Live

More than numbers: a question of dignity

Today’s housing debate in Europe can’t be reduced to the usual graphs of supply and demand. The lack of affordable homes means something far more serious — a threat to the basic right to decent living conditions.

The statistics tell a worrying story: more than 47 million Europeans can’t afford to heat their homes, and around 1 million people — including 400,000 children — are homeless. Overcrowding affects one in four young Europeans aged 15–29.

The consequences go beyond housing. Young people postpone moving out, starting families, or pursuing higher education. Essential workers — teachers, nurses, police officers — can’t afford to live in the communities they serve. It raises an uncomfortable question: is the European welfare model still capable of ensuring housing stability for its citizens?

Growing inequality and a sense of exclusion

Rising living costs hit young people and low-income households hardest. Across many EU countries, thirty-somethings are still living with their parents — not by choice, but because it’s the only option they can afford. This limits mobility, stifles career opportunities, and fuels frustration.

The most alarming sign of this crisis is homelessness. When hundreds of thousands of children grow up in hostels or temporary shelters, equal access to education and development becomes impossible.

For societies built on solidarity, Europe faces a moral test: how long can we accept a reality where the right to a home exists only on paper for some citizens?

New investments or old barriers?

The proposed European Affordable Housing Plan aims to rest on several pillars: more EU funding, looser national spending limits, greater private investment, and innovative financing models.

But each of these comes with its own risks. Doubling cohesion policy funds sounds promising — but will the Member States actually channel these resources into housing rather than scattering them across other priorities? Relaxing state aid rules could help boost social housing, yet it might also open the door to projects with little social value.

And then there’s the elephant in the room: public money alone won’t fix the problem. Private capital is needed, but can social responsibility coexist with investors’ expectations of quick returns? Europe wants to “unlock alternative financing models,” but experience shows that such mechanisms often end up fueling speculation — particularly in the short-term rental market.

Bureaucracy: the hidden barrier

Simplifying administrative procedures is another goal of the plan — and a valid one. In many countries, the maze of building permits and public procurement can drag on for years, paralyzing investments.

Still, cutting red tape alone won’t solve everything. The real issue is often the lack of coordinated urban policy and poor communication between national, regional, and local authorities. Even the best legislation means little if municipalities don’t have the tools or staff to put it into practice.

Potential vs. reality: Europe’s building sector

Europe has the resources. Every year, it produces 170 million m³ of construction timber and 18,000 tons of cement per hour. The sector employs 27 million people. On paper, the potential looks immense. But that doesn’t automatically translate into affordable, energy-efficient housing.

The real question is: can EU countries redirect this power toward social housing, instead of luxury developments? Without strong political priorities and accountability, there’s a risk that excess production will serve markets, not people.

Short-term rentals: problem or opportunity?

One of the plan’s most debated elements is short-term rental regulation. Platforms like Airbnb have transformed European cities — often driving up rents and pushing residents out of central neighborhoods.

Regulation is clearly needed, but it’s a balancing act. Overly strict rules could stifle the sharing economy, while overly lenient ones could worsen gentrification and chaos in housing markets. This will be a test of the EU’s ability to protect citizens’ rights without crushing innovation.

Housing as a fundamental right?

The ultimate ambition of the plan is to turn access to housing into a real, enforceable right, not just a political slogan. But that requires courageous political choices — and a willingness to stand up to developers, financial institutions, and powerful construction lobbies.

The big question remains: can the European Union — divided economically, socially, and politically — build a shared vision of housing that works from Copenhagen to Sofia?

If yes, this plan could become a cornerstone of European cohesion. If not, it risks ending up as just another well-written strategy document — impressive on paper, but meaningless to the millions of Europeans still searching for a place to call home.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article