WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.879 Welcome to The Debate. Today we are analyzing 00:00:02.879 --> 00:00:06.740 one of the most visible and contentious expressions 00:00:06.740 --> 00:00:09.560 of the social contract, the roof over our heads. 00:00:09.820 --> 00:00:13.300 It's a topic that really sits right at the intersection 00:00:13.300 --> 00:00:16.140 of architecture, economics, and of course human 00:00:16.140 --> 00:00:18.960 dignity. When we comb through the global data 00:00:18.960 --> 00:00:22.339 provided by the OECD, the disparity in how nations 00:00:22.339 --> 00:00:24.600 handle housing isn't just a matter of slight 00:00:24.600 --> 00:00:28.100 policy differences. It is a staggering philosophical 00:00:28.100 --> 00:00:31.059 divide. On one end of the spectrum, you have 00:00:31.059 --> 00:00:33.320 a country like Colombia, where social housing 00:00:33.320 --> 00:00:35.899 represents less than 1 % of the total housing 00:00:35.899 --> 00:00:38.200 stock. I mean, it's effectively a rounding error. 00:00:38.500 --> 00:00:40.820 Then, on the other end, you have the Netherlands, 00:00:40.979 --> 00:00:43.679 where it accounts for roughly 34%. That is a 00:00:43.679 --> 00:00:46.140 massive difference. It suggests two completely 00:00:46.140 --> 00:00:48.460 different ways of answering the question, is 00:00:48.460 --> 00:00:51.039 housing a commodity to be traded or a utility 00:00:51.039 --> 00:00:54.200 to be guaranteed? Should we house people? I think 00:00:54.200 --> 00:00:56.359 we both agree on that humanitarian baseline. 00:00:56.939 --> 00:01:00.079 The real question is how. Should public housing 00:01:00.079 --> 00:01:04.180 be a universal utility, a massive state -owned 00:01:04.180 --> 00:01:06.140 infrastructure designed to house the majority, 00:01:06.340 --> 00:01:08.700 what we're calling the universal model we see 00:01:08.700 --> 00:01:12.159 in places like Singapore? Or should it be a residual 00:01:12.159 --> 00:01:15.079 safety net, a limited, targeted intervention 00:01:15.079 --> 00:01:17.859 integrated into the private market for those 00:01:17.859 --> 00:01:20.719 who absolutely cannot survive without it? To 00:01:20.719 --> 00:01:23.640 put it bluntly, is it a right for everyone or 00:01:23.640 --> 00:01:25.900 a ration for the desperate? That's one way to 00:01:25.900 --> 00:01:29.040 frame it. And I'm arguing for the latter, what 00:01:29.040 --> 00:01:32.099 we call the market integrated or targeted model. 00:01:32.400 --> 00:01:35.400 I contend that the state is, frankly, a clumsy 00:01:35.400 --> 00:01:38.109 landlord. Large -scale government blocks often 00:01:38.109 --> 00:01:41.150 create ghettos, they stigmatize residents, and 00:01:41.150 --> 00:01:43.829 they consistently fail to maintain quality over 00:01:43.829 --> 00:01:46.829 time. I believe the better path is using subsidies 00:01:46.829 --> 00:01:49.569 like vouchers and mixed income developments to 00:01:49.569 --> 00:01:52.030 integrate people into the private market rather 00:01:52.030 --> 00:01:54.689 than segregating them in state -run concrete 00:01:54.689 --> 00:01:57.530 towers. And I, of course, take the opposing view. 00:01:57.790 --> 00:02:01.049 I am arguing for the universal state -led model. 00:02:01.390 --> 00:02:03.890 I believe the evidence shows that treating housing 00:02:03.890 --> 00:02:06.450 as a market commodity with a small safety net 00:02:06.450 --> 00:02:10.770 inevitably fails the vulnerable. When the state 00:02:10.770 --> 00:02:13.069 acts as the primary developer and landlord at 00:02:13.069 --> 00:02:16.449 scale, as we see in Vienna or Hong Kong, we don't 00:02:16.449 --> 00:02:19.289 just solve homelessness, we create stable, integrated 00:02:19.289 --> 00:02:21.990 communities. The market has never provided for 00:02:21.990 --> 00:02:24.810 the poor without massive state force, and I intend 00:02:24.810 --> 00:02:27.479 to prove that today. I see why you'd aim for 00:02:27.479 --> 00:02:31.319 that ideal. It sounds orderly. I get that. But 00:02:31.319 --> 00:02:34.000 historically, the state as landlord model has 00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:36.099 often resulted in the opposite of stability. 00:02:36.319 --> 00:02:40.780 It has created physical isolation and fiscal 00:02:40.780 --> 00:02:43.819 black holes. But let's get into the details because 00:02:43.819 --> 00:02:45.840 the history here is fascinating and it's often 00:02:45.840 --> 00:02:49.199 misunderstood. Let's dive in. To understand my 00:02:49.199 --> 00:02:51.379 position, we have to look at what public housing 00:02:51.379 --> 00:02:53.979 is actually defined as in its most successful 00:02:53.979 --> 00:02:56.840 iterations. It is a remedy for housing inequality. 00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:00.580 When you look at the gold standard examples in 00:03:00.580 --> 00:03:03.199 our material, the success stories are not minor 00:03:03.199 --> 00:03:06.159 market corrections. They are massive state interventions. 00:03:06.599 --> 00:03:12.159 Look at Singapore. Ah, Singapore, yes. The favorite 00:03:12.159 --> 00:03:15.189 example of urban planners everywhere. Well, for 00:03:15.189 --> 00:03:17.689 good reason. I mean, in Singapore, the Housing 00:03:17.689 --> 00:03:20.870 and Development Board, or HDB, doesn't just manage 00:03:20.870 --> 00:03:24.349 a few sad units for the poor. Over 90 % of the 00:03:24.349 --> 00:03:26.569 resident population are homeowners through this 00:03:26.569 --> 00:03:29.689 system. The state controls the supply, the design, 00:03:29.909 --> 00:03:32.370 and the maintenance. It is the dominant force 00:03:32.370 --> 00:03:34.770 in the housing market, not the residual one. 00:03:35.009 --> 00:03:37.789 But you have to admit, Singapore is a very specific 00:03:37.789 --> 00:03:40.810 geopolitical context. It's a city -state with 00:03:40.810 --> 00:03:44.319 a highly centralized government. and a unique 00:03:44.319 --> 00:03:47.939 land ownership structure. Can you really replicate 00:03:47.939 --> 00:03:51.360 that model in a sprawling liberal democracy? 00:03:51.680 --> 00:03:54.400 You can replicate the mechanism, even if the 00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:57.460 politics differ. The mechanism is state -controlled 00:03:57.460 --> 00:04:00.639 supply. Or look at Hong Kong, where nearly half 00:04:00.639 --> 00:04:03.379 the population lives in public housing. These 00:04:03.379 --> 00:04:06.159 aren't projects in the American sense. They are 00:04:06.159 --> 00:04:08.979 the fabric of the city. And this isn't a modern 00:04:08.979 --> 00:04:11.750 Asian phenomenon only. If we look back at the 00:04:11.750 --> 00:04:15.110 UK in 1919, the Homes Fit for Heroes campaign 00:04:15.110 --> 00:04:17.930 proved that the state could step in to ensure 00:04:17.930 --> 00:04:20.930 dignity where the market provided squalor. The 00:04:20.930 --> 00:04:24.069 Red Vienna period in the 1920s produced the Gemeindebau, 00:04:24.250 --> 00:04:26.129 buildings that were, you know, architectural 00:04:26.129 --> 00:04:30.110 triumphs. My core argument is this. Failures 00:04:30.110 --> 00:04:32.069 in public housing happen when we treat it as 00:04:32.069 --> 00:04:34.910 a last resort for the desperate. When the state 00:04:34.910 --> 00:04:37.110 commits to housing as a utility for the many, 00:04:37.189 --> 00:04:40.180 it works. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that 00:04:40.180 --> 00:04:42.399 the state is the most efficient provider of that 00:04:42.399 --> 00:04:45.139 dignity. You mentioned the UK's history, the 00:04:45.139 --> 00:04:48.040 homes fit for heroes. But let's look at the reality 00:04:48.040 --> 00:04:50.899 of those early interventions. The material points 00:04:50.899 --> 00:04:53.240 out that the world's first large -scale housing 00:04:53.240 --> 00:04:56.439 project, the Boundary Estate in London, was built 00:04:56.439 --> 00:04:59.180 to replace the old nickel slum. Good intentions, 00:04:59.399 --> 00:05:03.199 absolutely. But slum clearance often meant displacing 00:05:03.199 --> 00:05:06.629 the very people it was supposed to help. Displacement 00:05:06.629 --> 00:05:08.870 is a failure of planning, though, not of the 00:05:08.870 --> 00:05:11.850 housing model itself. But the two go hand in 00:05:11.850 --> 00:05:13.569 hand when you have a centralized bureaucracy 00:05:13.569 --> 00:05:16.889 making these decisions. Look at the United States 00:05:16.889 --> 00:05:19.529 experience. We saw a shift from working class 00:05:19.529 --> 00:05:22.350 housing to what became these stigmatized super 00:05:22.350 --> 00:05:25.370 blocks. The material explicitly mentions the 00:05:25.370 --> 00:05:28.790 welfare queen narrative and the soul crushing 00:05:28.790 --> 00:05:31.389 reputation of projects in cities like Chicago 00:05:31.389 --> 00:05:34.660 and Detroit. These environments became so toxic, 00:05:34.720 --> 00:05:37.560 so isolated from economic opportunity, that the 00:05:37.560 --> 00:05:40.160 government's response via Hope 6 was to demolish 00:05:40.160 --> 00:05:42.879 them. My core argument is that concentrating 00:05:42.879 --> 00:05:45.379 low -income people in state -owned towers creates 00:05:45.379 --> 00:05:48.680 isolation. The better path, which we see in the 00:05:48.680 --> 00:05:51.819 turn to subsidized housing in the U .S., is using 00:05:51.819 --> 00:05:54.240 Section 8 vouchers or subsidizing private owners. 00:05:54.519 --> 00:05:57.139 This allows for mobility and integration with 00:05:57.139 --> 00:05:59.620 the private market. I think you're conflating 00:05:59.620 --> 00:06:02.860 concentration with segregation. They aren't the 00:06:02.860 --> 00:06:05.660 same thing. And this brings us to our first deep 00:06:05.660 --> 00:06:09.399 dive, the problem of location and the risk of 00:06:09.399 --> 00:06:13.040 ghettoization. You argue that state housing isolates 00:06:13.040 --> 00:06:16.519 the poor. I argue that the market naturally isolates 00:06:16.519 --> 00:06:18.439 the poor, pushing them to the cheapest land. 00:06:18.600 --> 00:06:20.899 And state housing is the only thing that can 00:06:20.899 --> 00:06:23.519 integrate them if it's done correctly. But the 00:06:23.519 --> 00:06:26.399 evidence of doing it correctly is rare compared 00:06:26.399 --> 00:06:29.279 to the evidence of failure. Let's look at Brazil, 00:06:29.459 --> 00:06:32.459 the Minha Casa Minha Vida program. Literally, 00:06:32.540 --> 00:06:36.100 my house, my life. It was massive, launched in 00:06:36.100 --> 00:06:39.540 2009 with a budget of 36 billion reals. They 00:06:39.540 --> 00:06:42.660 built 4 .5 million homes. On paper, that's a 00:06:42.660 --> 00:06:44.959 triumph for your universal model. It provided 00:06:44.959 --> 00:06:48.139 homes for millions who had none. That is a triumph. 00:06:48.439 --> 00:06:52.519 It provided roofs, yes. But did it provide a 00:06:52.519 --> 00:06:55.920 life? Critics in the source material note that 00:06:55.920 --> 00:06:58.519 these houses were built far from city centers 00:06:58.519 --> 00:07:02.319 to cut costs. They reduced access to labor markets. 00:07:02.660 --> 00:07:05.279 If you build a warehouse for people three hours 00:07:05.279 --> 00:07:07.860 from where the jobs are, you aren't solving inequality, 00:07:08.300 --> 00:07:11.079 you are cementing it. The state looked for the 00:07:11.079 --> 00:07:13.519 cheapest land, which is always on the periphery, 00:07:13.519 --> 00:07:17.600 and they dumped 4 .5 million units there. That 00:07:17.600 --> 00:07:21.839 is state -sponsored segregation. I concede that 00:07:21.839 --> 00:07:24.300 the Brazilian implementation had locational flaws. 00:07:24.680 --> 00:07:28.180 However, that was a decision driven by land cost, 00:07:28.480 --> 00:07:31.860 essentially bowing to market pressures rather 00:07:31.860 --> 00:07:35.000 than overriding them. Contrast that with Vienna. 00:07:35.220 --> 00:07:38.060 The Gemeindebau, the municipality buildings, 00:07:38.180 --> 00:07:40.980 like the famous Karl Marx Hof, are not on the 00:07:40.980 --> 00:07:44.500 periphery. They are culturally significant architectural 00:07:44.500 --> 00:07:48.519 icons integrated into the city. They aren't ghettos 00:07:48.519 --> 00:07:50.980 because they weren't designed for the destitute 00:07:50.980 --> 00:07:54.519 alone. They're desirable places to live. Vienna 00:07:54.519 --> 00:07:56.800 is always the exception that proves the rule, 00:07:56.860 --> 00:07:59.920 though. Look at France. They built the Ville 00:07:59.920 --> 00:08:04.079 Nouvelle and the HLM Habitation Alloyée Modérée. 00:08:04.160 --> 00:08:07.959 The intention was universal access. Exactly what 00:08:07.959 --> 00:08:10.610 you want. But the material describes how this 00:08:10.610 --> 00:08:13.629 led to suburban ghettos rife with social tension 00:08:13.629 --> 00:08:16.310 and violence, forcing the government to mandate 00:08:16.310 --> 00:08:19.970 social mix policies later on. The state created 00:08:19.970 --> 00:08:22.730 these monocultures of, well, functionally, only 00:08:22.730 --> 00:08:25.149 the poor ended up living there. Because they 00:08:25.149 --> 00:08:27.829 stopped funding them properly and stopped maintaining 00:08:27.829 --> 00:08:31.529 the social mix. In Singapore, the HDB estates 00:08:31.529 --> 00:08:34.409 include everything from studio units to executive 00:08:34.409 --> 00:08:37.389 condominiums. They cater to a massive range of 00:08:37.389 --> 00:08:40.330 income levels. That prevents stigma. The reason 00:08:40.330 --> 00:08:42.529 the U .S. projects in Chicago or Detroit failed 00:08:42.529 --> 00:08:44.570 wasn't because the government owned the building. 00:08:44.960 --> 00:08:47.840 It was because, as the text notes, NIMBYism blocked 00:08:47.840 --> 00:08:50.500 public housing in the suburbs. The market and 00:08:50.500 --> 00:08:52.659 private homeowners stopped the state from integrating 00:08:52.659 --> 00:08:54.860 these developments, forcing them into already 00:08:54.860 --> 00:08:57.100 low -income neighborhoods. You can't blame the 00:08:57.100 --> 00:08:59.340 state for a failure caused by the private market's 00:08:59.340 --> 00:09:02.299 refusal to share space. That's a compelling argument, 00:09:02.399 --> 00:09:05.240 but have you considered that the state is often 00:09:05.240 --> 00:09:08.440 a terrible landlord over the long term? This 00:09:08.440 --> 00:09:10.899 is our second point of contention. Maintenance, 00:09:10.899 --> 00:09:13.980 privatization, and the right to buy. You want 00:09:13.980 --> 00:09:16.179 the state to own the asset, but bureaucratic 00:09:16.179 --> 00:09:19.639 budgets fluctuate. Look at Vietnam, the cuotapte, 00:09:19.820 --> 00:09:22.440 those socialist blocks built from the 60s to 00:09:22.440 --> 00:09:25.379 the 80s. The text says they became dilapidated 00:09:25.379 --> 00:09:28.480 specifically due to a lack of municipal funding. 00:09:28.720 --> 00:09:30.700 When the state runs out of money, the building 00:09:30.700 --> 00:09:33.100 rots. And when a private landlord runs out of 00:09:33.100 --> 00:09:35.620 money, they evict the tenants or sell the building 00:09:35.620 --> 00:09:38.440 to a developer who demolishes it. Not necessarily. 00:09:38.860 --> 00:09:41.539 That's why the UK's right to buy policy was so 00:09:41.539 --> 00:09:44.250 significant. Introduced by Thatcher, it allowed 00:09:44.250 --> 00:09:47.049 tenants to move from public tenancy to private 00:09:47.049 --> 00:09:50.429 ownership. It empowered individuals. It turned 00:09:50.429 --> 00:09:53.409 a liability into an asset for the family. And 00:09:53.409 --> 00:09:56.370 it created mixed tenure naturally. I would argue 00:09:56.370 --> 00:09:58.629 that the U .S. Section 8 program is superior 00:09:58.629 --> 00:10:01.409 for similar reasons. It utilizes the private 00:10:01.409 --> 00:10:04.330 market's efficiency. You give a tenant a voucher 00:10:04.330 --> 00:10:06.909 and they find a landlord who maintains the property 00:10:06.909 --> 00:10:09.070 because they have a profit incentive to do so. 00:10:09.500 --> 00:10:11.559 But I'm not convinced by that line of reasoning 00:10:11.559 --> 00:10:14.519 because privatization cannibalizes the safety 00:10:14.519 --> 00:10:17.500 net. Let's look at the actual aftermath of right 00:10:17.500 --> 00:10:20.860 to buy in the UK. The material explicitly states 00:10:20.860 --> 00:10:23.460 that the policy, combined with a stop on building, 00:10:23.639 --> 00:10:26.500 led to a shortage. Now, affordable housing in 00:10:26.500 --> 00:10:29.139 the UK is just a planning condition, Section 00:10:29.139 --> 00:10:33.039 106, rather than a state guarantee. You've traded 00:10:33.039 --> 00:10:36.100 a permanent asset for a temporary cash infusion, 00:10:36.100 --> 00:10:38.850 and now you have a crisis. But the stock that 00:10:38.850 --> 00:10:41.309 remained public often stayed in poor condition. 00:10:41.730 --> 00:10:45.049 Not in Berlin. In fact, the privatization of 00:10:45.049 --> 00:10:47.629 public housing there is now being reconsidered 00:10:47.629 --> 00:10:51.450 and regretted in attractive areas. Or look at 00:10:51.450 --> 00:10:54.669 China. The old public houses faced massive corruption 00:10:54.669 --> 00:10:56.649 and family disputes when they transitioned to 00:10:56.649 --> 00:10:59.389 private sales. And regarding your point on Section 00:10:59.389 --> 00:11:02.309 8 vouchers in the US, the text is very clear 00:11:02.309 --> 00:11:05.149 on this. It notes that market solutions like 00:11:05.149 --> 00:11:08.360 Section 8 have long wait times. And crucially, 00:11:08.500 --> 00:11:10.759 landlords often refuse to accept the vouchers. 00:11:11.139 --> 00:11:13.580 If the private market can simply say no to your 00:11:13.580 --> 00:11:16.340 safety net, it's not a safety net. It's a lottery. 00:11:16.500 --> 00:11:19.720 It's a lottery with better outcomes for the winners 00:11:19.720 --> 00:11:22.480 than being trapped in a decaying tower block. 00:11:22.919 --> 00:11:25.500 But this brings us to the philosophical core 00:11:25.500 --> 00:11:28.399 of our disagreement. Universal rights versus 00:11:28.399 --> 00:11:31.960 targeted rations. You view housing as a constitutional 00:11:31.960 --> 00:11:34.940 right that the state must provide. Because it 00:11:34.940 --> 00:11:37.820 is. Look at South Africa. Their constitution 00:11:37.820 --> 00:11:40.799 explicitly enshrines the right to access adequate 00:11:40.799 --> 00:11:43.600 housing. Now, I know you'll point to the backlog, 00:11:43.940 --> 00:11:48.519 3 .7 million units as of 2021. But despite that, 00:11:48.659 --> 00:11:51.220 the government provides free basic services, 00:11:51.580 --> 00:11:55.039 water, electricity, to the poor, and has doubled 00:11:55.039 --> 00:11:58.919 formal households since 1996. That is what happens 00:11:58.919 --> 00:12:01.299 when you treat housing as a human right rather 00:12:01.299 --> 00:12:04.240 than a market commodity. But is it sustainable? 00:12:04.860 --> 00:12:06.799 The text mentions that the European Commission 00:12:06.799 --> 00:12:09.899 noted a massive investment gap in social infrastructure, 00:12:10.299 --> 00:12:14.580 150 billion euros per year. That is a staggering 00:12:14.580 --> 00:12:17.500 number. You can write rights on a piece of paper, 00:12:17.600 --> 00:12:20.080 but you have to pay for the bricks. You pay for 00:12:20.080 --> 00:12:23.220 it one way or another. Finland proves this. They 00:12:23.220 --> 00:12:26.820 adopted a housing -first policy. They prioritized 00:12:26.820 --> 00:12:29.860 unconditional housing, no jumping through hoops, 00:12:29.899 --> 00:12:33.759 no market tests. The result? They reduced homelessness 00:12:33.759 --> 00:12:39.120 by 35 % between 2008 and 2019. That requires 00:12:39.120 --> 00:12:42.659 direct state intervention. You cannot subsidize 00:12:42.659 --> 00:12:45.000 your way to zero homelessness because the market 00:12:45.000 --> 00:12:47.240 has no interest in housing the most vulnerable. 00:12:47.480 --> 00:12:49.980 Look at Denmark and the Netherlands. They have 00:12:49.980 --> 00:12:53.980 huge social housing sectors, 20 % and 34 % respectively. 00:12:54.419 --> 00:12:57.279 But even Denmark has had to introduce policies 00:12:57.279 --> 00:13:00.409 to counter ghettoization. They are now favoring 00:13:00.409 --> 00:13:02.590 employed renters over the unemployed in allocation. 00:13:03.169 --> 00:13:05.850 Even the universal systems are forced to ration 00:13:05.850 --> 00:13:09.029 based on economic utility eventually. My argument 00:13:09.029 --> 00:13:12.269 is that a needs -based approach, rationing resources 00:13:12.269 --> 00:13:14.929 for those who truly cannot compete in the market, 00:13:15.090 --> 00:13:19.049 is the only realistic economic model. The advocate's 00:13:19.049 --> 00:13:21.549 housing for all infrastructure is a utopia that 00:13:21.549 --> 00:13:24.429 goes bankrupt. It only goes bankrupt if we refuse 00:13:24.429 --> 00:13:27.929 to fund it. The text notes that in the UK, during 00:13:27.929 --> 00:13:30.210 the Labour government of the 60s, they built 00:13:30.210 --> 00:13:34.289 1 .3 million new homes. It was a choice. The 00:13:34.289 --> 00:13:36.789 current investment gap in Europe you cited, that's 00:13:36.789 --> 00:13:40.049 a policy choice to underinvest. It's a choice 00:13:40.049 --> 00:13:43.250 based on the reality of limited resources. Or 00:13:43.250 --> 00:13:45.269 a choice based on the prioritization of private 00:13:45.269 --> 00:13:47.649 profit. Let's look at the definitions again. 00:13:47.769 --> 00:13:49.970 In Vancouver, they changed the definition of 00:13:49.970 --> 00:13:52.690 social housing to mean rental housing where only 00:13:52.690 --> 00:13:55.389 30 % of units are for those who can't pay market 00:13:55.389 --> 00:13:58.210 rent. The market -integrated model you love is 00:13:58.210 --> 00:14:00.769 slowly defining social housing out of existence. 00:14:01.629 --> 00:14:04.809 That's a cynical reading. I see it as integrating 00:14:04.809 --> 00:14:08.129 the poor into the mainstream rather than segregating 00:14:08.129 --> 00:14:11.909 them. The U .S. HOPE VI program, despite its 00:14:11.909 --> 00:14:14.730 flaws and displacement, explicitly aimed to replace 00:14:14.730 --> 00:14:18.490 blighted superblocks with mixed -income communities. 00:14:18.789 --> 00:14:21.429 The goal was to break the cycle of concentrated 00:14:21.429 --> 00:14:25.190 poverty. And the result, as the text says, was 00:14:25.190 --> 00:14:27.110 that more housing was demolished than built. 00:14:27.350 --> 00:14:29.690 That is the legacy of the market -integrated 00:14:29.690 --> 00:14:33.070 approach, destruction of supply. Let's pull back 00:14:33.070 --> 00:14:35.909 and summarize, because we are looking at two 00:14:35.909 --> 00:14:39.340 different roads to the same destination. I agree 00:14:39.340 --> 00:14:42.539 that everyone needs a home, but the tower in 00:14:42.539 --> 00:14:45.399 the park model, the massive state intervention 00:14:45.399 --> 00:14:49.460 is obsolete. It is too rigid, too prone to decay, 00:14:49.679 --> 00:14:52.960 and too isolating. The future lies in what we 00:14:52.960 --> 00:14:56.460 see in Spain with the VPO, Promocione Privada, 00:14:56.620 --> 00:14:59.399 privately developed housing with public subsidies, 00:14:59.720 --> 00:15:02.639 or the mixed income communities the U .S. is 00:15:02.639 --> 00:15:05.340 striving for. We need to leverage the private 00:15:05.340 --> 00:15:08.379 sector's ability to build and maintain. while 00:15:08.379 --> 00:15:11.500 using the state's funds to ensure access. The 00:15:11.500 --> 00:15:14.659 state alone creates ghettos. I disagree fundamentally. 00:15:15.340 --> 00:15:18.860 The market has never, in the history of urbanization, 00:15:19.059 --> 00:15:22.299 provided for the poor without massive state force. 00:15:22.639 --> 00:15:25.700 The most successful models in our source material, 00:15:26.080 --> 00:15:29.779 Singapore, Hong Kong, Vienna, are the ones where 00:15:29.779 --> 00:15:32.519 the state acts as the primary developer, not 00:15:32.519 --> 00:15:35.899 just a regulator or dispenser of coupons. Yes, 00:15:36.080 --> 00:15:39.419 location matters. The Brazil example proves that 00:15:39.419 --> 00:15:42.620 bad planning is bad planning. But that is a failure 00:15:42.620 --> 00:15:45.659 of execution, not the model. When you hand housing 00:15:45.659 --> 00:15:47.460 over to the market, you get what we see in the 00:15:47.460 --> 00:15:51.000 UK now. A shortage, high rents, and a safety 00:15:51.000 --> 00:15:54.240 net that is full of holes. And yet, even in the 00:15:54.240 --> 00:15:57.600 Netherlands, with its 34 % social housing, or 00:15:57.600 --> 00:16:00.000 South Africa with its constitutional rights, 00:16:00.220 --> 00:16:03.539 we see backlogs, waiting lists, and financial 00:16:03.539 --> 00:16:06.200 strain. Which brings us to a point of convergence. 00:16:06.809 --> 00:16:08.750 Whether you prefer the bricks -and -mortar approach 00:16:08.750 --> 00:16:11.470 or the voucher approach, the current global investment 00:16:11.470 --> 00:16:16.250 is insufficient. That is undeniably true. The 00:16:16.250 --> 00:16:21.389 European gap of 150 billion euros, the 3 .7 million 00:16:21.389 --> 00:16:25.269 unit backlog in South Africa, the demand is outstripping 00:16:25.269 --> 00:16:28.190 the supply regardless of the ideology. Exactly. 00:16:28.389 --> 00:16:31.330 The UN and South African standards define adequate 00:16:31.330 --> 00:16:34.049 housing as having services, security, and dignity. 00:16:34.379 --> 00:16:36.480 Right now, most nations are struggling to meet 00:16:36.480 --> 00:16:38.559 that, whether they are capitalist, socialist, 00:16:38.759 --> 00:16:41.179 or somewhere in between. So we invite you, the 00:16:41.179 --> 00:16:43.960 listener, to look at your own city. When you 00:16:43.960 --> 00:16:46.440 look at the skyline, do you see a safety net 00:16:46.440 --> 00:16:49.259 or do you see a market that has left people behind? 00:16:49.539 --> 00:16:51.600 And do you see a government brave enough to build 00:16:51.600 --> 00:16:54.220 the foundation for a community or just one that 00:16:54.220 --> 00:16:56.600 patches the cracks? Thanks for listening to The 00:16:56.600 --> 00:16:56.940 Debate.