Photo: Steffen Muldbjerg / unsplash.com

Much attention has been granted to the question of housing during the pandemic, especially at the granular, social/psychological scale as residents change their expectations and demands on the home to meet a wider range of functions. As Gurstein (2023) argues, the home has reemerged “as a central unit in society with enhanced economic, educational, and social functions” (349). She also notes that, as home becomes more work-focused, more home-like amenities are introduced in workspaces. From a planning and policy perspective, housing plays a key role in providing citizens with basic needs, and the topic of housing is commonly referenced in the academic literature on remote work and spatial planning.

In the Nordic case studies made in this project, attractive housing options and relative affordability compared to more densely populated areas were pointed out as main attraction factors of smaller towns and rural areas. However, civil servants identified housing as a dilemma because if remote workers, including second home owners, find small towns and rural areas more attractive, this may lead to increased housing prices, which has the potential to exclude parts of the permanent population from certain neighbourhoods. In rural areas, increased demand was also linked to renovation and use of empty housing (Granath Hansson & Guðmundsdóttir, 2024; Bogason et al., 2024-a). A previous survey also pointed to this result as local and regional actors indicated that “increased housing demand” followed by “rising property prices” were among the greatest challenges associated with population growth during the pandemic (Randall et al., 2022-b).

The international literature echoes these findings. In a paper written during the pandemic, Florida et al. (2023) points to dampened residential demand and lowered rents in central locations, as well as mixed developments of real estate prices. However, they caution that pandemic effects might be temporary and are difficult to disentangle from historically low interest rates and high savings. However, Mondragon and Wieland (2022) caution that increased housing demand related to higher levels of remote work in certain locations could drive prices also post-pandemic. According to Mondragon and Wieland (2022), there is a connection between migration, house prices, and remote work in the US context. When seeking larger homes, remote workers were seen moving towards smaller, more affordable communities. Sweet and Scott (2024) discuss previous research suggesting that remote work is likely to disconnect work from home, leading to a flatter density gradient, or even residential sprawl, as well as larger indoor and outdoor residential spaces. Further, they claim that place-based amenities are becoming more central to real estate markets. This is supported by McCue (2021) who argues that remote workers are likely to choose housing with amenities found in resource rich neighbourhoods.

In the context of Oslo and Helsinki, Di Marino et al. (2024) argue that possibilities for some to live multi-locally and move to more affordable areas may exacerbate inequality as those who do not enjoy this flexibility are trapped in more expensive areas. Researchers in Helsinki also note that remote working has influenced demand for larger apartments that facilitate remote work, especially for households containing two workers with the potential for remote work (Lönnqvist, cited in Sandell, 2022). Meanwhile, in Stockholm, researchers found that, compared to renters, homeowners were more likely to stay in Stockholm City rather than moving to suburban parts or outside of the region even if they had remote work potential (Eliasson, 2023). A survey conducted in Denmark showed that, of those moving to more remote areas during the pandemic, only a tenth was motivated by conditions created by the pandemic (Haunstrup Christensen et al., 2024). This group was younger and more highly educated than the average mover and was motived by larger dwellings with possibilities to work remotely as well as proximity to friends, family, and nature. A desire to live in areas with less inter-personal encounters was also a driving factor.

The Nordic case studies made by Nordregio (Granath Hansson & Guðmundsdóttir, 2024; Bogason et al., 2024-a) showed that an appropriate housing supply was deemed an essential issue in relation to the attraction and retention of remote and hybrid workers in both rural areas and smaller towns. Interviewees suggested that the possibility to have a larger home, preferably a house, for an affordable price is one of the most important reasons for people to choose to live in a smaller city or rural area. As a response, planners facilitated housing construction taking both quantity and a variation of housing types and sizes into consideration. In some of the towns, it was hypothesised that remote and hybrid workers would have higher education levels and salaries and, therefore, might create a demand for more expensive and higher standards of housing quality, which was not always easy to find in the present housing markets in these towns.

This hypothesis was supported by regional reports in other Nordic settings (e.g. HBS Economics & Hanne Shapiro Futures; ÖMS 2023).

Planners considered development of attractive, age-friendly housing as it might induce the elderly population to relocate and make single-family housing available to younger generations. Remote work trends were reported to have accelerated already planned housing development in some towns during the pandemic. However, interviewees in three towns brought up scarcity of suitable building land and competing interests—for example in relation to neighbours, second homes, and farming—as an issue.

Granath Hansson and Guðmundsdóttir (2024) suggest that, as hybrid work has become the new normal, hybrid workers’ housing demand is more likely to be geared towards areas that have easy access to transportation nodes, although less so compared to population groups that commute every day. The need to travel regularly to a workplace indicates that the zone around larger towns that has the potential to attract hybrid workers will have its limits and be strongly linked to time and ease of travel. Further, demand for space might decrease as the need for a separate office space might be perceived as less important in a hybrid work format as compared to when all work is done remotely. The Swedish Regional Cooperation ÖMS reports a strong link between increased remote work and demand for housing in rural locations. The link to demand in urban areas is far less pronounced and mainly related to single-family housing (ÖMS, 2023). According to the report, it is possible that workers will be willing to live further away from their office space if they only commute 2-3 times per week. However, a 2022 survey of Nordic residents from Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen, and Helsinki also challenges the notion that remote work opportunities will make people more tolerant of longer commuting times. The qualitative survey results showed that the main reason people chose to move houses during the pandemic was to live closer to nature and other green areas, followed by living either closer to work or being able to better work from home. However, “of those who have moved, in all cities [Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo, and Stockholm], over 80% have moved closer to, or to the same distance [to their workplace] as their previous home” (Brand & Öhman, 2022, 23).

In the international research, Sweet and Scott (2024) emphasise that “it is unclear whether individuals choose more disconnected work–home arrangements in anticipation of teleworking (implying that telework induces ‘sprawl’) or whether teleworking becomes an adaptation strategy for individuals with longer commutes (implying that telework offsets commuting-related travel)” (570). In other words, it is difficult to pin down whether remote work stimulates or is stimulated by housing, or both.

Zenkteler et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of a varied housing supply when cities wish to attract remote workers. In a paper investigating housing quality in connection with the coronavirus lockdown in London, Blanc and Scanlon (2022) also point to the importance of adaptability and flexibility when leisure activities and work are carried out in the same spaces. They call for qualitative home designs permitting flexible uses and furniture arrangements, and they regard both size and spatial configurations as important in this respect. Further, it is said that design approaches and planning policy need to take flexible and varied uses into account. In the same vein, Orman et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of understanding variations in workers’ agency to shape time-spaces. Tenure is said to be central when it comes to experiences of physical space and possibilities of making home adaptations that facilitate remote work. The authors find that the socio-material consequences of tenure power structures should be considered in remote work regulations, for example in the context of long-term rental and shared housing. A Danish survey showed that nine percent of respondents had made pandemic-related alterations to their homes (Haunstrup Christensen et al. 2024). Higher-income homeowners with children were over-represented in this group. The most common alteration was the creation of a workplace at home (54%).

Holiss (2021) brings up positive experiences of self-created mixed working and living spaces during the pandemic and the potential residential re-use of redundant office space. She also asks the question of how planning systems could be adapted to accommodate mixed housing and workspaces. Zenkteler et al. (2019) mention flexibility in planning and building approval processes to be essential for adapting the current housing and commercial stock to accommodate remote working and related amenities in the area. In Slovenia, where institutional tolerance of work at and from home has been historically high, unexpected spatial development has occurred, for example in the form of business-related buildings changing perceptions and use of single-family housing areas (Čok et al. 2022). The authors call for “the establishment of regulation, monitoring, and supervision of work at home in terms of spatial planning” (24). Local housing mix and the need for workspace in the home is also pointed out by Denham et al. (2023) as a dimension that could have impacts on remote work patterns. Housing outcome in terms or price and characteristics of homes could be influenced by development processes.

A report evaluating housing policy measures in Australia during the pandemic, point to the crucial role of social housing provision for avoiding homelessness, especially in times of external economic and public health shocks (Leishman et al., 2022). In the Nordic small town case studies conducted by Nordregio, the Danish urban case also pointed to the importance of social housing in affordable housing provision (Granath Hansson & Guðmundsdóttir, 2024).