Jonathan Martins, Debbie Spillane
December 8, 2025
Understanding housing as essential infrastructure
One of the most compelling themes within the recent report, The Copenhagen Way, focused on housing as essential infrastructure. We caught up with Jonathan Martins, Ramboll Management Consulting’s Global Industry Lead for Building & Cities, to learn how housing can be reimagined as a cornerstone of Europe’s resilient future.
A house is much more than an asset. It is a home, where daily life unfolds, identity is shaped, and social stability begins. This idea sits at the heart of The Copenhagen Way Forward, a central chapter of the recent report The Copenhagen Way, which sets out a blueprint for how European cities can strengthen resilience, liveability and long-term value creation. One of its most compelling themes is the recognition of housing as essential infrastructure. the emotional foundation of people’s lives and, for many, the single largest investment they will ever make. To explore this theme further, we spoke with Jonathan Martins, Ramboll Management Consulting’s Global Industry Lead for Building & Cities, who was part of the team that shaped the insights on which The Copenhagen Way was built.
Dive into the conversation below as we unpack why housing now, more than ever, sits at the heart of urban resilience, what is driving the affordability crisis, and why co-responsibility across public, private, and civic sectors is key to building thriving communities.
1. The Copenhagen Way suggests that housing should be treated as essential infrastructure. What does that shift in mindset change for European cities?
I think describing housing as essential infrastructure is very accurate. It reflects how people already perceive it and how most authorities approach it. In some countries, it is already recognised in legislation as a basic human right. That is why so many public policies focus on access to safe, adequate, and quality housing and why historically so much public intervention has been delivered to work on this matter.
For cities and communities to thrive, they need housing. It is essential for people to live, work, contribute, and make a place successful. And we can clearly see what happens when cities fail to provide enough housing, of the right type and in the right places. At some point, growth simply stalls. London is a good example. Economically, it is a successful city, but it is increasingly unable to supply housing for the people who keep the city running. This year, the Centre for London analysis found that the need for homes, and the cost of building them, is greater in London than anywhere else in the country, with the city needing to build 88,000 homes a year at an annual cost of £2.2b[1].
An event like the COVID-19 crisis made this more visible. It acted like a stress test to see how cities cope when pushed to their limits. Suddenly, everyone was at home, yet the cities still needed teachers, nurses, police officers, supermarket staff, and bin collectors to function. We were suddenly all very aware of the essential workers who ensure basic services continue. In Paris, for example, there were discussions about how to house these key workers, such as teachers, offering priority access to more affordable housing in response to what COVID uncovered about their importance[2].
Essentially, COVID revealed something cities often overlook. Without enough good, affordable housing, even their most essential functions begin to break down. Housing is fundamental, and a foundation for both economic success, social wellbeing, and eventually, societal resilience.
2. Many of the solutions depend on “co-responsibility” across public, private, and civic sectors. From your perspective, what does effective co-responsibility look like in practice?
When we talk about co-responsibility between the public, private, and civic sectors, the real question is what kinds of interventions are needed to increase supply or stabilise prices. In many cases, this comes down to two main approaches (amongst a wide variety of interventions and mechanisms): on the one hand, increasing supply by leveraging initiatives from various parties, be they public or private; on the other hand, regulating it through policies and public interventions such as rent controls. Both rely heavily on public involvement, but the “right” approach varies widely across countries and comes down to find the right policy mix to address the specificities of the local context. We can see how legislation plays a pivotal role. Rent control, for example, was only recently permitted in some countries, meaning cities are still experimenting with how to implement it. And the reality is that, at the end of the day, public investment in housing supply is unavoidable.
Another key consideration is also the composition of national housing stocks. In countries like Denmark, Norway, or the UK, detached and semi-detached homes dominate. In Germany, Austria, Spain, or Italy, apartments are far more common, requiring different regulatory tools and financial models. This is why Copenhagen’s approach will never be the same as Madrid’s or Florence’s, as the local context shapes what is possible and what will eventually work.
In the UK, after Thatcher’s Right to Buy era, public construction of social housing dropped progressively to almost zero, leaving delivery almost entirely to private developers and fuelling today’s affordability crisis[3].
There are inspiring models, even if they cannot be transferred completely from one country to another. Vienna is often cited as one of the world’s most affordable cities, thanks to decades of publicly owned and managed housing. But replicating Vienna is unrealistic in countries with very different histories, governance structures and land systems.
As an urban planner, I also see a wider spatial issue. Over recent decades, capital, talent and public institutions have concentrated in major cities, while vast areas of Europe experience depopulation. Some regions in Spain and Italy now offer one-euro homes simply to attract residents. This raises a deeper question about whether continued urban concentration is desirable or sustainable.
Ultimately, if housing is left entirely to the private market, outcomes are suboptimal. If it is left solely to the public sector, the result is also suboptimal. The solution lies in shared responsibility. The balance between public, private and civic roles will vary from Stockholm to Madrid to Athens, but without collaboration, cities cannot deliver the homes that people and economies need.
“In some countries, housing is already recognised in legislation as a basic human right. That is why so many public policies focus on access to safe, adequate, and quality housing and why historically so much public intervention has been delivered to work on this matter.”
3. Affordability is expanding beyond low-income groups to include the middle tier. How can cities redesign their housing systems to reflect this broader need without creating new inequalities?
Affordability is no longer an issue only for low-income groups. It is increasingly affecting middle-income households as well, with young people and families being most affected by the affordability crisis.
So, let’s start by thinking about young people. Students and young professionals are being priced out of many cities. Copenhagen is a good example, where even finding an affordable room in a shared flat has become extremely difficult. Yet young people play a vital role in the life of cities. They, among others of course, bring creativity, energy, and cultural dynamism, which are many of the qualities that make cities vibrant and attractive.
At the other end of the spectrum are families. The moment you move from needing a one-bedroom flat to two or three bedrooms, the affordability barrier becomes almost insurmountable for many. Many families simply cannot afford to stay in the communities where they work and live, unless they move far out into the suburbs.
From a wider European perspective, the scale of the issue is becoming impossible to ignore. I was looking at the latest Eurocities Monitor from 2025, and one figure really stood out: 39% of mayors report that housing costs are unaffordable in their city. And this is not limited to capital cities, as mid-sized and smaller cities report the same trend. Only 14% of mayors said affordability was not an issue, which means 86% view it as a serious current or emerging challenge.
It is clear that affordability affects many European cities, and that governments need to fundamentally address it. For the first time, the EU has appointed a Commissioner for Housing, Dan Jørgensen, which signals a shift. Europe is acknowledging that this is not a challenge Member States can tackle alone. It requires coordinated, long-term political commitment at every level.
4. Financing is often seen as the main barrier. What new investment models or financial tools do you think will be most transformative for scaling affordable, low-carbon housing?
Financing is a major challenge, especially at a time when many public organisations across Europe are operating with very tight budgets.
One positive and interesting development is that private investors, especially institutional investors, are increasingly viewing affordable housing as an asset class that can deliver stable, long-term returns. This marks a shift in tone. Traditionally, social housing has belonged firmly in the public sector with very different timelines, expectations, and investment logics. The fact that private and public interests are beginning to converge is significant and potentially promising, although we still need to see how much this can realistically contribute to addressing the housing shortage.
Public financial tools remain essential, particularly at national and local levels. However, the European level can play its parts too: the European Investment Bank, for example, can offer loans at below-market rates, including green or social impact loans, which can support both building projects and wider neighbourhood regeneration. But financial rules vary significantly across Europe. Some local authorities cannot run a budget deficit, which limits their ability to borrow or invest in new supply creation. Other countries have more flexibility, meaning no single financing model can work everywhere.
The private sector is also experimenting with new approaches. A few years ago, a Blackstone-owned[4] platform issued a social bond to fund affordable housing, showing that ESG-aligned investment is becoming mainstream. Models such as shared ownership or separating land from property ownership also help reduce upfront costs and broaden access. These can be combined with public interventions, for example through joint ventures where municipalities and private developers share risk and co-invest in infrastructure and new homes.
So, a wide range of financial mechanisms already exists. The challenge lies in how to combine them effectively and tailor them to local conditions, as I mentioned before.
5. The Copenhagen Way suggests housing associations are an untapped driver of climate adaptation. What role could they play in future-proofing cities?
I don’t think we should view climate adaptation as something that only concerns housing associations. Whether we are developing new homes or working with existing building stock, climate adaptation is essential. The risks are simply too significant to ignore, and the impacts on residents are already being felt.
Recent heatwaves across Europe have made this very clear. Many people live in energy-inefficient homes that are freezing in winter and unbearably hot in summer. From a thermal/indoor comfort perspective, these buildings were never designed for the climate conditions we now face, and the consequences for public health and wellbeing are profound.
For social housing providers, climate adaptation is also about protecting asset value. If homes are not upgraded now, they risk needing more costly interventions in a decade’s time when heat, cold or moisture damage become more expensive to fix. Future-proofing is fundamental to responsible asset management. This applies equally to private and public housing. Every part of the sector needs to adapt, because we are collectively building and renovating the homes that people will live in for the next 50 to 100 years.
Adaptation also requires public understanding and acceptance. Residents need to know why interventions are happening, why the way things used to be is no longer viable, and how climate pressures are changing the conditions in which homes and neighbourhoods must function. Transparent dialogue and community engagement is essential, especially in social housing where tenants do not have ownership control.
Of course, climate change mitigation remains vital, but we also have to recognise that climate impacts are already here. They will affect buildings, infrastructure, and daily life. For me, planning for that future is a public duty.
For a deeper understanding of housing as essential infrastructure, download the housing chapter of The Copenhagen Way Forward.
Want to know more?
Jonathan Martins
Senior Manager, Global Industry Lead Buildings & Cities
+45 51 61 00 82
Debbie Spillane
Global MarComm Lead
+45 53 67 10 43
Thomas Funch Peckham
Thought leadership & campaign manager
+45 51 61 01 08