From the very first negotiations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights half a century ago to the present day, socio-economic rights have often been regarded as less enforceable than civil and political rights. The right to adequate housing, even though protecting one of the most basic needs of human beings, has not escaped this classification. Despite its strong foundations in international, regional and domestic legislation, many people are still deprived of one or more of the different key elements that comprise adequate housing. How, then, can international human rights theory and case law be developed into effective vehicles at the domestic level? Rather than focusing merely on possibilities for individualized relief through the court system, The Right to Housing in Law and Society looks into more effective socio-economic rights realization by addressing both conceptual and practical stumbling blocks that hinder a more structural progress at the national level. The Flemish and Belgian housing legislation and policy are used to highlight the problems and illustrate the pathways here presented. While first and foremost legal in its approach, the book also offers a more sociological perspective on the functioning of the right to housing in practice. It shows the latest state of knowledge on the topic and will be of interest to researchers, academics, policymakers and students in the fields of international socio-economic rights law and human rights law more generally.

In every major city in the world there is a housing crisis. How did this happen and what can we do about it? Everyone needs and deserves housing. But today our homes are being transformed into commodities, making the inequalities of the city ever more acute. Profit has become more important than social need. The poor are forced to pay more for worse housing. Communities are faced with the violence of displacement and gentrification. And the benefits of decent housing are only available for those who can afford it. In Defense of Housing is the definitive statement on this crisis from leading urban planner Peter Marcuse and sociologist David Madden. They look at the causes and consequences of the housing problem and detail the need for progressive alternatives. The housing crisis cannot be solved by minor policy shifts, they argue. Rather, the housing crisis has deep political and economic roots—and therefore requires a radical response.

An examination of America's housing crisis by the leading progressive housing activists in the country.

In postwar America, not everyone wanted to move out of the city and into the suburbs. For decades before World War II, New York's tenants had organized to secure renters' rights. After the war, tenant activists raised the stakes by challenging the newly-dominant ideal of homeownership in racially segregated suburbs. They insisted that renters as well as owners had rights to stable, well-maintained homes, and they proposed that racially diverse urban communities held a right to remain in place--a right that outweighed owners' rights to raise rents, redevelop properties, or exclude tenants of color. Further, the activists asserted that women could participate fully in the political arenas where these matters were decided. Grounded in archival research and oral history, When Tenants Claimed the City: The Struggle for Citizenship in New York City Housing shows that New York City's tenant movement made a significant claim to citizenship rights that came to accrue, both ideologically and legally, to homeownership in postwar America. Roberta Gold emphasizes the centrality of housing to the racial and class reorganization of the city after the war; the prominent role of women within the tenant movement; and their fostering of a concept of "community rights" grounded in their experience of living together in heterogeneous urban neighborhoods.

Housing is an essential, but complex, product, so complex that professionals involved in its production, namely, architects, real estate developers and urban planners, have difficulty agreeing on “good” housing outcomes. Less-than-optimal solutions that have resulted from a too narrow focus on one discipline over others are familiar: high design that is costly to build that makes little contribution to the public realm, highly profitable but seemingly identical “cookie-cutter” dwellings with no sense of place and well-planned neighborhoods full of generically designed, unmarketable product types. Differing roles, languages and criteria for success shape these perspectives, which, in turn, influence attitudes about housing regulation. Real estate developers, for example, prefer projects that can be built “as-of-right” or “by-right,” meaning that they can be approved quickly because they meet all current planning, zoning and building code requirements. Design-focused projects, heretofore “by-design,” by contrast, often require time to challenge existing regulatory codes, pursuing discretionary modifications meant to maximize design innovation and development potential. Meanwhile, urban planners work to establish and mediate the threshold between by-right and by-design processes by setting housing standards and determining appropriate housing policy. But just what is the right line between “by-right” and “by-design”? By-Right, By-Design provides a historical perspective, conceptual frameworks and practical strategies that cross and connect the diverse professions involved in housing production. The heart of the book is a set of six cross-disciplinary comparative case studies, each examining a significant Los Angeles housing design precedent approved by-variance and its associated development type approved as of right. Each comparison tells a different story about the often-hidden relationships among the three primary disciplines shaping the built environment, some of which uphold, and others of which transgress, conventional disciplinary stereotypes.