Speaker
Description
This paper examines how prefabricated housing units with temporary planning permits are reshaping property relations in urban development. While residential property development has traditionally been characterized by permanent structures and fixed property rights, the emergence of prefabricated housing units operating under temporary permits creates new models of ownership, access, and control. The paper has analyzed ‘flexwonen’, a Dutch national policy that facilitates the rapid deployment of prefabricated housing units through temporary planning permits, typically lasting 10-15 years (Groot & Ronald 2024). These units can be assembled, disassembled, and relocated, challenging traditional notions of real estate as permanently fixed assets. The state enables this through public funding, streamlined planning procedures, and deregulated property arrangements that allow municipalities to bypass standard building regulations.
The article advances three theoretical arguments with broader implications for urban governance and property theory: first, that prefabricated housing with temporary permits represents a fundamental shift in how property relations are articulated in residential development; second, that this shift is enabled through new forms of networked governance and discretionary decision-making that circumvent traditional planning instruments; and third, that the integration of new technologies in these arrangements is creating new property regimes which exploit principles of circularity and temporary occupation while mediating new dynamics of value extraction.
The project is based on a combination of (1) semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including property developers, investors, local governments, financiers, and real estate consultants in the Netherlands; (2) content analysis of policy documents, industry reports, and planning guidelines; and (3) spatial analysis. The findings reveal how prefabricated housing developments under temporary permits are negotiated through governance networks where spatial norms are selectively enforced through discretionary decision-making. This research contributes to broader debates about the digital transformation of property (Faxon et al. 2024) and temporary housing (Debrunner & Gerber 2021). We conclude by considering the implications of these shifts for planning theory and practice, arguing that emerging property regimes require us to rethink assumptions about permanence, ownership, and control in urban development.
References
Debrunner, G., & Gerber, J. D. (2021). The commodification of temporary housing. Cities, 108, 102998.
Faxon, H. O., Fields, D., & Wainwright, T. (2024). Beyond the hype: Digital transformations in global land, housing, and property. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 42(4), 445-455.
Groot, J., & Ronald, R. (2024). Integrating refugees through ‘flexible housing’policy in The Netherlands. International Journal of Housing Policy, 1-25.
| Keywords | residential property development; temporary urbanism; property; housing |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
