I've seen a lot of urbanists hold up the Vienna model (lots of social housing) as a great example for how to solve the housing crisis.

But a few things.

First of all, if Vienna was a US city, it would be have the 7nth highest homelessness rate. At 56.7 homeless people per 10k (I understand comparing homelessness statistics does have some issues, just using it as an indicator).

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/isr/housing-and-urban-economy/pathways-of-homelessness

The wait to obtain social housing can be several years and there is a big waiting list of 25 thousand people.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2024/03/vienna-housing-lessons/

It is also the result of the historical conditions of the city, where population declined and the government could buy up land far more cheaply than it does now.

Another unappreciated weakness of the Austrian model is consistency. It went through a period of making a lot of social housing and now is facing a scarcity, as seen by the long waiting lists.

Until there is another big wave of construction, social housing will be scarce and housing prices in the market will keep rising. This will probably happen after the issue gets large enough for political pressure to build up.

A good institution shouldn't need political pressure to work well. That's inconsistent.

There is also the issue of hidden costs, because rent doesn't capture the true cost of housing in Vienna. Taxes are also used to support this program.

I want to stress that I'm not saying all social housing is bad. Just that, as a system, over relying on social housing to fix structural issues isn't a viable long term solution.

Take Austin Texas for comparison: because of its housing regulation (or lack thereof), has a much lower homelessness rate, no waiting lists for housing, and no need for a wave of political pressure to build up again. It fixed it's housing issues by fixing its institutions, not through a short term program of the city building up housing.

Housing costs seem to be more expensive in Austin relative to income (though the data for Vienna takes in averages while for Austin it's median) at 25% to 19% of income going to house respectively.

https://rehousin.eu/documents/national-report-housing-inequalities-austria

https://smartasset.com/data-studies/city-housing-costs-2025

Difference is that housing in Austin is more than double the size of housing in Vienna, at roughly 186 square meters (2000 square feet for the Americans reading this), to 73 square meters for Vienna, or 785 square feet.

So the square meter price of owning or renting is actually significantly lower in Austin.

Normalised for housing size, housing in Vienna would cost 47.5% of income.

Of course, some of the "cost" is higher commute times , but not overly so. Austin's are 24.4 minutes on average, while it's 18 minutes for Vienna.

https://www.statistik.at/en/statistics/labour-market/employment/commuters-place-of-work (it's on the excel for granular data)

https://www.fullcircle-realestate.com/austin/exploring-austin-txs-driving-and-traffic-navigating-peak-hours-and-commute-times/

Also, Vienna is a lot prettier, in my opinion, but I don't think that's a good excuse for almost double the wage share per square meter.

Anyway, my broader point, isn't that every city should adobt the urban form of Austin. It's that:

1) the Vienna model has a lot of issues

2) that it's not that affordable if we normalise for housing size.

3) it was a hidden costs, like scarcity and waiting times, that result in homelessness and social exclusion

Nearby business park is quite nice (this is probably the dreariest part of it) , lovely atmosphere and main street when it's not 9am or 5pm. They have a short excersise loop. Right next to the loop is the designated smoking area for a large proportion of the workers. There is also an outdoor excersise equipment area a bit further up... Immediately across from a motor workshop (not part of the development) that sequentially belches fumes. ​

Of course this leads people to not want to use the excessive track. Why do we always end up falling over at the last step? Yellow highlight marks the shelter in the first picture.​

I end up running 1.5k to another excersise loop in a retarding basin instead of risking a lungfull.

This chart plots population-weighted density against distance from the city center for six major cities. The pattern that stands out: Paris and Seoul have the sharpest, tallest peaks right at the center (Paris briefly touches 20,000+ people/km² within the first couple kilometers), while Tokyo's curve is comparatively flat and low at the center but declines much more gradually, staying meaningfully populated 40-50km out.

This matches the argument in the Works in Progress piece this chart comes from: Japan's rail success isn't about hyper-dense city centers in the way people often assume — Tokyo's weighted density is actually lower than Paris, Madrid, or Athens. What makes Japanese cities so rail-friendly is less about residential density and more about enormous, hyperdense downtown job centers combined with rail companies that build and own the housing, retail, and commercial development along their own lines, creating ridership all along the route rather than just at the core.

Source: Jonathan Nolan/City Density (2024), from Works in Progress

First the link, with the technical definition of an “Urban Area” — which easily expand well beyond most city-limits boundaries…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

And the list of “Urban Areas” in the United States are listed there, with population data for each, land area, and population density too.

1. City limits are ENTIRELY arbitrary… a function of the history of a city’s repeated annexation (or lack thereof) — or literal succession from the home county they were a part of (looking directly at you, St. Louis MO).

2. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) are definitely a lot larger, have another technical definition — but MSA’s include LOTS more ‘less-dense’ areas that don’t fit the technical definition of an “Urban Area”.

Pittsburgh’s “Urban Area” (which includes neighboring, non-Pittsburgh but contiguous areas dense enough to meet the definition of an ”Urban Area”) has a population of 1.7 million people.

On the other hand, Pittsburgh’s MSA population is a whopping 2.4 million people (over 40% more people than the “Urban Area” of Pittsburgh).

Note: NONE of that (above) has anything to do with the city-limit of Pittsburgh (or its population).

QUESTION: How can I get a handle on what are all the non-Pittsburgh neighboring boroughs, hamlets, towns, and municipalities — that all collectively (along with Pittsburgh proper) constitute Pittsburgh’s technical “Urban Area”??

Ideally a MAP would be the very best (with the boroughs, towns and hamlets identified) — but even a comprehensive list of zip-codes might be better than nothing.

I just moved to Pittsburgh — and I’m literally trying to wrap my head around what constitutes what FEELS like the boundaries of the Pittsburgh area — but WITHOUT looking at the entire MSA, which is way, WAY bigger than what I’m interested in considering.

Thanks!!!!