BRUSSELS — European housing providers, municipalities and tenant representatives are examining how public, cooperative and social housing can remain financially sustainable and affordable over the long term, with different countries highlighting the importance of shared financial responsibility, tenant involvement and long-term ownership.
The discussion took place at a workshop on 14 September 2026, organised by the European Commission’s Housing Task Force and Housing Europe.
Examples from the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain and Italy showed how housing organisations are approaching different challenges, from financing and maintenance to tenant participation, neighbourhood management and the growing risks posed by climate-related events.
Rather than focusing only on how many affordable homes can be built, the discussion examined what happens after those homes are delivered — including who carries the financial risks, how properties are maintained and how affordable housing can remain part of the social housing system over generations.
The Dutch model spreads financial responsibility
The Netherlands was presented as an example of a system in which municipalities, housing associations and tenant organisations have defined roles.
Tim Wolters of Aedes, the Netherlands’ Association of Housing Corporations, described arrangements in which housing associations respond to municipal housing strategies and work with municipalities and tenant organisations on issues including housing availability, affordability, quality, sustainability and neighbourhood liveability.
The system also provides a mechanism for sharing financial risk.
Housing associations provide the first level of support when another association encounters financial difficulty. Municipalities form a second layer, while the national government can ultimately provide support.
According to Housing Europe, the structure provides around 99% certainty of loan repayment, while the final two levels of the guarantee system have not been activated to date.
The Dutch example demonstrates how government support can provide confidence to lenders without requiring the state to directly finance every housing risk.
Denmark puts long-term ownership at the centre
Another model discussed at the workshop came from Denmark, where the non-profit housing sector provides accommodation for around one million people, equivalent to approximately 20% of the country’s housing stock.
Bent Madsen of BL, the Danish Federation of Non-profit Housing Providers, described a system combining tenant democracy, compulsory maintenance, municipal basic capital and a National Building Fund that finances major renovation projects.
An important feature of the Danish approach is that resources generated within the non-profit housing system remain connected to housing and tenants.
The model is therefore designed around long-term ownership rather than relying on the sale of properties to generate returns.
That approach also affects the relationship between housing providers and the wider welfare system.
Housing providers are expected to contribute to neighbourhood development and share broader social objectives, rather than concentrating solely on the financial performance of individual properties.
For tenants, the system also provides a formal role in housing governance.
Tenant participation remains a central issue
The workshop highlighted the role tenants can play in determining how social housing is managed.
Barbara Steenbergen, head of the EU office of the International Union of Tenants, pointed to Denmark’s tenant-democracy structures and argued that legislation should maintain a balance between tenants, landlords and municipalities.
Tenant involvement can be particularly significant where decisions concern maintenance, regeneration, rents or the future of housing developments.
Long-term housing investment affects residents for many years, making the relationship between housing providers and tenants an important part of how social housing systems operate.
Bilbao shows the importance of managing communities
The discussion also looked beyond construction and finance to the day-to-day management of social housing.
Marina Pérez Jiménez, a legal expert at Viviendas Municipales de Bilbao and member of Spain’s Public Housing Association, described the experience of Bilbao.
The city has a population of around 350,000 and approximately 4,000 public housing units, which Housing Europe describes as the largest public rental housing stock in Spain.
Its housing-management system addresses not only the physical condition of properties but also problems affecting residents and shared spaces.
These include noise, disputes between neighbours, vandalism, cleanliness, misuse of communal areas and squatting.
Housing Europe reported that around 4% of the housing stock records incidents, with noise accounting for 31% of reported cases and misuse of common areas accounting for 29%.
The approach treats neighbourhood management as part of the housing service rather than something that is dealt with only after serious problems develop.
That is particularly relevant to social-housing providers managing large estates, where problems involving communal spaces or neighbour relations can affect the wider quality of life for residents.
Climate risks are becoming a housing issue
The long-term management of public housing is also being affected by climate change.
Lina Taddei, president of Italian public housing company ACER Ravenna, described the damage caused by flooding in 2023 and 2024.
The events resulted in millions of euros in estimated damage and prompted changes to emergency procedures, coordination with public authorities, mapping of affected properties and the use of digital-twin technology.
Insurance does not necessarily cover all losses associated with major climate events, leaving housing providers to deal with additional financial pressures when extreme weather occurs.
Housing Europe’s Clara Mafé also pointed to findings from the organisation’s wider work on climate risk, arguing that housing systems with a significant public-housing presence can have advantages when adapting through cooperation, investment, information and long-term planning.
The issue means that decisions about housing construction and renovation increasingly have to account for risks that may emerge decades after a building is completed.
What the European examples have in common
The four examples are different, but they highlight several common features.
The Dutch approach demonstrates how financial risk can be distributed between housing organisations, municipalities and the state.
Denmark illustrates the importance of retaining housing resources within the non-profit sector and maintaining homes over the long term.
Bilbao demonstrates how housing management extends beyond the physical building into neighbourhood relations and community issues.
Ravenna highlights the need to incorporate climate resilience into long-term housing planning.
Together, they show that the sustainability of social housing depends on more than construction funding.
The ownership structure, financing arrangements, maintenance responsibilities, tenant participation and ability to respond to unexpected risks can all influence how well a housing system performs over time.
The question facing public-private housing partnerships
The discussion also has implications for the growing use of public-private partnerships in housing.
The central question is not simply which organisation can construct or manage homes at the lowest immediate cost.
It is also about who carries the risk, who retains the value created by public investment, how tenants participate in decisions and who remains responsible when properties need major investment years later.
That becomes increasingly important as governments attempt to increase affordable-housing supply while dealing with construction costs, financing pressures and the need to renovate older housing stock.
For Ireland and other countries expanding their social-housing programmes, the European examples provide several different approaches to consider.
Ireland is already dealing with the parallel challenges of increasing social-housing supply and maintaining existing council and approved-housing-body stock.
The experience of South Dublin, where housing applicants can face years-long waits despite substantial annual allocations, illustrates how difficult it can be to close the gap between demand and available homes.
At the same time, the experience of Dublin City Council tenants waiting for repairs while new social homes are being developed demonstrates why maintaining existing housing remains an important part of long-term housing policy.
The European discussion suggests that building additional homes and managing existing ones cannot be treated as completely separate challenges.
Building for the decades ahead
The housing debate across Europe is increasingly moving beyond the question of how many homes can be delivered each year.
A social home is a long-term public asset.
Its value depends not only on the cost of construction, but also on whether it remains affordable, properly maintained and suitable for residents over many years.
The examples discussed at the Housing Europe workshop show different ways countries and housing providers are attempting to address that challenge.
There is no single model that can be transferred directly from one country to another. Housing systems are shaped by national legislation, financing arrangements, local government structures and the role of tenants.
But the underlying questions are shared across Europe.
Who pays when costs rise? Who maintains the homes? Who has a voice in decisions? Who carries the consequences of today’s choices? And how can affordable housing remain available to people in the future?
For Europe’s public, cooperative and social housing sectors, those questions are becoming just as important as the number of new homes delivered each year.
