SOME EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC HOUSING APPROACHES ABROAD

SOME EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC HOUSING APPROACHES ABROAD

In many ways, buying a house is like buying a car—you either pay in full or through installments. And until the last payment is made and the title is handed to you, you don’t really own it. The same logic applies to housing: ownership and occupancy are not the same thing.

There are also interesting shades between rent-to-own and lease-to-own arrangements. A “rent-to-own” deal, for example, might let you rent a home for ten years and then acquire ownership afterward, depending on the terms. “Lease-to-own” usually involves longer contracts and more structured payments—almost like a hybrid between a mortgage and a tenancy.

In the Philippines, private developers often prefer to sell their housing units outright so they can reinvest proceeds into new projects. But public housing agencies like the National Housing Authority (NHA) or the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) work differently. Their purpose isn’t to make a profit but to make housing accessible, especially to low-income families.

Still, accessibility without sustainability is a ticking time bomb. New York City offers a compelling example of this paradox. Through the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)—the largest in North America—the city provides rental housing to more than 340,000 residents across 162,000 apartments in all five boroughs. It’s a remarkable feat of social welfare. But it’s also an enormous financial challenge.

NYCHA rents are capped at 30% of household income, ensuring affordability but crippling profitability. Maintenance costs pile up, and the system has long relied on federal subsidies to survive. Today, NYCHA faces a staggering $40 billion repair backlog. The city is experimenting with solutions—solar rooftops, energy-saving retrofits, and partnerships with private investors—but the reality remains: social housing here is socially successful but financially fragile.

Contrast this with Singapore, where the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has built one of the most sustainable housing systems in the world. Over 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, and most are homeowners under 99-year leaseholds. The model is ingenious: the government owns the land, residents buy long-term leases, and the system is partly funded by commercial rentals and car parks. It’s not charity—it’s nation-building with fiscal discipline.

Singapore’s model works because it treats housing not just as welfare, but as a form of asset ownership. It’s both a social and economic ladder. When homeowners have equity, they also have dignity and stake in the system. That’s something the Philippines can learn from.

Another interesting model comes from Chile’s Quinta Monroy project, led by the architecture firm ELEMENTAL. The government built only “half-houses”—basic but expandable structures that families could improve over time. It was a simple but revolutionary idea: give people the start, not the finish. The results were astonishing. Property values doubled as residents invested sweat equity. The homes became real assets, not mere shelters.

In the Netherlands, social housing cooperatives manage about 30% of all housing stock, operating as financially self-sustaining entities. Rent revenues are reinvested into maintenance and new construction. It’s a circular economy of housing—a balance between social mission and financial prudence.

Germany’s Freiburg-Vauban District offers yet another layer: sustainability. There, eco-housing, solar energy, and car-free streets are integrated with mixed-income communities. The district generates its own energy, supports green businesses, and earns from commercial leases. Public housing, in this case, doubles as an environmental investment.

Belgium also runs a multi-tiered social housing system, where municipalities, co-ops, and nonprofits manage units. They operate “intermediate housing” for modest returns, using profits to subsidize social units. It’s a pragmatic balance that avoids over-reliance on national funding.

What do these examples tell us? That housing is not just a technical problem—it’s a financing problem. Anyone can design a decent home, but few can finance it sustainably. That’s where public policy, community cooperatives, and innovative financing meet.

In our context, the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) plays that critical role. Through programs like the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) and High-Density Housing (HDH), SHFC helps organized communities buy land, build vertical housing, and secure tenure. These are good beginnings—but we can do more.

Why not experiment with barangay-level housing cooperatives? Imagine if each barangay managed its own small-scale housing clusters, using rent revenues from mixed-use spaces—like mini-markets, clinics, or solar farms—to sustain the system. Add in lease-to-own schemes for residents, and you have a loop of empowerment instead of dependence.

If Singapore can turn its housing program into an economic engine, why can’t we? If Chile can empower families to build their own assets, why can’t we? And if European cooperatives can make housing both social and sustainable, why shouldn’t our local governments and cooperatives do the same?

The goal isn’t simply to build houses—it’s to build communities that pay forward. A self-sustaining housing program doesn’t just provide shelter; it creates stability, productivity, and social cohesion.

Perhaps it’s time for the Philippines to reimagine public housing not as a burden on the budget, but as an investment in human capital—one lease, one family, one barangay at a time.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

02-06-2026