**2.1 Commodification of housing**

Current housing policy in market economies is impacted by a charged relationship in three interrelated domains. While the structural domain is struggling with the home as a market object versus the home as an object of social inclusion and participation, the functional domain is rivaling between the home as a strategy of capital accumulation and the home as a place to perform various activities such as interacting with others, working, recreating and learning. The material domain, at last, competes with the home as a commodity on the one hand and the home as a private place of shelter and safe haven of personal identity preservation on the other. These three domains are not static, neither historically nor geographically. In fact, they depend on individual needs and socio-cultural habits. Variations in income correlate with biographical life cycles and household composition, which, in turn, often affect residential migration patterns with shifting housing expectations. In addition, an increasing number of single-person households – of younger and older persons – is to be taken into account. New forms of cohabitation, beyond the yet dominating twogenerational family, are increasing. However, anything but commonly offered since "[a]lternative forms of housing such as social co-housing, or housing associations […] are growing but still marginal compared to mainstream architecture" ([3], p. 76 f.).

Due to the prevailing belief in the neoliberal paradigm of markets, this charged relationship is significantly imbalanced toward market competition, capital accumulation and commodification. Commodification is defined as the transformation of a 'thing' – a good, a service or even the own body – into a tradable unit on markets, followed by the subjugation of use value to exchange or capital value [4]. The problem of commodification of housing units rests upon weakening its meaning as social infrastructure and promoting capital profit orientation instead. Critical urban geography and policy stress the fundamental failure of housing markets to adequately address the social or community relevance of housing since markets rely on supply and demand rather than needs [5]. The commodification of housing is fueled by accumulated capital searching for long-term and secure profitable reinvestments [6, 7].

The growing albeit contested profit-seeking housing commodification regime relies on a legal framework at the Austrian national and EU supranational scale that prioritizes private property against collective property [8] and competition against public services with only a few exceptions [9]. Public housing assistance is strictly defined and dedicated to unemployed persons or those who work in low-income sectors. It must not affect the private housing market negatively regarding rents and return. Austrian public housing regulations are comparatively comprehensive, notwithstanding, seeking to reach low- and middle-income households. In addition to the formal legal framing of private property, the legal coding of capital became an important step to safeguard the aim of accumulation against other interests. This fact has thoroughly been outlined by Pistor [10].

The consequences of housing commodification are far-reaching and encompass housing vacancy, a commercially touristic utilization of homes, and the spread of second homes. In the city of Salzburg, for example, about 4–5%of all housing units are estimated vacant (not occupied for one year at least) [11]. According to a recent study in Salzburg [12], the touristic use of homes is another push factor that withdraws apartments from the housing market. The Airbnb platform offers 700 apartments, equivalent to almost 1% of the existing housing stock. The number of urban second homes, utilized only for some weeks during the year (however, including a small proportion of apartments occupied by students), is significant in larger Austrian cities. The last national census of 2011 reveals 18.3% in Innsbruck, 17.1% in Salzburg, 15.8% in Graz and 13.7% in Linz [12].

These developments indicate the growing problem of safeguarding the social infrastructure nature of housing and call for political interventions as outlined by the United Nations 'Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)' or the 'The Right to Adequate Housing'. Both declarations are dedicated to harnessing market-driven profit-making by increasing awareness of all human beings' basic needs, as expressed by the 'leaving no one behind' proclamation. The Right to Adequate Housing principles encompasses, among other things, the "right to choose one's residence, to determine where to live and to freedom of movement", "equal and non-discriminatory access to adequate housing" or "security of tenure" [13]. SDG 11 pursues the goal of safe and affordable housing by 2030 [14]. These goals most explicitly consider the circumstances of the poor and economically deprived.
