This report examines the systemic shortages in social housing across Australia and South Africa, contrasting these deficits with the integrated housing model utilized in Vienna, Austria, and detailing specific redevelopment initiatives in New South Wales.

本報告探討澳洲與南非社會住宅的系統性短缺情況，將這些不足與奧地利維也納採用的綜合住宅模式進行對比，並詳細說明新南威爾斯州的特定更新計劃。

The Australian social housing sector is characterized by a longitudinal contraction in stock proportion, descending from 4.8% in 2011 to 4.1% in 2024, significantly trailing OECD averages of 7%. This scarcity has resulted in extensive waitlists, with approximately 185,000 individuals nationally and 69,000 in New South Wales awaiting placement. Institutional failures in processing priority applications for individuals with complex medical requirements have been noted, while the Homes NSW administration attributes the supply shortfall to escalating post-pandemic construction costs and inadequate maintenance of existing assets. Although the federal government has committed to the delivery of 55,000 units by 2029, advocates contend that such measures are insufficient to counteract population growth and decades of underinvestment.

澳洲社會住宅部門的特徵是房屋比例長期縮減，從2011年的4.8%下降至2024年的4.1%，顯著低於 OECD 7%的平均值。這種短缺導致了龐大的候選名單，全國約有18.5萬人以及新南威爾斯州有6.9萬人在等待安置。有記錄指出，在處理具有複雜醫療需求者的優先申請時出現了制度性失效，而 Homes NSW 行政部門將供應短缺歸咎於疫情後建築成本攀升以及對現有資產維護不足。

Parallel systemic failures are evident in South Africa, where a housing backlog of 2.6 million units persists. The South African state has transitioned toward a policy favoring private sector provision of 'affordable housing'; however, a significant disparity exists between the private sector's target income bracket and the national median household income. In contrast, Vienna, Austria, maintains a robust social housing framework where 43% of the stock is state-subsidized. The Viennese model is predicated on sustained political commitment, the utilization of limited-profit housing associations, and a proactive state role in land management to ensure social integration and the prevention of peripheralization.

南非同樣出現系統性失效，房屋缺口高達260萬個單位。南非政府已轉向傾向由私營部門提供「可負擔住宅」的政策；然而，私營部門的目標收入層級與全國家庭收入中位數之間存在顯著差距。相比之下，奧地利維也納維持著強健的社會住宅框架，43%的住宅為政府補貼。維也納模式基於持續的政治承諾、利用有限利潤的住宅協會，以及政府在土地管理上的主動角色，以確保社會融合並防止邊緣化。

Within New South Wales, the Bellambi Estate redevelopment exemplifies a shift toward a mixed-tenure model. The proposal involves replacing 465 existing dwellings—predominantly social housing—with up to 2,500 units. While the absolute volume of social housing would increase to a minimum of 750 units, the proportional concentration would decrease from 90% to 30%. This strategic pivot is supported by community housing providers who argue that mixed-tenure developments mitigate social stigma and optimize land use. Conversely, current residents have expressed opposition, citing the potential dissolution of established community bonds and the perceived redistribution of high-value coastal views to private interests.

在新南威爾斯州，Bellambi Estate 的更新體現了向混合持有權模式的轉型。該提案涉及將現有的 465 個住宅（主要為社會住宅）更換為最多 2,500 個單位。雖然社會住宅的絕對數量將增加至至少 750 個單位，但比例濃度將從 90% 降至 30%。這一策略轉向得到了社區住宅供應商的支持，他們認為混合持有權開發能減輕社會污名並優化土地利用。相反，現有居民表示反對，理由是可能會瓦解既有的社區紐帶，且認為高價值的海岸景觀將被重新分配給私營利益團體。

Current global trends indicate a tension between the necessity for increased social housing density and the preservation of existing community structures, with Vienna providing a potential benchmark for state-led integration.

目前的全球趨勢顯示，增加社會住宅密度的必要性與保留既有社區結構之間存在緊張關係，而維也納為政府主導的融合提供了潛在的基準。