Hey Seattle folks! I-137 to permanently fund social housing has collected 36k signatures to qualify for ballot placement. That's about 10k more than they needed. City Council now has the power to pass the initiative into law or to place it on a ballot. Take a moment to send a message to Council requesting that they pass I-137 outright, so that Seattle's universally affordable democratically-run public housing developer has a dedicated source of progressive revenue: actionnetwork.org/letters/tell-seattle-city-council-to-pass-i-137-or-at-least-put-it-on-the-november-ballot?source=direct_link&
If you can, House Our Neighbors is organizing both in-person and virtual public comment at the next full council meeting of the Seattle City Council on August 6 @ 2pm Pacific. If you live in Seattle, or if you happily live anywhere in the world in social housing (Vienna, Helsinki etc), I encourage you to sign up for public comment. Tell Seattle to respect the voters mandate and fund social housing More info : givebutter.com/messages/view/24d92cb6-470d-4e59-afb6-e385644868c9
Vienna has started again building real social housing, called Gemeindebau Neu. The first new building was finished in 2019. Currently 1.151 new flats are finished.
1,000 in a city of millions. Imagine if it were loaves of bread? Experts been tearing down "slums' aka 'affordable housing, in the name of city beautification for 50 years I know of. What they actually do is build condos in that place of slums, that nobody wants at $1 million in that neighborhood. And now they on the sidewalk in tents..
@@uhadme The information is out of date. Until the end of 2024 they'll have finished about 4850 new apartments (since 2019) and a lot more are in construction or planned. These are city owned. Additionally every building that is built using ANY subsidies has to have a percentage of the apartments in the building with socially acceptable rents. This way the rent ceiling is being stabilized compared to other major cities around the world. But another side effect of these city own buildings with cheap rent is to prevent too much segregation. What the politics is trying to avoid is to have the american model where you have gated communities with all the rich born people who then will never come into contact with "normal" people. A mix of different income situations in every area helps people to understand each other better.
Also smart apartments. Low priced apartments in otherwise middle priced buildings with the same living standard as any other apartment in said building.
@@uhadme City of Vienna offers 220,000 apartments. There are 1.8m people. That would be ~450,000 families with 2 kids each, so the city is offering housing for about 50% of the population. Of course not everyone has a family with 2 kids, but hardly any have been torn down. They also aren't just "slums" since many are located in the wealthiest districts, including the first district in the center of Vienna.
We had tax credit for social housing in Germany a bit longer and yes public housing stocks are dwindling as more and more formerly social housing enters the open market which leads to rent acceleration not seen before here. The solution is more public that actually remains in public hands. No other way has ever been proven to keep rents affordable over a long time.
As much as I agree with the statement that social housing must stay social housing, it also means that if residents during their career earns too much salary for social housing, they have to leave the social housing property, even if they don’t want to. It means forcing people out of social housing if they won’t leave voluntarily. In my country this is not possible by law. The solution for social housing corporations (who own about 31% of total housing, the highest percentage in the world) is to sell these houses, creating budget for new social housing projects. Most homes are owned in NL, about 60% of homes are owned by the residents. We hardly have mid-rent housing (about 4% of all housing), but we do have high-rent housing (about 10% of all housing). The former government has issued a law to bring mid-rent housing (€880-1100 monthly rent), under the social housing rules, so now we only have social rent housing (€1100 monthly rent, but mostly above €1500 and in cities above €2000). There is nothing in between, which makes the problem bigger. And rental homes in NL have a basic or bare rent, so are regularly offered unfurnished, without energy utility costs and unfinished, meaning no flooring, curtains, no kitchen appliances, like stove and fridge, no light fixtures etc. No one wants to move from social rent homes to high-rent homes, the step is too big for most people and the homes aren’t that much bigger and aren’t in better neighborhoods. There is no incentive at all for people to get out of social housing homes, to make space for people who can only afford social housing.
@@RealConstructor Not in Austria - or at least Vienna. One of the goals of most social housing projects here, especially those owned by Wiener Wohnen is a mix of different demographics. There are households earning between 20.000 to 80.000 euros per year living close or sometimes next to each other in social housing complexes. As the video mentioned, about 70% of Viennese people qualify for social housing because the limits are very high and you don't get kicked out. I could live there but I don't because I found something else that I can afford. There is also a class of apartment called "Altbau" that is rent-controlled (and therefore kept at affordable rates compared to private apartments) that have the same effect (people on social benefits living next to 70k earners). I am concerned about the move towards privatisation, especially since we constantly see the negative effects by Germany doing those things before Austria but that's what you get for having a Christian Conservative party in power for 20 years.
What do you think would be some solutions for that while still allowing people to own their homes? Maybe it’s different in Germany, but in the US the only way to really build generational wealth is with property. So owning your home is incredibly important so you can have economic mobility. I don’t necessarily like it but that’s what all of our laws are catered to. I’m just spit balling here but maybe as soon as the owners decide to sell or pass away the home would be bought back by the state? Have a certain percentage of social housing stay permanent social housing in rotation, meanwhile priority to buy homes is given to those with disabilities, the elderly, or those who have already lived in their homes for many years? Idk I’m American so I’m ignorant about this. For me any social housing would be nice lol
@@soymilkman Although it's entrenched, personally I think we in the US need to move away from homes as an asset class, both for investors and individuals. I don't know what to put in its place. What I do know is that expecting a physical object to appreciate in value while it deteriorates is nonsense. (Yes, some people maintain their houses very well, but I find those people are rare, especially in this day and age where people are too busy with other things.)
The project was revolutionary also because Austria was pretty much a failed state with no money and food shortages. They also taxed a lot of rich people to finance it. To put it in perspective, what Vienna did in the 1920 would be like Venezuela would guarantee social housing in her capital today, with an economy that is broken. Vienna proved that is indeed possible, even if your country is struggling, it’s awe inspiring and also sad that that would be too radical today.
In Vienna, there are currently around 220,000 municipal apartments. Additionally, there are over 200,000 subsidized apartments. The planned new municipal apartments account for 0.89% compared to the total number of municipal apartments in Vienna. If the 200,000 subsidized apartments enter the free market and are bought by investors, the number of affordable apartments would effectively be halved. The new municipal apartments are more of an image boost and a drop in the ocean rather than a substantial solution. I am confident that the housing and real estate situation in Vienna will significantly worsen in the coming years, becoming more like other major cities around the world, rather than the world looking up to Vienna as a model. I was born and raised in Vienna, received a good education, and have a stable job. However, I notice that living in Vienna is becoming increasingly difficult. One only has to walk around the inner city or along the Danube Canal in the evening to see how many apartments have no lights on. I am convinced that allowing apartments to be used as investment goods is one of the biggest mistakes worldwide. In the long run, this will lead to an unequal distribution of wealth and a widening gap between the rich and the poor
I agree with you, I am originally from styria, but moved to vienna. things are changing rapidely. even the district where I live is getting these developments slowly (It's your favorite district ;-) one thing that americans might want to learn about it too: municipal and subsidized apartments come often with a income gap. that's normal and similar to other places. but the income is checked only once, when entering a contract with the landlord, and never again. this leads on one side to people clinging to their apartments even when they leave vienna for a while, and on the other hand to a good mix of renters in such a building, which also means that the community in the house is more stable. another thing, that might be interesting to americans: at wiener wohnen, there is always the possibility to request switching an apartment. either you get a new one, that reflects your new requirements (for example smaller, because kids are grown up and left, or you need to relocate within the city). this adds flexibility, tenants aren't limited to just their apartment.
As a Washingtonian this video gives me hope and warms my heart. It’s 2024 and we should be drawing inspiration from places around the globe when it comes to city building.
I've been living in my Gemeindebau apartment for about four years now, and while the rent has gone up quite a bit, I still pay under 400€ including electricity and gas. Wiener Wohnen is not perfect, but I love my flat and the area it is in and am so grateful for it. I'm hopeful that things can change in the US, with such dedicated people trying their best! :)
The 20 years break the city of Vienna took during which they didn't build new "Gemeindebauten" was a huge mistake which increased overall rents A LOT. Finally they are back on track building city owned housing with cheap rent. It's the ONLY solution to keep social peace in a capitalistic environment. As we can see in the US, having people on the brink of homelessness or actually homeless increases crime a couple thousand percent and isn't fun for anyone.
Vienna resident here, I think there's a lot about our model that makes it a little bit difficult to emulate. For starters, the city only recently surpassed the population it hand under the empire. Following world war 1, the population fell off a cliff and there were loads of empty properties connected to the transit network that the city could buy for pennies on the dollar. Most US cities that have housing crisis are at their all time high population, and the US has higher construction costs than a lot of the rest of the world, meaning that without state and federal funds, there's an extremely limited number of units we can build. This is a problem because while the cities might be majority renter, the electorate is often homeowners or people who aspire to be homeowners, and this is more true of higher levels of government than urban local government. Homeowners and people who view themselves as soon to be homeowners are generally very averse to social housing because if the government owns the unit and rents it out at cost, then there's no chance that they'll ever get to own the europe. The german speaking world is a bit different in that at the national level, most people are tenants and the tenant protection laws give long term renters a lot of the same security as homeowners. The coalition to improve things for renters is far broader. Another issue is that vienna's demand is limited by being in the german speaking world and having lower wages at the top end and less income inequality in general. US west coast cities have to contend with people from a country of 330 million and loads of immigrants in highly competive sectors with 6 figure wages. that's going to fuck with the rental market. I don't think there's nothing that can be learned from vienna or that the model isn't good, but it's very difficult to copy/paste it onto the US for all of the reasons i've outlined
There’s even bigger problems moving it to the US, but there are two that won’t be paid attention to. One is that it will be a tipping point that destroys truly affordable homes while its effects will get oddly blamed on free market economics (which are not presently functioning in housing especially in big blue cities in big blue states). This is what ails our healthcare sector. Two is that the American people are still somewhat different due to the several hundred years where predominantly self reliant and individualistic people left Europe and came to the US thus changing both continents genetically and culturally.
@@nunyabidness3075 Mixed bag of a take: Overall I agree with the central thesis that political economy is one of the barriers at play. However, I chose to ignore political economy in my analysis because I think "reasons why people will say no to the proposal" and "reasons the proposal will not work even if implemented" are distinct questions, and the former is far less fun because when you play this game of "oh here are the potential objections to it" for long enough the result is "well fuck it nothing will ever change because the way things are benefit a lot of incumbents On point one, you're in the orbit of correct. I'd add the fact that many American cities create a status quo in which rent controlled tenants have interests that align with homeowners. By insulating some renters from the consequences of undersupply, you're free to continue exacerbating the problem even when it gets so bad that most people are renting because now it's not a renter vs owner question but a question of renters and rc tenants vs market rate tenants. However the idea that the policy itself will destroy "truly affordable homes" is nonsense. Most US cities are already majority renter and purchase price to income ratios arent any higher in vienna than they are within the city limits of major American cities. It does however have the effect of more or less guaranteeing that a certain % of units will never be owner occupied (though under the status quo a double digit percentage of people are lifelong renters anyway) On point 2, you're sort of right. Culturally, the prospect of government housing, even at cost doesn't jive with people, and there's a sizeable contingent of people who would rather those units be privately owned because in their view the theoretical possibility that someone can work hard enough to buy one of those units outweighs the social good that would come from the state renting it out at cost. The Steinbeck quote about temporarily embarrassed millionaires comes to mind here. The idea that there's a genetic component to this is just complete and utter nonsense, and the only reason I'm dignifying it with a response at all is to avoid the allegation that I didn't read it.
@@empireoftruth3291 The genetic part is quite real. You can find literature. I’ll let you decide if you are at all interested. I have a unique interest in genetics because I found my biological family after age fifty and found they are almost all in aviation. My father and maternal grandfather were pilots. My mother and maternal grandmother were flight attendants. And, the majority of male cousins and uncles are pilots. I’m a pilot. Individualism is apparently both nature and nurture and those people left Europe for here disproportionately over centuries. It’s not a crazy idea. People happy with the government and culture stayed there. Then, there’s a sort again between the US and Canada and the rest. Rent control is not actually largely implemented in US cities. What is big is “affordable housing” programs where they spec above market grade housing which is usually inappropriate for the market at above grade costs and then subsidize it. Additionally, most housing is directly or indirectly subsidized in the US. It’s not free market at all. I may go look up the numbers on majority rent vs own. I know the GW Bush admin was all about increasing ownership, but if you ask me, there’s been too much emphasis on that for a century. While it does have positive effects, it’s gotten us where we are now. I can also tell you that the smart money was betting on a housing price correction which seemed to get avoided by Covid. It may have not been large though because builders are simply cautious and fighting for labor even in places where building is not being hampered by local governments (NY, CA, etc.)
@@kyantadeuthorstenleong3898 lol, you apparently know nothing about this subject. Singapore is much worse. I really wish we could banish people to Singapore who think Singapore is so great. It’s an authoritarian oligarchy who still uses caning for minor offenses that get you a wrist slap in the West. Look. We are having a housing crisis PRECISELY because of government market interference building up over a century. Changing the fundamentals to MORE interference and MORE government power is NOT the solution.
Another important aspect of the Vienna Social housing policies is that they are used to mix income levels in the city: Social housing complexes were built in "rich" districts and at the same time public amedidies like libraries into "poor" districts to make them more desireble.
I would seriously lose it if the US came anything close to Vienna in terms of housing and transit. I know it's not radical and I know it's practically common sense but the US is the US and I find it hard to hold out foe hope, as much I'd like to. I also need to acknowledge how inspiring and beautiful this video was.
I wish you well - but I think the US has such an entrenched model of profit before people, and every person for themselves. Europe less so - which I think is why things like social housing works so well. This should just be the norm all over the world
Yes, the US has a very long way to go in that regard. We are not going to see social housing built en masse for a decade(s) at the very least. The US is regressing.
Sadly there are a couple of half truths in this video. True, the Wiener Gemeindebau is the biggest real-estate company in Europe, but only about 25% and not 40% live in a public housing. About 40% live in public housing + private non profit social housing + rent controlled housing built before 1945. This video makes it sound as if the Social Democrats "Red Vienna" invented this type of housing or were the first to focus on providing housing with proper amenities and sufficient living standard, or were the only ones building this. This also not true, a hundred years ago the (conservative) federal government was building public housing, the neighbouring municipalities were building public housing (some later were annexed into the city proper), before the First World War, churches, unions, collectives and non profits were building social housing. What is true, is that the Social Democrats brought this already existing idea to a new level and went on a massive building spree between and post Wars. That is worthy of mention and it is proper to credit the Social Democrats of that era, but if you listen to some of them today then often the other players are forgotten about and the idea is attributed only to the socialists. The most recent Gemeindebau project opened in 2019 to 2022 and not in 2004. www.wienerwohnen.at/gemeindewohnungenneu/fontanastrasse.html www.wienerwohnen.at/gemeindewohnungenneu/gaswerkleopoldau.html www.wienerwohnen.at/gemeindewohnungenneu/eisringsued.html Yes, there has been a twenty year construction pause, caused by the election of the "New Labour" style mayor Haupl, who did not really believe in public housing and sold off many communal assets. But since his retirement there has been a tentative effort to restart public construction. Maybe the better thing to do would be to expand the existing Gemeindebauten by one or two levels, or even demolish and rebuild the oldest to modern standards.
In Helsinki the city is the biggest land lord. I live in social housing. My rent is 750€ for a nice one bedroom apartment 5 km from Helsinki central. Renting from private is allmost as cheap here. There is no housing crisis. Renters get to choose. Landlords compete to get good renters who are trustworthy and will pay their rent in time. Helsinki and construction companys make plans to built more rental apartments. There is new big areas built all the time. So there is no shortage of homes.
Wow, thats' really interesting. I've read into Helsinki social housing policy in the past but it's great to hear first-hand from someone actually experiencing the policy in action. Thanks for sharing! It makes me want to learn more.
@@schurlbirkenbach1995 It woud not be cheap for a single room! One bedroom apartment means that I have an apartment with a bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom. I live there alone and rent takes about 1/4 of my net income. Medium income in Finland is better than in UK, France, Germany or Belgium. All those countrys have expensive living. Here rents are low and buying a house is ridicilously cheap. If we woud be paying 750€ for one room we woud not be the happiest nation 😂
@@mattilahde5220 OK, that sounds better. For me that would have been a two room apartment. But that is not a sign of liberty, if everybody lives on rent. And rents can be changing. In Vienna it happens sometimes, that people pay nearly double for the same size as the person on the other door. (Happens also in council flats) That could have two reasons. 1. The other person has an old contract dating back before 1990. 2. The other person get's subsidies because of low or no income. Very often, these people are not the kind of persons, you want to have as neighbours. The result is, that a lot of people, mostly autochthonous Austrians are fed up and go to the suburbs and buy property. That can be easily seen if you use local trains in the morning or evening. They have not been full around 1990, now they are full like the metro in Vienna. Villages around Vienna doubled in size since 1990 (an example: Strasshof an der Nordbahn). I am 68 now and that means, I could see the changings over the last 30 years.
@@schurlbirkenbach1995 Most finnish people own their home. Buying is cheap here. Prices of homes are going down even in Helsinki. Population in Helsinki is going up quite fast because of imigration. But we simply built more than the population grows. Renting is not a risk. No one will end up paying a high rent. In Helsinki there is so meny new rentals that people here are moving to better apartments or asking their landlords to lower their rent. A smart landlord will lower the rent to keep a trustworthy occupant. Nobody here want's to buy a house 30 min drive from Helsinki anymore. Only some of the surrounding small towns have local trains. In the 90' and early 2000' it was a thing buying a big house in a small town and driving to work or the nearest train station. So now those big houses in small towns around Helsinki cost nothing. You can buy a McMansion for 300k or a normal house for 200k. Or live with your family in east Helsinki and buy a 4 bedroom 2 bathroom apartment in a cheap area but close to metro station for 200k. Any 2 people can afford that.
I think the market share in Singapore is much higher, like high 90's but what we heard in Vienna is that many people don't aspire to own as long as they're in social housing or their family is. From what I remember, you can basically inherit your unit, continue paying a small percentage of income in rent, and live in social (rental) housing forever. It's really interesting. Id like to dig into Singapore more though.
Singapore owns and constructed almost all housing. They sell their units at below cost of production to the “owner” of a 99 year lease. No leases have expired due to the fact the country is less than 99 years old. Those new lessors are then able to live there or sell it on a market.
Genossenschafts Wohnung - while you rent it, you pay for it (but also nothing compared to the free market, which is so ridiculously overpriced), but you need some money as an investment (starting at 5 or 10 k)
@@devinsilvernail It's lovely, I go there all the time, and the lady working at the counter most of the time is so kind, too... At least tell me you went to the bakery down at the Bruno-Marek-Allee and schweidlgasse corner?
Viennese here. I never qualified for Gemeindebau (although my income is way below threshold but there are other requirements too) but I got lucky and get to rent an affordable single room apartment from a housing coop (Genossenschaft). I definitely pay more rent than tenants in municipal housing and I had to pay about 4000€ upfront (most of which I'll get back after moving out) but it's still cheaper than a comparable apartment on the free market. It's a high quality apartment too. Maybe 10 years old and in good shape. I currently pay 408€ per month excl. heating and electricity for 42 m2 + a balcony. A friend of mine who rents from a private landlord pays quite a bit more for a 30 m2 and no balcony.
This is a great video. I just moved back to Seattle after living in Vienna for 9 months. We CAN and WILL build affordable, social housing in the USA--the movement is growing, and people are struggling. I have hope that things will improve for the better. Thank you for making this!
I think a major point missed in this video was the affordability of buying land in post-war Vienna during Red Vienna. Today, municipal or even national governments would not be able to afford land in major cities at the same scale as they did then, especially in cities in which neoliberalism and rentierization have inflated the rent gap and symbolic value well beyond its material value, with US cities being some of the worst for this reality. Serious legislations would have to be passed to pressure major landlords to sell their properties at a fair price, but similar laws proposed in Berlin have been struck down by the German national courts. I am afraid that without this, Viennese-scale social housing will never be able to reach US cities.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment! Agreed. There will need to be quite a lot of organizing, legislating, and contentious budget allocation but it's starting little by little in places like Seattle and Montgomery County, MD, and that gives me hope.
The city typically does not buy the most expensive plots of lands in the center. They buy a lot of cheaper land and then build the infrastructure to raise its value. Also, private investors want to see a profit in the next few years. The city can plan for decades.
Vienna is going another route. What they do is that if something gets demolished (like the southern trainstation "Südbahnhof" with it's big industrial part "Sonnwendviertel") that is city owned, they use most of that to build subidized or city owned buildings on it afterwards. Or they build completely new parts of the city including new infrastructure like the "Seestadt" in the north or soon "Rothneusiedl" in the south. That way the get cheap land and can still provide attractive housing with good public transportation access.
Not sure that anything like this would work in any of the big coastal US cities unless you did something that would eliminate investors from competing for access to the inventory. I mean, let's be realistic here, the amount of influence that developers and investors have with politicians of all stripes in the US is really quite incredible. Among other problems, again in the big coastal cities, are the massive amount of regulations that apply to building projects, the NIMBY mentality, and also the huge number of people that would be in line to get one of these apartments. In California, for example, you have the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which allows any person or entity to file a suit to stop land use projects, and has been used numerous times to stop the building of residential housing, commercial real estate, etc...lastly, what would be the formula to determine who gets this housing in what, at the present moment, are some of the most desirable places to live in the US? Would it be limited to US citizens? Would undocumented immigrants have access to the housing? This is really a hugely complicated issue...
Social housing at its core is public housing. There are no investors. In the instance of Seattle's new social housing developer, funding can come from the State, City, or a dedicated municipal fund tied to local progressive taxes (they can bond on top of that too). In terms of environmental regulations (SEPA in WA for example), that's why it's important to have legislators on Stare and local levels working on these policies. In WA, affordable housing projects (of which social housing can be counted) are allowed certain SEPA exemptions under State and local regulations. In a place like Seattle, for example, there's already a process in places for disposition of public land and assets, which prioritizes traditional nonprofit and public social housing development. Now, no one is under the illusion that a place like Seattle in 2024 would look like Vienna overnight. They had a 100 year head start. That being said, there's nothing stopping a public universal affordable housing developer from existing and starting small, like any developer. In terms of selection, the developer created by Seattle residents in 2023 has social and economic mixing written into its charter. Meaning, Seattle residents voted for a social housing provider that would be intentionally inclusive, including citizenship status or national origin. More information on the developer created by Seattle voters last year and the millionaire's tax heading to the ballot to fund it can be found via houseourneighbors.org.
Hey very nice video, I really like how you are saying such an important topic in calm way with out bashing the aggressive capitalist societies, and really explaining that just tiny steps can make shift towards avoiding housing crisis.
Hope it works because it can reach the level in which it can someday be worse than depending on private investors, imagine depending on a burocrat willingness to appove you application !!!!!
I live in a newly (2024) built building in an 80 sqm apartment with 13 sqm balcony for 806€ rent, and I earn about 4000€ before rent. So yes, almost everyone qualifies for non-profit or low-profit built housing in Vienna. The 25% who don‘t either earn too much or have another means of living like a house. Having other means of living excludes you from being eligible for any public housing projects in Vienna.
Although your visit was curated what you describe is accurate. Vienna has been #1 city with the best quality of living for years. But don‘t forget we Viennese are also supposed to be the or among the most unfriendly and unwelcoming denizens in the world 😅
Maybe it's that I'm from a supposedly very unfriendly place (people complain about the "Seattle freeze"), but I found Viennese to be quite nice. Not outgoing, but definitely nice people. 🙂
@@devinsilvernail I definitely see a big change (I‘m 42 now) to how it was when I was a child, and I‘m convinced that is because of a lot of people with different cultures and backgrounds moving to Vienna in the last 2 decades. And because many young people identify as being European rather than solely being Viennese/Austrian. The ambiguity tolerance definitely has risen a LOT. So please everyone move here, we need the challenge to grow as human beings 😂
@@devinsilvernail The Viennese aren't bad people, but our culture makes us more direct than others, with a dark sense of humor and casual insults, even among friends. A lot of people who were used to the traditional "tourist environment" weren't used to waiters making fun of them or simply telling them "no" when they wanted a custom order. But all you really gotta do is complain about something and people will accept you as one of their own 🙂
The city of Vienna owns 65% of housing on a 'not for profit basis'. I think USA couldn't even comprehe that policy not to talk about introducing similar policies.
these modernist buildings destroyed Vienna's beauty. If you're going to implement social housing make sure it doesn't destroy the scenery of historic cities and cities in general, please.
Great video, Devin. Keep it up. There's a part of me that wonders if I should move to another country since I despair somewhat at how barbaric our entire transportation and housing system is in America and here where I live in Los Angeles. I love this city and have called it the greatest city in the world even with all its problems. Lately I've been thinking more that it's got the potential to be the greatest city in the world. I like to think we can change it here. I despair at seeing how trains run every 10-15 minutes, are packed, and operators aren't paid enough. At how we barely have a bicycle network, and how much of a fascist element there is here just as there is where I'm from in Virginia. But I like to think goodness prevails, and that by being an example to how transportation can be done, even if that just means me showing my face on the train, bus, and on my bike, that I'm signaling that this is a viable, healthy, happy way of getting around.
I agree that LA has a lot of potential. It's a great, albeit giant, city full of some of the nicest, most optimistic people I've met. Passing the recent safe streets measure was one step in the right direction. Keep up the great work Angelenos. ✊
Well. Having rental prices comparable to Seattle & 2/3rd of San Francisco isn't affordable at all. I would argue it's even less affordable than the US because after tax income in Austria is much2 lower than the US especially in big cities like Seattle & San Francisco.
The new ones they are building almost all get solar roofs and green walls as well as park like environments with lots of trees, etc. Vienna is also constantly changing streets around town to have less parking and more trees again, as well as having more low speed zones (30kph). Additionally high frequented streets and places are getting free public water fountains so that everyone can at any time get fresh drinking water on hot days.
In order for public housing projects to work in the USA, the culture must change. Inevitably, the current American paradigm of public housing eventually has the complexes devolving into rundown crime ridden ghettos.
@@mindstalk Whatever the solution is, we need more dwelling units affordable to the low and moderate income people. The demographics especially hurt by runaway inflation and a piss-poor economy are the people who are on fixed incomes and those in the middling income category, the latter aew the people who make too much money to qualify for Section 8 and other welfare programs, yet who still can't afford $2400+ a month to spend in rent or mortgage. Rents and prices are skyrocketing, but people's incomes are not, the consequence is that the rate of homelessness is growing fast and a greater and greater portion of the population is turning to alternate housing options that in most cities and states are illegal (such as travel trailers and RVs, tents, shanties, etc), or they turn to couch surfing, staying at seedy motels, e.
1:52 I think that social housing can (only) work with a well build public transportation System. Simmering ist the South Western district in the 90s and up to the 2010s it was known to be comfortable. You had the best of both words living in green but have full access to the public transportation and have all the most important places around you
Simmering is the 11th district in Vienna. It is located on the East of the city center, not South West. That would be rather Liesing and Penzing (23rd and 14th respectively). 😊
@@RextheRebel I wonder how homogeneous Viennese society is today, as we have currently 120 nationalities living in the city. I am not being judgemental, just pointing out a fact. So far, integrating all these rather diverse people works fairly well.
@@mick-berry5331 Depends on the area tbh. The turks concentrating in the 10th district are becoming a problem because they are creating a paralell society - and not a welcoming and kind one like i.e. "chinatowns" usually are. But yes, overall Vienna is a pretty well working place for the amount of cultures we feature so far.
It should be. Local business should be all over it, or more broadly non-market housing, which includes co-ops and land trusts, because stable affordable housing is stable affordable wages and stable disposable income to them. Importantly that kind of housing stabilizes the private market, preventing price gauging and staunching landlord negligence.
The way I see is, cheaper housing wouldn’t automatically mean more disposable income. People work 50+ hours a week to be able to pay the high rent/mortgage. I would definitely work less hours with less rent, have more free time and a better work/life balance.
@@ittisjartam8913 And and that’s great, but housing inflation and high cost persist. Business and labor are often at odds, yet some of it is due to absurdities of ignoring. common cause.
Before watching the video I would say Vienna-style social housing would NOT happen in the US. That country is based on debt, credit. Take that away, and the economy will stall.
I live in San Francisco for 30 years now, half my life, and the Bay Area my whole life, and have visited Seattle and the Puget Sound area quite a bit since my family moved up there when I was in my 20s. I've been a fan of Red Vienna since I first heard about it. I also watch a lot of mass transit and urbanist stuff here - you probably know the channels. I would like to see some kind of clear position developed and articulated to combat both reactionary NIMBYism and neoliberal YIMBYism and define a set of policies directly contrasted to those. I'm particularly sick of protests against massive speculator-driven developments in what remains of our working-class neighborhoods leading to displacement and gentrification, being dismissed as "NIMBYism" as if they had anything in common with rich homeowners opposing densification, mass transit and bike lanes.
There's a great RU-vid channel called radical planning with some concrete policy offerings for you who speaks to these issues if you aren't already familiar!
Most countries are facing a housing crisis. Vienna & Singapore seem to have public housing models that are working for them, but can it be replicated everywhere? Both cities are rich, so the question is: is there a "one size fits all" housing model, or do we need separate models for developing & developed countries? One of my favourite cities is Curitiba (Brazil) - they also have an innovative approach to housing... Another aspect worth discussing is population growth. In some parts of the world fertility rates are falling so technically the availability of social housing should be stable. In developing countries fertility rates are still high so demand for social housing will also be high... & will continue to be for a few years still. Given that demand for social housing is great & urgent (with millions living in slums), is there any "special" housing policy that would work here? The other question re social housing is what happens when people retire and incomes drop dramatically? In the past owning your own home means that once you retire hopefully your home is paid for and is now "free". With social housing is the rent still affordable once a person retires? Perhaps residents should be sold life rights to an apartment up to a certain value then the rent tapers off (to cover maintenance costs) and then when the "owner" leaves or passes then the unit reverts back to the city for some-one else to occupy?
As far as I know, Japan doesn't have a housing crisis. Tokyo is expensive but it's been about the same expensive, even as the population grows with people coming in from elsewhere (yes, _Japan's_ population is declining, not Tokyo's.) There's some public housing, but mostly Japan makes it easy to build market housing, even small units without parking.
@@mindstalk Japan is very unique. They have very small plots and build upwards - very innovative. The UK also have narrow multi-storied houses. But not sure if this is "accrptable" elsewhere - us westerners love our open plan spaces. I'm not sure which is better - small plot, build upwards (multistoried house)... perhaps not good is you have mobility issues) - multi-storied apartment building so tennants live in a single storied home on various floors (can create noise complaints) I also love the Japanese use of building envelopes.
@@CitiesForTheFuture2030 Japan isn't unique historically. Philadelphia has lots of townhouses; a friend in Glendale lived in a modern sideways townhouse (front doors onto a sidepath deep into the property, rather than lining the street). As for which is better, tastes vary. A townhouse means you don't have to share land and roof ownership, while flats mean more efficient use of stairs and not having internal stairs. Different people will prefer one or the other (and be affected by how soundproof the walls or floors are.) A healthy market would allow both and let people figure it out.
@@mindstalk Yes, NYC brownstones another example. But I think most of these older housing types are for private ownership (vs social housing) & are VERY expensive. For social housing the ideal is to provide as much affordable near to urban services & amenities without creating unmanageable ghettos.
@@CitiesForTheFuture2030 Any type of housing could be social housing. And housing in various markets is very expensive because those markets are very expensive. Many Americans want to live in walkable neighborhoods again and the demand far outstrips the supply. We can build more walkable neighborhoods or we can build more housing in the ones that exist; mostly we're choosing not to do either.
Social housing in Vienna doesn't work, though? Rent overall is still way too high, and their neighborhoods are full of... well, let's call it "problematic people" if you aren't living in the rich parts. Not to mention that they have a massive lack of new developments and don't have nearly enough residential units in the city. Vienne is a great example of why social housing doesn't work. Try getting a rental unit in Vienna, it's not possible. About 21,000 households in Vienna are on a subsidy waiting list, and many low-income tenants who can't afford the high upfront costs of several thousands of dollars in "move-in fees" are forced to leave. There is also a reason why the city doesn't report any data on social housing's financial performance: because it's performance stinks, according to third party studies on the topic. The vacancy rates of government-owned units rose to about 7% because of the deteriorating quality of said units. Many of these social housing units are hundreds of years old. About one-third of them either lack central heat or a bath within the unit. While Vienna’s housing authority deems these units to be acceptable; Germany’s housing authority deems any unit lacking its own separate bathroom to be unacceptable to those receiving social assistance. And that despite the massive amounts of money the system apparently eats away. Researchers have uncovered (since the actual numbers aren't public - transparency is a capitalist conspiracy after all!) that Vienna's social housing appear to be losing money. In 2016, the shortfall was estimated at 827 million EUR ($904 million) or about 1.6 times the annual intake on rents. Austria spends about 0.25% of its GDP on social housing - the third highest in the OECD and about 4 times as much as Germany. These efforts are financed through a 1% tax on wages in the whole country. And these 1% of literally ALL WAGES pay to 73% JUST for Vienna! That's insane! So, why would I, who lives in an affordable American city thanks to deregulation and an absence of rent control, want that crap in my city? Exactly, I wouldn't. And California has proven it doesn't work in the US either.
"don't have nearly enough residential units in the city. Vienne is a great example of why social housing doesn't work." They didn't build social housing for 20 years, apparently due to an ideologically opposed mayor. No housing system works if you _don't build housing_. Social, or private. (The US is great at not building housing where we need it! Rents and prices are soaring to match.) California hasn't proven anything about social housing, because it hasn't tried it. California proves that restrictive zoning + high demand doesn't work. Your city probably has basically the same zoning.
@@mindstalk My Cita abolished all zoning laws back in the 1940s. Which is why we don't have California or Vienna problems. All over the city, you have row houses, apartment complexes, condos, and skyscrapers scattered around almost randomly. Yes, we have big suburbs, but even those are pretty cheap compared to other similar places. Population over 2 million, yet you can buy a large single-family home decently located in the city and in a low crime neighborhood for $200K-$300K. Rent is also manageable; sure, property tax keeps that still up, but I'd say a modern apartment with various outdoor community amenities like pools, fitness rooms, etc. for $800/mo - $1,000/mo is perfectly manageable. But glad that you seemingly agree that a centrally planned system (such as public housing) is kinda dangerous, because it is quickly corrupted and turned against the people the day someone "wrong" gets into power. So... uh... thanks for the confirmation of my points? And hey! Even though the mayor doesn't do "enough," according to you, it is still insanely overprized and a massive burden on the taxpayer.
I work for a company that is under contract with Vienna's social housing and can confirm that it has to be a horrible money pit. Numbers don't lie. It works if people take care of public property and respect it and get involed a little bit to maintain what they have been given for cheap(er). It doesn't work if people make a flat unusable in less than 12 months and the public has to smash 10k on the table to have it fixed for the next problematic tenant and the whole story repeats again and again...
Vienna style social housing, wherein renters pay for improvements and can request reimbursement from the new tenants. All this amidst a declining population. Good luck with all that.
Most of the people stay in the flats for the rest of their lives or hand it to their children afterwards. So investments are mostly for themselves. Yes you can get money from the next person if you hand it over directly and they benefit from the changes. If you hand it back to the city they will "renovate" it to a standardized flat.
That's not a law tho. i.e. I had renovated an apartment and when I moved out a couple years later I had to be lucky that the renter that my "Genossenschaft" offered the apartment to was honorable enough to pay for some of the investments I had made into the apartment. Otherwise I only could have ripped the new kitchen out and tried to sell it on the market (for a lot less). Fortunately the father of the girl who moved in was an honorable man who was just glad that they'd not have to do any renovations and was more than happy to accept my reasonable ask for reimbursement.
I hate how some immigrants get cheap housing in vienna, but people who are not viennese and coming from other parts of austria have no right to get them, although living literally 5km away from the viennese border, growing up there and working there.
You have to live here(in vienna, not an imaginary “border” that doesn’t exist) for at least 2 years in order to be able to apply for housing. They have RULES that EVERYONE has to follow EQUALLY. You do not have a right to get stuff, just because. You have to adhere to the rules, like everyone else. You are nothing special Don’t shit on immigrants for no reason dude thats so cringe of you
I don't like the law about having to live in vienna for several years before getting access either, but taking this out on immigrants is insane. It's not as easy as people like you think it is for them here. As a viennese person, who has known no other home than vienna in my entire life, in my opinion, a person with migration background who has lived and worked here for several years is more viennese than someone from other parts of austria who hasn't.
@@thechosenegg9340 oida, I am working in Vienna and I am living in a town close the boarder, the city of Vienna is even funding my current apartment in lower Austria!
@@mindstalk a privatized sector does not lead to more housing, just expensive housing. a private sector is made to behave through non-market housing which includes social housing. the central problem of neoliberalism is that it asks a community to place themselves at the mercy of wealth. Humanity had experience with that. Millenia of abject misery on serfdom and debt peonage.
@@GhostOnTheHalfShell "a privatized sector does not lead to more housing," A privatized sector that is allowed to build apartments obviously leads to more housing than a private sector only allowed to build mansions. In the US, the purpose of zoning codes is to _keep housing expensive_. Most markets cater to the somewhat poor (anyone who has at least some money); e.g. there are multiple budget airlines and no first-class-only airlines. Not building enough shelter is actually an oddity in need of explanation, not something to be simply accepted as a natural aspect of 'capitalism'. Our experience with free markets in housing is that they built lots of diverse and affordable housing. Also substandard housing, but YIMBYs advocate reforming zoning codes, not building codes.
@@mindstalk But this is besides the point. Non-market housing (coops, land trusts etc) all work to provide housing *at cost*. That's actually the *most* capitalist outcome. Go read your Adam Smith; the perfect market is one where businesses operate at zero profit. You have it half right, but not at all correct about "obviously". Many US cities are changing zoning laws to allow more flexibility because the US is in a housing crises (even though the number of units exceeds homelessness). But this is not sufficient. Developers and lending institutions are geared for large scale projects. When you factor in *loan structure* effects on landlords, pricing will never work. This is because dropping rent prices lowers their property value making far worse to refinance. It will break them financially.
They usually ask where people are from and play a couple of songs from that country. When I was there, we had people from India and China with us, and they played songs from those countries. I don't think they can be up to date with eventual cultural implications from all those countries.
Equity from a non-productive asset is just a Ponzi scheme. Homes should be bought and sold close to their book value. Equity is for investors whose investments contribute to productivity.
When most will not be able to own homes, owing to institutional purchases, *who* will even be able to build equity? You are putting the cart in front of the ox. The appreciation in housing at stagnant wages is nothing more than a tacit inflation of everything else. By all means examine the living conditions of the Victorian era where the housing economy you desire ruled supreme. You will not see much equity there.
National debt and local municipal taxes aren't related. Besides, we subsidize or fully pay for things that aren't considered a basic human necessity. Things like highways and streets. Additionally, social housing can be paid for by very specific taxes to very wealthy (top 1%) people and companies, be well maintained, and available to the vast majority of the population. Not sure how providing a public good (and having rich tax dodgers pay some of what they owe) is a bad thing, but 🤷♂️
Actually I don't agree with your arguments: you're talking in theories, if we start taxing this and stop that we can have that. Those things will not change that fast in reality. Besides, don't you have an history with that in all the government housing projects like NY, Baltimore etc? In my theory the best solution would be to 1. geth them to a ownership model so they feel they gain from taking responsibility for the quality of the house instead always loosing out as a renter and 2. roll back double incomes in mortgages, nr. 2 is not going to happen but thát is the major culprit in most western societies: single people cannot catch up with double income families who themselves are the more succesfull ones in society unfortunately. The divide will only become bigger.
