In this special issue, we aim to reconceptualise incremental housing, acknowledging its embeddedness within industries, markets, institutions and practices of city-making, based on a diversity of cases from around the world, with varying degrees of state, citizen, market and civil society involvement. In this introduction, we first shed light on the dilemmas and paradoxes involved in the complex forms and manifestations of state involvement in relation to bottom-up practices and ‘self-organizing logics’ that are often considered informal. We also discuss three key themes related to ongoing debates and agendas on incremental housing: temporality, relationality, and urban systems, suggesting the need to reimagine the role of incremental housing within broader debates on city-making. Putting temporality centre stage in the debate means paying more attention to longitudinal development; speculation and waiting time; issues of maintenance and repair; and the possibility of upward but also downward mobility. Relational, feminist and intersectional approaches to incremental housing bring important new angles of care, plurality and heterogeneity of actors and needs. Connecting such relational approaches to urban systems thinking further allows us to consider precarious (paid/unpaid) labour, income generation and power. Thinking through citywide issues of land scarcity, labour, financial markets, and building materials involves many complex networks of actors, and in particular, highly complicates the formal-informal divide. Therefore, as we suggest in this special issue introduction, taking forward debates on incremental housing must pay attention to the critical role of temporality, relationality and broader urban systems.

Governments worldwide are reconfiguring social housing as ‘affordable’ housing delivered by private landlords. The Belgian version of this ‘market social housing’ are social rental agencies (SRAs), which manage below-market rental housing on behalf of private owners. In exchange for offering reduced rents, landlords benefit from state de-risking. In Brussels, 24 SRAs manage nearly 8,000 units. Over the past decade, the private real estate sector has increasingly recognized SRA housing as a viable investment model. Developers construct Build-to-Rent projects for SRAs, agencies sell apartments managed by SRAs, and Buy-to-Let (BTL) and institutional investors let their properties through SRAs. Although the SRA model was not designed to assetise and financialise affordable housing, its current design does result in the financialisation of affordable rental housing. However, this process remains partial and limited, rendering market social housing a constrained financial asset. The state plays a multifaceted role—as regulator, market maker, mediator, and sometimes investor—highlighting its centrality in both enabling and sustaining housing financialisation. Investment returns rely heavily on public support, and in periods of economic strain, expanding subsidies becomes essential. The Brussels case thus illustrates how market-based social housing models can advance financialisation, even while relying on continuous and active state involvement.

This article investigates the relationship between construction activity, property concentration, and homeownership in Buenos Aires City and Santiago de Chile Metropolitan Area, two Latin American capitals with distinct housing finance systems and investor landscapes. Despite institutional differences, both cities exhibit parallel declines in homeownership, especially among low-income and younger households, indicating a broader trend of housing inequality linked to financialisation. By analysing the spatial distribution of construction and demographic change, the article identifies how increased investor activity reshapes housing tenure, concentrating property ownership and marginalising non-owners. In investor-driven markets, housing becomes less affordable as prices detach from household incomes, turning real estate into a wealth accumulation or preservation vehicle rather than shelter provision. The study challenges the notion that increasing housing supply inherently improves access, showing that construction instead often aligns with investor interests rather than population needs. Methodologically, the article offers a novel approach to examining property concentration in opaque markets. Ultimately, the article demonstrates that housing inequalities are increasingly shaped by the logic of asset-based social reproduction and spatial investment patterns, contributing to intergenerational inequality and precarious urban conditions. These findings are relevant for understanding housing financialisation beyond the Global North.

This paper investigates how social and affordable housing providers operationalise the right to housing. It uses the capabilities approach as a theoretical lens to understand how these providers seek to enhance tenants’ wellbeing, dignity and life opportunities. Thematic analysis of interviews with 10 managers of social and affordable housing providers illuminates their perspectives regarding the right to housing, and reveals how managers envisage success stories. Findings show that social and affordable housing providers not only ensure tenants are safely housed, but also prioritise their access to relevant supports, infrastructures and opportunities for participation in society. This research also demonstrates how these providers recognise the value of tenants having agency to make their own decisions about housing and life more broadly, including choosing to engage in activities that are meaningful to them as individuals. Thus, social and affordable housing providers are not only seeking to offer shelter or fulfil the right to housing, but also to enhance tenants’ capabilities. This paper bridges a gap in knowledge regarding what the right to housing means in theory and policy, and how it can be operationalised in practice.

In China, the unsatisfactory rural housing conditions highlights the pressing requirement for improvements in rural housing construction policies. However, there is a significant lack of research focusing on these policies, with insufficient attention given to the complexity of the policy system. This policy review employs network analysis methods to examine China’s rural housing construction policies, specifically focusing on policy agencies, objectives and instruments. The main research findings are: (1) the involvement of seventeen government organisations in policy formulation indicates an enhanced cross-functional cooperation among policy agencies, and the cooperative network shows a core-periphery structural feature; (2) the existing policies are multi-dimensional, with the main objectives changing from housing security of vulnerable groups to rural housing modernisation; (3) mandatory instruments are widely used to ensure housing security for vulnerable groups, while the policy instruments related to rural housing construction modernisation are found to be inappropriate, as they do not effectively address the emerging challenges. By offering a network perspective, this policy review explores the intricate dynamics of policy agencies, objectives and instruments, leading to a deeper understanding of the impact of policy on rural housing construction over time. This understanding facilitates informed decision-making and policy improvements in the realm of rural housing.

This critical review discusses community-based housing developments for minoritised older adults, examining literature on both top-down sheltered housing and grassroots-developed cohousing projects. It reviews and integrates perspectives from housing studies and gerontology to explore the benefits such housing arrangements provide (shelter, care and support, community) as well as their potential for including minoritised older adults. Going beyond discussions on affordability and accessibility, the paper applies an interpretive spatial justice lens to examine redistributive, recognitive, and representative justice concerning community-based housing projects. Rethinking how research has addressed matters of justice thus far, the paper concludes by laying the groundwork for a research agenda. Specifically, it argues that we a) need to view community-based housing as situated in a spatial context, b) pay attention to how older adults can participate in shaping community-based housing and its surroundings, and c) recognise older adults and their diverse identities within community-based housing.

International graduate researchers (IGRs) play an increasingly vital role in higher education, yet their experiences of housing precarity remain under-examined. This paper explores how precarious housing infrastructures shape IGR wellbeing by analysing the processes through which individuals are compelled to become infrastructure – that is, to take on the roles and responsibilities of failed or absent systems. Drawing on focus groups with 20 IGRs in Melbourne, Australia, the study documents material, relational, and financial pressures that expose IGRs to housing precarity, including unaffordability, discrimination, instability, and substandard living conditions. These conditions force IGRs to perform infrastructural functions: navigating housing systems, providing substitute care, and mitigating environmental risks, often with adverse health and wellbeing consequences. Yet, participants also revealed adaptive strategies of agency and care that countered these effects, highlighting how infrastructures can be generative of both harm and resilience. Situating housing as infrastructure not only identifies its critical functions in sustaining academic life, but also reveals the institutional politics behind its neglect. The paper argues that universities, as place-based actors, could adopt preventative, interventionist, and responsive approaches to better support housing justice.