What do we really mean by a housing crisis?

This is the question raised by researchers Ståle Holgersen and Timothy Blackwell in a new article titled Housing Crisis or Immiseration? Revisiting the Housing Question under Urban Capitalism. This article steps back from the routine invocation of “crisis” in housing debates, calling for a clearer distinction between genuine crises and the long-term structural conditions that often (but not always) underlie them.

– We argue that the concept of a housing crisis has lost its analytical sharpness. Today it is used to describe everything from rising homelessness to overcrowding, inequality, high rents, and social segregation—problems that are certainly serious, but in many cases long-standing and deeply embedded in how housing systems operate in most capitalist societies, says Timothy Blackwell, political scientist at IBF.

If a crisis is to mean an acute, system-threatening condition with clear turning points, the authors argue, then we cannot use the word to describe a situation that has, in practice, become almost permanent. Doing so risks obscuring rather than highlighting the power relations and structures behind contemporary housing problems.

The article also warns that crisis narratives can be politically exploited—and not only by actors seeking progressive social change. For instance, when business organizations in Sweden describe a slowdown in construction as a “housing crisis,” it is often to justify calls for deregulation and increased market adaptation, such as proposals to abolish rent control.

This illustrates how the concept of crisis does not merely serve as an analytical category, but also functions as a political tool with ideologically ambiguous applications. The crisis concept is thus not a neutral description of a condition, but a normatively charged construction that may conceal the interests and power relations shaping the direction of housing policy.

– Instead of reflexively talking about a housing crisis, researchers should address what the specific problems they identify actually entail. Issues like overcrowding, homelessness, and housing shortages are not necessarily symptoms of a crisis—they are often a direct result of how today’s housing systems are designed. Calling it a crisis gives the impression that something has gone wrong, when it may actually be functioning exactly as intended—for certain groups. That doesn't mean the problems aren’t serious, but if we understand them as structural rather than temporary crises, it becomes clearer what kinds of long-term changes are needed to address them, says Timothy Blackwell.

The researchers therefore propose a clearer conceptual distinction between actual crises in housing systems—such as economic collapses, institutional breakdowns, or sudden political upheavals—and what they call housing immiseration: a worsening of housing conditions for those without access to ownership or capital. The latter is not a crisis in the strict sense, but a systematic, normalized process of deterioration for large groups of people—one that demands a different type of analysis and political response.