost.

  • An interest in a private cooperative apartment can usually only be sold back to the cooperative or to family or friends, at a pre-determined formula. This suppresses speculation and price volatility. The pricing formula is often a maximum annual increase taking into account the original price paid to secure the apartment and any improvements made by the occupier. Not-for-profit housing can be owned by the state (usually social rental), municipal corporation, or private not-for-profit housing provider — usually for the purpose of widening access to affordable quality housing for specific sectors of society (e.g. young people, elderly, low-income, disabled etc.). Usually such housing cannot be sold-down into the open market. When a critical mass of not-for-profit housing stock is reached this can help to moderate private sector prices and rentals. Such ‘third sector’ housing systems provide a barrier to the financialisation of housing stock or aggregation by corporate investors.

  • Private cooperative equity, rental and hybrid housing projects are often facilitated through a central government or municipal agency which arranges low-cost finance plus the land and conducts a tender process for the design and building components based on a well-defined spatial and economic efficiency brief. There is no profit and risk margin which allows room for a higher quality of design, materials and fittings and the inclusion of common facilities (e.g. crèche, co-working spaces, gyms, shared gardens and other green spaces, shared bikes and cars etc.) that would not normally be provided by a for-profit developer. Most projects are medium to high density, which enables economies of scale to be realised in the sourcing of materials, equipment and labour.

  • Private cooperative equity, rental and hybrid housing is built for the sole purpose of providing a home — not for investment or speculation. Tenure is guaranteed subject to the occupier abiding by the cooperative or tenancy rules. In some instances there are provisions to sell or assign the right to occupy to family or friends.

  • Higher-density private cooperative equity, rental and hybrid housing systems can provide individuals and families with limited disposable income or capital resources the opportunity to secure quality accommodation at an affordable price and with longevity of tenure. Access to affordable good quality housing helps to reduce inequality and provides a foundation for a better functioning society.

  • Larger-scale, higher-density housing initiatives offer a template for rapid duplication across multiple sites — leveraging existing construction and technical knowledge and enabling time and financial savings. A template approach could be applied at a state or municipal level and for re-building programmes following destruction arising from natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, storms) or from human conflicts (e.g. Ukraine, Gaza).