Bringing Structural Thinking into the EU Debate on Liveable Cities

Policy Lab Director and European Economic and Social Committee member Ajda K. Pistotnik tabled eight amendments to the EESC opinion on the EU Policy Agenda for Liveable Cities. All eight amendments were accepted.

The amendments strengthen the opinion by introducing a more structural understanding of the pressures shaping European cities. Rather than treating housing shortages, overtourism, climate vulnerability and declining affordability as separate problems, they draw attention to the economic and political dynamics connecting them.

This represents a small but important step towards bringing perspectives from urban political economy, political ecology, housing commons and post-growth thinking more systematically into EU urban policy debates.

Housing is a structural issue

One of the central contributions was to strengthen the opinion’s treatment of housing.

Housing cannot be understood only as a market in which insufficient supply temporarily produces higher prices. Access to housing is shaped by decisions about land ownership, investment, taxation, planning, public provision and regulation.

The amendments therefore call greater attention to the financialisation of housing and urban land. Across Europe, homes and land are increasingly treated as investment assets rather than primarily as places in which people live and communities develop.

Speculation, institutional investment and the conversion of housing into short-term tourist accommodation can increase prices, reduce the availability of long-term rental homes and contribute to the displacement of existing residents.

Recognising these dynamics is essential. Without identifying the structural causes of housing insecurity, policies risk responding only to its symptoms.

Regulating short-term rentals and overtourism

The amendments also reinforce the need to address the effects of short-term rentals and overtourism.

Overtourism is not simply a question of crowded public spaces or pressure on infrastructure. It can transform housing markets, local economies and everyday life. In heavily visited cities and neighbourhoods, homes may be withdrawn from the residential market, essential services may be replaced by tourism-oriented businesses, and residents may find it increasingly difficult to remain in their communities.

These developments require effective public regulation rather than relying only on voluntary measures or awareness-raising.

Cities must have the legal and administrative capacity to regulate short-term rentals, protect residential housing and balance tourism with the needs of local communities.

Cities are more than engines of economic growth

The amendments also challenge the persistent framing of cities primarily as engines of economic growth and competitiveness.

Cities are places where people live, work, care for others, participate in democratic life and build social relationships. Their success should therefore not be measured only through investment, economic expansion or property development.

A genuinely liveable city should provide accessible housing, reliable public services, green and public spaces, sustainable mobility and opportunities for meaningful participation. It should enable a good quality of life without requiring the continuous expansion of material and energy consumption.

This means shifting the emphasis from growth towards sufficiency, redistribution, care and living well within ecological limits.

Climate action must also address inequality

European cities are increasingly exposed to heatwaves, flooding, air pollution and other consequences of the climate crisis. However, these risks are not distributed equally.

People living in poorly insulated housing, neighbourhoods with limited green space or areas particularly exposed to heat and pollution often face much greater risks. Lower-income households may also have fewer resources to adapt, relocate or invest in energy-efficient housing.

Cities are therefore not only spaces of climate action. They are also spaces of climate inequality.

Urban climate policy must recognise who is most exposed, who benefits from public investment and who bears the costs of transition. Adaptation strategies that do not address inequality risk reinforcing the very vulnerabilities they are intended to reduce.

From isolated measures to continuous political dialogue

The amendments also emphasise the need for continuous political dialogue on housing, affordability and liveability.

Housing insecurity and urban inequality cannot be resolved through isolated initiatives or one-off consultations. They require coordinated action across different levels of government and sustained cooperation with residents, civil society organisations, tenant groups, researchers and other urban actors.

Urban policy must also give greater attention to the ownership and governance of land. Decisions concerning land use and development determine what can be built, for whom and under what conditions. Public authorities therefore need effective instruments to protect land and housing from speculation and to support public, cooperative and community-led alternatives.

Why framing matters

None of the accepted amendments is radical in isolation. They address problems that are already visible in cities across Europe and increasingly difficult to ignore.

Their significance lies in the way they frame these challenges.

When housing unaffordability is understood only as a shortage of supply, the proposed solution is usually more construction. When it is also understood as a consequence of financialisation, speculation and unequal ownership, a wider range of solutions becomes possible—including regulation, public housing, community ownership, decommodification and stronger tenant protection.

Similarly, when cities are viewed mainly as engines of growth, liveability becomes subordinate to competitiveness. When they are understood as places for social and ecological transformation, questions of care, equality, democratic participation and ecological limits move to the centre of urban policy.

Bringing these perspectives into an official EESC opinion may appear to be a modest achievement. Yet it matters because the way institutions define problems shapes the solutions they are prepared to consider.

The acceptance of all eight amendments is therefore an encouraging step towards a more realistic and socially grounded European urban policy—one that addresses not only how cities can grow, but how everyone can live well within them.