Community led affordable housing in Brussels

a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention

1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]

Community Land Trust Brussels operates within municipalities of the Brussels Capital Region, Belgium’s capital city (at the neighbourhood scale, especially the Anderlecht, Molenbeek and Schaarbeek municipalities, with completed/planned housing projects all over the Brussels Capital area).

CLTB is social real estate developer that builds up affordable housing projects in Brussels for people with limited means, on collectively-owned lands. It purchases land and engages with future residents and community partners to co-create affordable housing (CLTB website_ what do we do).

2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]

Housing

3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]

Provide decent housing (good quality, sustainable, secure, affordable) to Brussels residents; increase community cohesion; empower residents via more control over shaping their communities (CLTB website_vision and mission).

4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?

In 2008, associations for affordable and sustainable public housing in Brussels learned about the Community Land Trust model at a convention. They visited an example in the US in 2009. In 2010, a group of 15 associations created and signed a charter for the establishment of a CLT in Brussels. After a feasibility study supported by the Brussels regional government between 2011-2012, it was formally supported by the Housing Minister and given a grant to begin operations, which happened that fall. The CLT’s first and only building so far (Quai de Mariemont in Molenbeek) was completed in September 2015. Currently, three developments are in construction and five more are planned. (CLTB website_our history).

5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see distinction of three governance modes in Appendix 2)

Hybrid governance mode - the idea and motivation came from non-government actors, but it was made a reality via municipal governmental support and institutionalization (inclusion of the CLT model in the housing bill of the Brussels Capital Region and making the CLT an operator of the Housing Alliance investment program for new affordable housing) (CLTB website_our history). The CLT and its associated foundation have both residents, civil society, and public officials on their boards (CLTB website_ our governance).

6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?

It fills all of the criteria for desirable WP5 interventions. It is an interesting example of hybrid governance, where non-government actors sought to serve a need for communities and local governments empowered/adopted their initiative. It is also one of the first CLT models implemented in Europe. One reservation about this intervention is that it is explicitly focused on justice, but environmental sustainability is not as important (although still present).

7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?

CLTB website and project materials from the Interreg program’s Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities project. Most information is from the CLTB website (CLTB website) and several SHICC case study documents (Interreg_01; Interreg_02) and CLTB annual reports ( Interreg_04 and Interreg_05). Additional information was provided by CLTB co-founder and current coordinator, Geert De Pauw, during a personal interview.

b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work

8. EU Project-context of the intervention:

• a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).

CLTB was studied in the EU’s Interreg project, Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities (Sept 2017-Sept 2020), which supports and studies four CLT’s in Europe (Brussels, Ghent, Lille and London). SHICC aims to “‘prove the concept’, create a supportive local, regional and national policy, funding and regulatory environment for CLTs and build a movement across the region” (SHICC Project_home).

• b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.

“Governance and participation processes”, “Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups”, “Right to housing”.

• c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?

Drivers of injustice	Based on WP4 coding		Based on own assessment
	Yes	No	Yes	No
1. Uneven and excluding development of existing urban space		x	x
2. Material and livelihood inequalities		x	x
3. Unaddressed consequences of urban intensification		x
4. Racialized or Ethnically Exclusionary Urbanization		x
5. Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities		x
6. Unquestioned neoclassical economics and neoliberal growth/austerity		x	x
7. Exclusive Access to the Benefits of Urban Sustainability Infrastructure		x
8. Uneven env. health and pollution patterns		x
9. No or tokenistic participation in/engagement with urban governance		x	x
10. Institutional dysfunction (scale, discipline and sectoral)		x
11. Weak(ened) civil society		x

No.

9. Problematization and priority:

• a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?

Intervention proponents have been vocal about the lack of affordable decent housing for low-income people in Brussels, particularly due to a small number of public social housing units and rapidly increasing housing prices between 2000 and 2010 (CLTB website_our history). This problematization comes from the low-income groups themselves, since they are engaged with the various associations and CLTB to express their needs (De Pauw).

• b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?

Yes. Justice is central to their vision and mission in that the intervention provides decent housing and empowerment to marginalised, low-income groups to co-create their communities (see Q3).

• c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see descriptions of Drivers in Appendix 1)

add the table

c) Actor constellations

10. Who initiated the intervention?

Activists from various housing and neighbourhood associations in the Brussels Capital area (Buurthuis Bonnevie, a community center and CIRE solidarity savings group, were listed in particular) initiated it. After this initial interest was sparked, a smaller group of actors (unnamed representatives of this group of associations) were involved in CLT-specific learning/research, and then 15 associations signed onto the charter for the establishment of a Community Land Trust in Brussels in 2010. Afterwards the local government became more involved and the intervention took off. (CLTB website_ our history)

11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)

Low-income residents of Brussels, community members that projects are implemented in, housing-insecure individuals in other cities (if CLTB is able to prove the concept and inspire more CLTs).

12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?

Actor types	Yes	Actor name and role
Academic organizations
Religious organizations
Civil society organizations	x	Wide variety of member associations, work together with residents and CLTB to develop projects (CLTB website_partners)
Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
Platforms
NGOs	x	The Community Land Trust Brussels, manages and leads the intervention (CLTB website_our governance) Wide variety of member associations, work together with residents and CLTB to develop projects
Social movements
Political parties
Media
Unions
Social entreprises	x	Housing fund Brussels (cooperative society), provides mortgages to the prospective buyers (CLTB website_partners)
For profit entreprises	x	Various private firms (i.e. Architects, contractors, etc.), provide their services, expertise or financial support, or act as a member of the CTLB general assembly (CLTB website)
Local/regional government	x	The Housing Minister of the Brussels Capital Regional Government, provides 2m eu/year in funding (CLTB website_support) Public service members sit on board of CLT (CLTB website_our governance)

13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.

Firstly, the ability of many (15) community associations to self-organize and present a united appeal for the establishment of the CLTB was very important. Secondly, the productive and early engagement of the housing associations with the local government of Brussels was crucial. It resulted in formal approval and funding by the Brussels government to launch the intervention. Thirdly, early involvement (via workshops, meetings, etc) of the target group of people in need of housing was very important - it allowed CLTB to see that their proposal was an answer to the target group's needs, and it gave a sense of legitimacy since it facilitated this expression of need. (confirmed by De Pauw)

14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?

Citizens, as members of the various housing associations, inspired and organized the intervention. They continue to be a central actor in the co-creation of the projects and (project residents) make up one third of the CLT board members (CLTB website_ our governance). This is a highly participatory intervention. Future residents work together to guide the development of their dwellings, and current residents are responsible for their buildings’ management.

15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?

Community-based decision making in different forms. The CLTB NPO is directed by a mix of building owners, prospective buyers, the CLT members, the associations, the neighbours, and the representatives of the government. For each housing project, future residents and current have high responsibilities and their voices are central to decision making. There is also an annual general assembly where CLT members meet (active members have certain voting rights).

16. Exclusion:

• a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?

Since the intervention is so community-centred and prioritises inclusion, very few (marginalized) social groups are excluded. However, individuals must meet certain admission conditions, the same as those for normal municipal social housing admittance, to be given a CLTB residence spot (Interreg_02:2). Therefore these other groups are excluded (i.e. medium income groups, young people with unstable employment, elderly) (Interreg_02:9). Also, there is currently too long of a waiting list at the moment, so no new candidates are being registered (CLTB website_get a CLTB home).

• b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?

Admission conditions are necessary to make sure that the most vulnerable are given priority, since there is excess demand for CLTB housing. Outcomes are unclear and there are no reports of work done to cater to groups that do not meet the admission conditions. Although there are other ways to participate, such as becoming a member or volunteer with CLTB.

d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention

17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)

Brussels’ housing crisis in the early 2000s (increased rent prices, not enough social housing, policy focus on homeownership) spurred action from local associations, which then snowballed into the BLT intervention (CLTB_our history).

18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along the ‘policy typology’ of Appendix 2)

Unfavourable housing and rental policies at the regional and national level were presumably influential in the motivation to establish the CLTB, since they were/are offering inadequate support for lower income demographics. Nationally, housing policies have largely benefited homeowners over private renters and people in social housing (i.e. national housing budgets are mostly allocated to private owners, and significantly less is allocated to social housing and the rental market) (OECD paper). Social housing has been made the responsibility of Belgium’s regions since 1980, and there are regional and national plans to increase the stock, but there remains big social housing shortfalls (Social housing in europe; Facets of housing).

Some specific policies include: the Brussels Housing Code, within which the CLT was entrenched in 2013 by the Brussels Capital Region (Regulatory policy type), and the Region’s ‘Alliance Habitat’ investment plan, which gives 2million euros per year in subsidies to the CLTB. (Economic policy type) Low-carbon building standards set in 2015 by the Brussels Capital Region are influential, since they require all new construction to meet a certain passive building standard. This includes CLTB projects (Interreg_01:5).

19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?

The Belgian Federal State has three regions, one of which is the Brussels Capital Region. The regions are responsible for providing affordable housing, which has enabled and motivated the Brussels Capital Region to be highly involved and supportive of the CLT intervention (Interreg_02:1).

20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)

The hybrid intervention is possible due to positive interactions between housing associations and the Brussels Capital Region government. The associations were eager to engage with the government to quickly institutionalise the intervention, rather than attempting to grow it on their own. And the regional government (a social democracy) was responsive to their interests, by conducting a feasibility study upon their request (before further adopting it later on) (CLTB website_our history).

Compared to colleagues implementing CLTs in other places, CLTB proponents feel lucky that there is a close relationship between civil society groups and local authorities in Brussels. In Brussels there is a strong and well-organized civil society, especially in the housing sector, and there are a lot of innovative community housing association groups that receive government funding. One reason for this government-civil sector collaboration is that BCR is a small territory but has the same capacity as the other two regions in Belgium. And since housing is dependent on the City, that creates the close relationship between the civil society groups and the authorities. (De Pauw)

21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?

Financial assistance in the start up phase included: a 150,000 euro feasibility study (from the Regional government), 10,000 from the RénovAssistance Foundation and support from the King Baudouin Foundation for the first years of operation expenses, subsidized jobs funded by the Region.

Current financial arrangements include an annual 2 million euro investment subsidy from the Region which allows the CLT foundation to purchase land, and contribute towards 40% of building construction. The other 60% is derived from households’ mortgages (provided from Brussels Housing Fund). CLTB’s operational budget is mainly funded through various grants, membership fees (10euros per month), ground leases (10euros per household per month), crowd funding and donations. The financial arrangements listed above are more complex than this and are further detailed in the SHICC 2019 report (Interreg_02).

22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?

No.

Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.

e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation

23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:

• a. Regulatory framework

Since the intervention is supported through a regulatory framework, it does not pose major obstacles. One implementation barrier includes: the lack of funds provided for non-residential spaces (like gardens or community spaces) in the Regional subsidies. These components are important to the CLT’s concept of thriving communities. (Interreg_02:5).

Another implementation barrier includes the administratives delays to win public tenders, to obtain planning permissions and build new housing leading to subsequent delay in the construction phase (Interreg_04: 3; Interreg_05: 5). It means that some prospective residents have sometimes waited for years to receive housing.

• b. Legitimacy

n/a It has legitimacy by being linked with a government support and rooted in community needs.

• c. Public awareness

n/a Demand exceeds supply. This is a popular intervention.

• d. Finances

Sustainable and reliable funding for its growing operations as it produces more developments presumably poses the biggest obstacle to CLTB. It is heavily reliant on public funding, which could dry up if political priorities change (Interreg_02:9). Additionally, the current staff capacity is being stretched thinly and funding for more positions will need to be acquired in order to handle upscaled program implementation. Finally, as operations grow, the capacities of CLT’s partner associations will also be stretched, and will therefore also need increased funding (Interreg_02:9).

• e. Others (please name)

Community building - which is a major dimension of the project - for prospective residents (before moving in the neighborhood) is more difficult for large communities including people still on the waiting list (candidate resident) and people who are not yet engaged in a concrete project (Interreg_04: 4)

f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles

24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)

Name of obstacle	What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?
1. Inability to fund non-residential spaces	So far, the non-residential spaces that have been created were funded via higher lease costs to renters. But the Region may begin to support these spaces if the CLTB demonstrates that its pilot projects have sustainable business models. (Interreg_02:5,9)
2. Heavy reliance on (a single source of) public funding	Suggestions to overcome this include looking for different investment for this (from private actors or citizens), or funding campaigns (Interreg_02:9).
3. Stretched capacity of CLT staff and partner associations	CLTB is financing more full time staff positions via various charitable foundations (Interreg_02:9). No reports on how CLTB partners will increase their capacity.
4. Administrative delays to obtain planning permits and build new housing.	It was not possible to speed up the administrative procedures. However, while some prospective residents did not yet receive housing, they have actively engaged in building community in their future neighborhood (Interreg_04: 3). In that sense these delays did not discourage prospective residents nor undermine community building processes .
5. Difficulties in building community in large groups of prospective (candidate) residents.	In 2017 for the second time, CLTB has organized events allowing candidate-resident to meet and get to know each other as well as to start engaging in projects while not living yet in the neighborhood. In collaboration with other local organizations thematic workshops have been organized (i.e. energy, finances, house reparations…). In addition, in 2016, in the framework of the project “Co-create”, CLT has experimented with a new tool called ABCD (Asset Based Community Development) for community building.

g) Reported outcomes

25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.

From Interreg_02: CLT has 2 completed projects (9 units, inhabited since 2015, and 32 units inhabited since the end of 2019), 4 projects in construction, 5 projects being studied, equalling 164 units in development with eventual resale prices at 25-50% of the market price. It has 600 members (400 candidate housing owners, 170 supporting members, and 30 not for profit organizations).

Since it is more focused on social sustainability, the intervention has so far not demonstrated substantial outcomes regarding environmental sustainability. The first completed project was built according to the Brussels Capital Region’s low-carbon standards (Interreg_01:5). But this was necessary by law, and not motivated by the project itself. Several of the planned projects include “green” features like community gardens and other communal green spaces, and one in particular is planned to be built within the upcoming Tivoli Green City quarter of Brussels.