Experiences from the Danish “Social Housing Plus” concept

1. Experiences from the Danish “Social Housing Plus” concept Jesper Ole Jensen, SBi, aalborguniversity Oslo d. 17.8.2018

2. Social Housing Plus in brief • Social Housing + (AlmenBolig+): Social housingconceptaiming at producingaffordablehousing with a rent up to 30% lower than comparable new housing • Aiming at “core workers” • Succesful in providing 1.500 affordabledwellings in the Copenhagen metropolitan region between 2011 and 2017. • Evaluation shows large residents satisfaction and a rent 21% lowerthancomparable new social housing • The concept have challengesthatneeds supervision, e.g. self-management, free-riding, facilitation of residents • A large amount of innovation and learninginvolved

3. Status for SH+ • 24 departmentsestablishedsince 2011, with differentlay-out but based on the same concept • 12-125 dwellings per department, variousdegrees of out-doorspaces • 1.500 dwellings in total (25% of all new-built social housingsince 2011 in the metropolitan region)

4. Background • Aim for Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard to establish 5.000 dwellings for 5.000 DKr a month • Collaboration betweenmunicipality and independent fund • Onlyapp. 20 dwellingswerestablished, and more expensivethanexpected • 2007: Social Housingaccociation KAB tookinitiative to develop an affordablehousingconcept for coreworkers

5. Affordability elements • Large tenders of a standardized housing concept, based on prefabrication with wooden elements • Low-energy buildings (according to the Danish Building Regulation BR 10) • Buildings constructed as “basic concepts” • Residents are responsible for administration, operation of shared outdoor areas, and parts of the building operation • Costs for maintenance and savings for future renovations are established through a new concept • Test-arrangement under the Ministry of Housing that permitted various exceptions from the act on social housing. Max 2.000 dwellings and evaluation

6. Views on SH+ from housing associations and municipalities

7. Evaluation Background: Evaluation of SH+ as a part of the development-concept. The evaluationwascarried out in three stages: 1) Industrialisation and collaboration, 2) local organisation, 3) general evaluation Methodology: Qualitative interviews and surveysamongst residents and boardmembers Qualitativeinterviews with housing associations and municipalities Quantitativeanalysis

8. The self-management concept • The self-management consists of a number of practical and administrative tasks (cleaning, lawn-moving, snow-removal and maintenance of outdoorareas, administration, budgetting, accounting, maintenance and operation of buildings etc.). • It is possible to outsource some of the tasks, e.g. snow removal, certain administrative tasks, maintenence etc. • The concept generally workswell. A majority of the residents participates in the operation and maintenance. Outsourcing has so far beenlimited • 2 out of 3 residents aresatisfied with the appearence of the outdoorareas • The most challengingtasks is budgetting, accounting and technicalissuesrelated to building operation • The amount of workdepends on the size of the estate and the number of households • In average residents uses 1-2 timer hours per month on practical tasks • 81 % of the residents aresatisfied with the amount of work, 3 % finds it too large

9. Interviews ”...I think it’s important that you get the freedom to do things that are not locked….when you invest time or money in it, then you feel a larger ownerships to things” (resident interview) ”..Yes, you could compare SH+ with a private co-op… it’s also therefore I could not imagine to move away, we have put our own shape on it … just as we would have done if we had bought our own house … we have sort of made it our own” (resident, interview) ”It has been insanely demanding, and if I had known that I would never has entered the board” (Board member, SH+ estate)

10. Residential composition in SH+: ”The academic ghetto”? Table 2. Residential segments in Social Housing + estates compared to social housing in the metropolitan region

11. Rent comparison Problemer med denne sammenligning af gennemsnitstal for nyt almene byggeri i HR: • Gennemsnitstal omfatter både lejligheder og tæt-lav, rækkehuse m.m. • Energitillæg forhøjer rammebeløbet for AB+ • Sammenlign med afdelinger med fælleshus, vaskeri m.m. • AB+ afdelingerne trækker gennemsnit ned ?

12. The rent in conventional new-built social housing (row-houses) in the metropolitan region is estimated to 1.116 Dkr/m2/year, i.e. SH+ has a 21% lower rent.

13. General conclusions on SH+ • Widespreadsatisfaction with the conceptamongst residents • Attractsmiddle-income residents and families from otherowner-segments • Affordability by 22% reduction in rent (the aimwas 30%) • Shared operation and care-taking in general works out well, and increases the social connectivity and sense of responsibility • Conditions for self-management: A combination of building design, recruitingmechanisms, and a number of adjustments of social housingregulations Risks and challenges: • How to maintain a group of committed residents? • How not to drown in practical duties? • How to managefree-riding? • Long-term quality of buildings?

14. Development and innovation The SH+ has evolved to other social housing concepts: • Affordable youth-housing (BasisBolig). • A refugee-housing concept, based on a combination with the BasisBolig-concept (”Flygtningeboliger med perspektiv”). In both concepts ideas about self-management and social inclusion are central elements. • Concept for a multi-generational housing (”GenerationernesByhus”), where the aim is to mix generations in the same building. These are concepts developed by KAB, in partnership with shifting designers, financers, authorities etc.