The document summarizes social housing in Taiwan, including its history, current policies and challenges. It notes that Taiwan has traditionally focused on home ownership, leading to high housing prices, a weak rental market and very little social housing (0.1% of stock). The government's new goal is to build 200,000 social housing units in 8 years through both public and private development. However, there are concerns about the targets, financing, development process and connecting social housing to urban regeneration. The document advocates learning from other countries' non-profit housing models and ensuring social housing meets the needs of the vulnerable while remaining affordable and socially mixed.

1. Social Housing in Taiwan:
Background, Analysis and Issues
Peng Yang-Kae,
General Secretary, The Organization of Urban Re-s;
Chairman, Social Housing Advocacy Consortium
Allen Chan,
Research Fellow, The Organization of Urban Re-s
2017.06.20 Amsterdam(ISHF)

2. About us
2

3. Who are we
1989 Snails Without Shell Housing Movement
Tsuei Ma Ma Foundation(TMM)
Housing Service
Rental housing service
Moving company evaluation
The Organization Of Urban Re-s
Urban and Housing Issue
Policy advocacy and supervision
Participatory design practices
2010 Social Housing Advocacy Consortium
Initiated by OURs & TMM &
Social Welfare Groups
2014 Housing Movement 2.0
Originating and Connecting with
more NGOs
3

4. 4
2010
Opened up
social housing
2012
Enacted Housing Act
2014
Housing Movement2.0
(Local Mayors promised
87,000 units total)
2016
The President promised
(200,000 units in eight year)
From “Why(necessity)” to
“How(practice)”

5. Housing
Background in
Taiwan
5

6. Taiwan Netherlands
Land area (km2) 36,193 33,883
Population (2016) 23,547,448 17,035,727
Housing stock (2016) 8,601,774 7,675,346
Social housing Stock 8,921 2,555,000
Proportion of social housing 0.1% 34.1%
House price to income ratio 9.35 6.91
Homeownership rate 84.23% 67.80%
Vacancy rate 10.35% 4.2%

7. Brief History of Housing Policy
(From WW2-2010)
1. Home purchased oriented policy
(low interest loan for long period)
2. Private developers are major
housing providers
3. Very few national housing(owner-
occupied)(2%)
4. Poor rental housing market (20~30%
and no regulation)
7

8. Consequences(Prisoner's Dilemma)
1. Real estate is taken as
locomotive of economy (housing
price rise →economic growth)
2. “De-publicization” of housing
→(personal responsibility
instead of public agenda)
3. Housing right is based on
ownership (no property right →
no housing right)
8

9. Distorted Structure:
Over-loaded on Purchase Market
Weak housing
safety network
for the
disadvantaged
Purchase market
70~80%
Rental market
20~30%
Almost none
Unregulated
and unhealthy
market
Not a proper
and dignified
housing choice
High price
Speculative and
unaffordable
(Price to income ratio:
Taipei 15.6; Taiwan 9.4)
Social housing
~0.1% 9

10. Never too
late to start
Social housing(SH) is the key to challenge the ownership
society.
It is not commodity, not about property!
But home!
10

11. Policy profile: 200,000
units in 8 years(2016-2024)
1. Goal
• In the baby stage, the
government will complete
200,000 units in 8 years,
which is about 2.5% of total
housing stock
2. Approaches
• 120,000 units: built by
government on public lands
• 80,000 units: contract with
market rental housing with
subsidies
11
2021-2024
[Long term]
2017-2020
[Mid term]
2016
[Warm up]
7,295戶
80,000戶
200,000戶

12. Feature 1: public sector provides
1. Context
– Without third-sector tradition
– Urgent needs and limited time
– Asian model? (Japan’s UR, Korea’s LH & SH, Hong Kong’s Housing
Authority, Singapore’s HDB)
2. Current approaches:
– Built directly by public sector
– Establishing specialized agencies (on going)
3. Our concern:
– Empowering non-profit organizations like HAs in the Netherland
12

13. Feature 2: Financing
1. Context
– Poor finance status: total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is only 12%
( Netherland 39.8%; Korea 26.8%)
– Concern self-liquidating (finance balance)
2. Current approaches:
– Income (rental fee)=cost(construction and management, but free land)
– Low interest loan for long term (50 years, at lease 80%, less than 1%)
3. Our concern:
– Unaffordable for the vulnerable
– Uncertainly long term management cost (without experience)
13

14. Feature 3-1: Target
1. Context
– Stigmatization (NIMBY) and doubts on management
– Focus on the youth (political preference)
– Just temporary (people hope to buy a house in the long run)
2. Current approaches:
– Meddle income (50 percentile). In Taipei City, the median
income is about €43,235.
– 30 % (the vulnerable) + 70 %( the general)
– Rent: market price discount (15-20%)
– Lease term: general applicants: 6 years Vulnerable: 12 years
14

15. Feature 3-2: Target
15
Room type 1-room 2-room 3-room
Proportion 60% 30% 10%
Averaged indoor
area(square meter)
26-39 52-59 72-79
Rent (euro) 252-300 379-394 473
3. Our concern:
• The priority (limited stock, reflection from Asia
to build for the vulnerable at beginning)
• How to make it affordable for everyone?
One of case completed in 2016 (Xinlong social housing)

16. Feature 4: plan and build
1. Context
– Political agenda (to achieve the goal in President’s or Mayors’
terms)
2. Current approaches(Taipei)
– High density (FAR400 %, 12-14 floors, Taipei)
– One year for design, two years for construction
– Turnkey or design+construction supervision
3. Our concern:
– Without proper program(limited time for planning and design )
– Diversified models(units, target)
– Lack of connection to urban rehabilitation
16

17. 台北市兩萬戶圖
17

18. 18
Boachin social housing in Taipei. 407units.

19. 明倫 安康 寶清
19
Minglun
Xin-long social housing in Taipei. FAR 585%, 521 units.

20. 20
Minglun social housing in Taipei. FAR350% 380 units.

21. Discussion
Challenges to social housing in an
owner-occupied society
1. Necessity of social housing
2. Inefficiency of the government
3. NIMBY
21

22. 抗議照
22

23. What we want to learn more
• The practice about non-profit housing
association
• Who should be the priority?(limited supply but
urgent demand)
• Affordability: how to decide affordable rent.
• Social mix: how to connect to urban regeneration
• Social program: tenant participation, public art,
youth hub……
23