Affordability and fairness in the transition towards sustainable housing? – Reflections from the ENHR Paris conference 2025

We highlight three points that offered fresh perspectives relevant to both Paris and Finland. Each exposes tensions between conflicting aims, showing how just and sustainable housing remains far from straightforward.

Democracy or authoritarian planning in urban renewal?

The Grand Paris area is marked by stark inequalities. Post-war suburban estates were built to provide affordable housing, but their uniformity has led to spatial segregation, concentrating poverty and vulnerability. These neighborhoods now suffer from underinvestment and stigmatization. Large-scale renovation programs aim to counter these dynamics by improving living standards, reducing emissions, and creating social mix. Yet such interventions often risk displacing residents, especially when private capital and profit motives are the main drivers.

In France, inhabitants can legally oppose demolitions, and some projects have been altered due to resident resistance. During the conference we visited Romainville’s Yuri Gagarine neighborhood, where residential towers built in the 1950s and 1960s are now in urgent need of renovation. Improved transport links have attracted investment, and the city’s plan sought to increase homeownership, lower emissions, and improve public spaces. The initial plan was to demolish the existing buildings; however, after residents opposed the plan, some towers were substantially renovated instead. While this avoided displacement and reduced environmental costs, it also led to uneven development between the old and new buildings.

This raises a broader question: How can we balance democratic control with efficient, top-down planning? Centralized decisions can sideline residents, but local empowerment may slow or fragment renewal. In the context of fragile trust in institutions, the challenge is to reconcile urgency with participation, expertise with lived experience, and innovation with justice.

Residential immobility and the challenges of homeownership

Residential immobility, or staying in unsuitable housing because one cannot afford to move, is identified as a significant factor contributing to the strain on housing markets in Paris.  Moving involves costs, risks, and the loss of community ties. At the same time, many elderly residents remain in large homes after their children have left, while younger households struggle to access affordable housing.

France’s post-war model strongly favored homeownership. Today, rising prices, stagnant wages, and demographic changes mean that this goal is now out of reach for many. Renovation incentives often favor private homeowners, leaving renters and social housing residents behind. This exacerbates intergenerational inequality and threatens to exclude the most vulnerable from the green transition.

Also at the conference, several tools were discussed to rebalance the system. Land value capture and land taxes could redirect private gains from improved housing or infrastructure into public goods such as affordable housing and neighborhood services. Although politically sensitive, these taxes could be implemented gradually and even collected after the death of cash-strapped homeowners to soften the impact while shifting the balance between different types of housing.

The conference also presented Parisian initiatives that make better use of existing housing stock. The Cohabilis network arranges for students to live with elderly homeowners at affordable rents in exchange for light assistance. Another program funded the division of oversized apartments, enabling current residents to remain while creating new social housing units. Participants also stressed the importance of green interventions at the neighborhood level, such as insulating blocks, greening public spaces, and improving transportation, rather than relying on individual households.

Rethinking density and vacancy

A third theme at the conference, was the need to stop consuming new land for construction. Urban expansion undermines biodiversity and increases emissions. Using existing land allows for the creation of new housing units through increased density. As vice chair of ENHR Iván Tosics emphasized, density should be distinguished from overcrowding: Density can either increase risks or strengthen resilience, depending on how it is planned.

Another significant point raised concerned vacancy rates: in some cities, rates appear relatively low only because dwellings used as Airbnbs and other short-term holiday rentals are not classified as vacant. In many such areas, new housing is being constructed at historically high rates in response to the housing crisis; yet these units frequently become short-term rental investments for property owners rather than permanent homes. New approaches should therefore be developed to account for holiday lets within vacancy statistics, enabling a more accurate understanding of housing availability.

Strategies for densification discussed at the conference included adding floors or annexes, converting office buildings into homes in the post-COVID context, reusing vacant housing, and regulating short-term rentals to return them to long-term use. Paris has gone further by piloting a “no demolition, no concrete” approach, focusing on retrofitting and sustainable materials such as wood.

Finally, in a panel discussion Jaana Nevalainen from the Finnish Ministry of the Environment noted that while many governments see deregulation as the solution, ENHR researchers largely argue for increased regulation. Rapid changes—such as the financialization of public housing in the Nordic countries—show how quickly housing systems can shift. This underlines the need for decisive, collective policies, grounded in research, to ensure that the green transition supports affordability and fairness.

Elisabetta Leni
Researcher, Y-Säätiö
elisabetta.leni@ysaatio.f

Veera Niemi
Researcher, University of Turku
veeevi@utu.fi