The debate about faster construction does not go far enough. A look at Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam shows that less regulatory complexity, clearer responsibilities and the courage to reassess standards are decisive.
The discussion is also familiar in northern Germany: construction should be faster, simpler, cheaper and, if possible, affordable. The political reflex to this is now almost always called construction turbo. That sounds good, but it does not solve the actual problem sufficiently. Because the bottleneck is not just the speed. It lies deeper: in a system that has made construction increasingly complex, expensive and difficult to calculate over the years. This is exactly why it is worth taking a look at the Netherlands. Not because everything is better there. But because they approach the matter more pragmatically and systematically at some crucial points.
In March, a 31-member delegation from associations, chambers, the housing industry and politics led by Grant Hendrik Tonne (SPD), Lower Saxony’s Minister for Economic Affairs, Transport, Building and Digitalisation, visited Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam. The trip was not an excursion into a housing policy paradise. On the contrary. The Netherlands is also struggling with a massive housing shortage, sharply increased prices, regulatory conflicting goals and high political pressure. This is precisely why the exchange was so revealing. After all, if a country reacts structurally under similarly tense conditions, then it is worth taking a closer look.
Perhaps the most important finding is that a construction turbo alone is not enough. If you really want to build faster and cheaper, you have to simplify the system. The Netherlands has taken a remarkable step towards this with the Omgevingswet . Since 2024, this law has bundled 26 individual laws into one set of rules. This is more than a legal reform. It is an attempt to fundamentally rethink planning and approval. Away from small-scale coexistence, away from contradictory procedures and responsibilities, towards more overview and an administration that does not first look for reasons why something is not possible.
This is precisely a central lesson for Lower Saxony and Bremen. In Germany, we often talk about acceleration, but we leave the causes of slowness largely untouched. As long as procedures remain complicated, responsibilities are fragmented and new local special requirements apply to every project, the construction turbo will become above all a political buzzword. Real acceleration does not come from appeals, but from simplification.
A second point is at least as sensitive and therefore all the more important: the handling of standards. In the discussions on site, it was noticeable that in the Netherlands there is a more open discussion about conflicting goals. There, the question is asked more soberly which requirements are really necessary and which are driving up costs. This applies to safety standards, technical equipment, approval details and the question of whether every conceivable specification really makes the same sense in every market segment. This debate is too often lacking in Germany or is reflexively morally charged. But if you want to build cheaper, you have to talk about exactly that. Otherwise, affordable housing will remain a political promise that ignores reality.
In this context, the handling of municipal requirements was also particularly interesting. The Netherlands is trying harder to limit special editions and thus make planning, serial approaches and scalable construction economically possible in the first place. This is highly relevant for northern Germany. Anyone who wants to build more industrially, faster and more cost-efficiently cannot at the same time allow projects to be confronted with new special requests, additional standards and divergent interpretations from municipality to municipality. It is precisely this variety of rules that ultimately eats up time, money and productivity.
In addition, there is a point that is often neglected in the German debate: affordable housing construction needs not only political objectives, but also economically viable framework conditions. In the Netherlands, too, there was very open talk about how quickly well-intentioned requirements reach economic limits. High quotas for affordable housing, strict requirements, rising construction costs and at the same time the expectation that private actors will handle the majority of new construction create an area of tension that cannot be moderated away. Anyone who demands more commitment from private investors must also talk about affordable building land, reliable procedures and a partnership-based distribution of tasks between the state, municipalities and the real estate industry. This is precisely why we at BFW Lower Saxony/Bremen are also critical of the establishment of a nationwide housing association. The establishment of such an organization would tie up considerable taxpayers’ money, which in our view should flow more sensibly into the promotion of housing construction in order to activate private investment in a targeted manner, instead of building new state structures that cannot replace the market.
Rotterdam in particular has made this very clear. There, work is carried out with high density, mixed use and social mix. At the same time, it was openly stated how large the gap between political expectations and economic reality can be. It is precisely this openness that is a difference from which we can learn. In Germany, we often talk about the goal, but too rarely about the prerequisites for its achievability.
A look at the Netherlands not only provides role models, but also warnings. Far-reaching rent regulations, strict environmental regulations and infrastructural bottlenecks also show how quickly new construction can come to a standstill when regulation and feasibility diverge. This is also relevant for us. So the right conclusion is not to idealize the Netherlands or transfer a model one-to-one. The right conclusion is to distinguish more precisely what actually helps and, above all, what creates additional complexity.
For Lower Saxony and Bremen, in our view, this means four things above all: firstly, less regulatory complexity, secondly, faster and more digital permits, thirdly, more uniformity instead of ever new local special paths, and fourthly, an honest debate about standards, costs and responsibilities. If these points are not addressed, the construction turbo will remain a catchy headline, but not a solution. If they are addressed, the debate about faster construction can actually lead to more new construction.
The housing issue will not be solved with a single measure in Lower Saxony or Bremen. But a look at the neighboring country shows that you can ask the right questions. Not only: How do we build faster? But above all: What do we have to omit, simplify and rearrange so that construction becomes reliably possible again at all? This is exactly where the real reform begins.
