AMSTERDAM, 19 juni 2026 – There is no shortage of plans. Anyone reading the coalition agreement will find, on nearly every page, a new attempt to get the housing market moving: faster construction, shorter procedures, stronger central direction, more affordable housing, while still leaving room for investment. It is all there. And that is precisely the problem.
Because politics is not just the art of writing down what is desirable. It is, above all, the art of securing a majority. And this government does not have that majority by default. For virtually every housing market proposal, support must be sought beyond the coalition. That is when it becomes clear that what can neatly coexist on paper often clashes in practice.
Roel Timmermans, Head of Living Cushman & Wakefield Nederland: "The problem is not that either route is illogical. The problem is that they cannot be pursued simultaneously to the fullest extent. Those who want to maximize construction output will need to allow room for investment and returns. Those who want to strictly enforce affordability must accept the consequences for speed, risk, and investment appetite. This is not an ideological judgment, but a practical reality."
On one side lies the route of speed and scale: fewer regulations, faster permitting, and more room for market players and investment. This can support construction output and get projects moving again. At a time when developers and investors have become more cautious, that is no minor detail.
On the other side lies the route of affordability and protection: stronger central government direction, more social and affordable housing, further regulation, and tighter instruments to counter price increases. This route is equally understandable. Pressure on households is high, and housing needs to become accessible to more people.
The problem is not that either route is illogical. The problem is that they cannot be pursued simultaneously to the fullest extent. Those who want to maximize construction output will need to allow room for investment and returns. Those who want to strictly enforce affordability must accept the consequences for speed, risk, and investment appetite. This is not an ideological judgment, but a practical reality.
On top of this comes the political equation. On the right, support can be found for measures that accelerate construction and reduce regulation. On the left, the focus is on affordability, public control, and protection. Sometimes these perspectives overlap, but not always, and certainly not automatically. This means the government will need to make choices for each proposal: which majority is required, which direction will lead, and what concessions come with it? “Left or right” may sound like a political contrast, but in practice it is a question of execution.
So far, the coalition agreement postpones that choice. It contains much of what is desirable, but less of what can be implemented simultaneously. That is politically understandable, but uncomfortable for the market. Plans provide direction, but only a clear course provides certainty.
For developers, investors, and builders, predictability is not a luxury. Investments are made based on multi-year expectations. If policy can shift from one political mood to another, depending on temporary majorities, it becomes more difficult to assess risks and make decisions.
The key question, therefore, is not only which measures are included in the agreement, but which course the government ultimately chooses. As long as that question remains unanswered, the housing market will remain in a state of limbo. And that is precisely what the Netherlands cannot afford.
