Challenges

A Green Land Value Tax is a policy proposal aimed at promoting sustainable land use and addressing environmental concerns. It's designed to tax land based on its ecological impact and potential for sustainable development rather than its market value. Here are key points about this concept: Environmental Incentives: Green Land Value Tax encourages landowners to use their property in an environmentally responsible manner. Land used for sustainable practices like renewable energy, reforestation, or organic farming could receive lower tax rates. Discouraging Land Speculation: By taxing land based on its potential for sustainable development rather than its speculative value, it can help discourage land hoarding and speculative practices that often drive up land prices. Reducing Urban Sprawl: It can discourage urban sprawl and incentivize denser, more sustainable development patterns. Economic Efficiency: Green Land Value Tax promotes economic efficiency by aligning tax incentives with sustainable practices. It can generate revenue for local governments while discouraging ecologically damaging land uses. Challenges: Implementing such a tax requires careful assessment of land's ecological impact, which can be complex. Determining the appropriate tax rates and policies for sustainable land use is challenging but essential. Equity Considerations: Policymakers must consider the equity implications, as higher taxes on certain lands may disproportionately affect lower-income landowners or those with limited sustainable development options. In summary, a Green Land Value Tax is a policy tool that seeks to incentivize sustainable land use while generating revenue for environmental initiatives.

The lack of political will to address the problem of affordable housing is more pronounced in Croatia than in Slovenia and Slovakia. As a result, very little is invested in social and public rental housing, leaving low-income people, but also increasingly middle-income people, without housing options: Buying is becoming too expensive and options in the private rental market are scarce due to short-term rental trends – touristification of housing stock. The key to approach this problem is through a transdisciplinary framework to find a balanced approach that is accepted by policy makers and the general public (in this case, homeowners). One approach is to implement “housing for all” strategies where affordable housing has its place, together with measures for the general population. There is an urgent need to understand how to bring homeowners, who are a pressure group protecting their financial interests, politicians, who are reluctant to make a difficult decision, closer to positive change, and to bring to the table CSOs, experts and trade unions who have the experience in facilitation.

The housing demand in European cities is growing exponentially and new profiles, such as young people, are facing increasing difficulties in accessing housing. The potential demand for rentals continues to exceed the available supply that is highly unaffordable in central urban areas. Public housing is residual since it mainly answers the needs of the most vulnerable segments of the population and its long waiting lists are incompatible with young peoples’ mobility and changing needs. Therefore we argue that  a renewed social housing  concept could allow to redevelop existing real estate assets for an innovative housing solution, such as cohousing, that could profit both young people and the existing neighbourhoods. New partnerships are needed at the local level to promote a supply of social housing that meets the specific needs of young people, along with engaging in an evaluation of the integration of the housing project in the surrounding neighbourhood.

A particular challenge for housing affordability in post-socialist countries, in circumstances of housing financialisation, is to secure funding for supply-side and demand-side subsidies that could impact on housing affordability and sustainability. It is important to focus on the impact of such investments and to ensure the financial sustainability of these programmes, not only to strengthen public confidence and increase economic competitiveness, but also to reduce poverty, improve health and well-being and strengthen community resilience. In other words, there is a growing need for a “business model” that simultaneously allows for lower rents for tenants and for a payment system that allows for the payback of the investment through rents, even if the payback period is much longer than in the private sector. One example would be to set up a national revolving housing fund to implement such investment activities. The actors that should lead this action are public institutions, trade unions, expert groups and policy makers that could facilitate a transdisciplinary approach, bringing together knowledge from the industry and practice in financing housing projects and in promoting social entrepreneurship.

A challenge in Croatia (in contrast to Slovenia and Slovakia) is to identify, scale up and replicate (method) workable and existing solutions for different tenure types, ranging from vulnerable groups (e. social housing for the homeless and housing for young families), to low- and middle-income populations (e.g. investments in social and public rental housing), to affordable home ownership programmes. Suggestions to increase efficiency in replicating these programmes are to promote intra- and cross-country collaboration within local and national governments that have similar local contexts and where the success of the transfer would be maximised. In addition, there is a need for a national housing strategy that captures and evaluates these projects and makes them accessible to other interested project developers. Stakeholders that should be involved include first and foremost local authorities that have a good overview of successful affordable housing pilot projects that could be scaled up and replicated. Additionally, to bring transdisciplinary perspective, local and national advocacy groups, CSO and other experts should be consulted.

Vulnerable groups hit by housing deprivation, such as immigrants or people with precarious resources, experience difficulties in renting a home on the rental market. Many landlords prefer to keep their properties empty instead of renting, therefore avoiding risks with rent payment and maintenance. These properties should find new ways to re-enter the rental market and meet some unanswered housing needs. Public authorities can guarantee access to housing for these more fragile groups by engaging in a dialogue with tenants and landlords, mediating between the different rights and facilitating matches between demand and supply. The core obstacle for local associations and local institutions is to accept the challenge of co-creating an actual community welfare housing provision.

In the context of budget austerity, public entities have tended to sell their vacant properties (both buildings and land) to private developers. The first challenge would be to rehabilitate these properties in order to limit new construction and urban sprawl. This rehabilitation should aim for zero environmental impact, but it is very expensive. To find a financial balance, this cost is generally reflected in the high prices of the housing created, thus contributing to the affordable housing crisis. The main challenge would then be to find a financial and partnership arrangement that simultaneously addresses environmental criteria and local social issues in the rehabilitation. Social needs should be determined among the unmet needs for affordable housing and other needs of the local community or neighborhood.

The challenge is that in regions with high growth, housing costs (prices and rents) are often high relative to incomes, making housing affordable only for high-skilled workers. This can lead to severe problems for low-income workers, who may be displaced, marginalized, or forced to live in slums. There is debate about whether housing affordability problems are caused by supply-side factors (such as land scarcity and building regulations) or by the structure of the job market. However, it is clear that the housing system can play a significant role in perpetuating inequality. One way to mitigate the negative impact of housing affordability problems is to ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable housing. However, the effectiveness of this approach will depend on local housing policies.
 

The built environment profoundly impacts our mental, emotional, and physical well-being and promotes empowerment. In the supportive housing sector, people often live with complex needs. This means that it is crucial to consider the separate disciplines of housing, health, technology, design, and social care together. One of the main challenges is that academics in these different fields often don't speak the same language. There is also a communication gap between academics and non-academic members of society, especially those in the housing and care sector. To overcome these challenges, we need to go beyond the boundaries of specific scientific disciplines and bring together different theoretical perspectives and practical solutions. This will help us to develop better policies and programs for people in vulnerable situations.

The challenge is that economic growth is often uneven and unequal, both socially and spatially. The European Commission has distinguished between two types of lagging regions. 1)Low growth regions: These regions have not managed to converge to the EU average GDP per capita since 2000, and have performed particularly poorly since the financial crisis. This includes most of the less developed regions in Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. 2)Low income regions: These regions have a GDP per capita below 50% of the EU average. These are mostly located in central and eastern Europe, particularly in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

How can policymakers ensure that everyone has access to safe and affordable housing, while also promoting economic growth? Some analysts believe that economic growth should be prioritized, even if this leads to increased inequality, as long as it raises the standard of living for everyone overall. Others believe that social equity should be prioritized, as they believe that it is essential for sustainable long-run development. 

The challenge arises from conflicting objectives and constraints. Environmental sustainability often focus on reducing energy consumption and adopting green technologies, while social sustainability emphasises the well-being and affordability of housing for residents. Limited resources, both financial and infrastructural, further complicate the situation. Retrofit projects, operating within budget constraints, face the dilemma of allocating funds between energy-efficient upgrades and addressing social issues.

Projects may also prioritise energy efficiency without adequately considering the social implications, missing opportunities to enhance residents' quality of life. Moreover, conflicting regulations and policies at the governmental level can complicate matters. Policies may emphasise environmental sustainability without providing adequate support or incentives for a holistic, socially inclusive approach, creating a regulatory environment that hampers comprehensive retrofit initiatives.

The traditional housing studio is designed to operate in isolation from the realities of people, (increased population mobility, climate crisis, extreme financialisation of housing, commodification of urban life etc.) fostering self-reference, competitiveness, and a false sense of primacy in spatial matters. Live studio methodologies have sought to break the silos of disciplinary boundaries and reconfigure the archetype of the architect, however due to the mostly acupuncture nature of their application on a global scale, the gap between education and real-world practices still persists.

Addressing this challenge would require broader, politically engaged approaches that profoundly challenge the foundations of architectural education and create continuous, non-transactional, equitable synergies for the co-production of knowledge and the co-curation of spatial practices in the urban landscape. By recognising the importance of commons-based approaches to architectural education (education as a commons) a more inclusive, engaged and holistic learning environment may emerge.