Economic Classification of Flexible Housing Models - Study commissioned by Wunderflats GmbH

The segment of furnished housing for temporary use is growing, but remains small relative to the total rental housing stock. Its share is below one percent. While the analysis shows that supply in this segment is increasing more strongly in cities with rent control than in those without regulation, the supply of permanent rental housing is not developing more weakly as a result. There is therefore no evidence of a displacement effect.A large share of demand is driven by work or education, and is short-term and temporary. Most tenancies last only a few months. On the supply side, flexibility, options for owner occupation, and the avoidance of long-term commitments are key motives. A general tightening of regulation appears ill-suited to expanding rental housing supply. Instead, it is likely to reduce options for mobile and short-term households without creating a comparable increase in regular rental housing. Under stricter restrictions, many dwellings would not be rented out permanently, but would instead remain vacant or be used in other ways.From a housing policy perspective, the focus should therefore not be on maximum strictness but on targeted regulation. Measures should address cases where temporary letting is clearly used to circumvent existing rules, while protecting situations in which temporary housing serves a genuine, independent need. Effective relief of the rental market requires tackling structural causes of scarcity: insufficient new construction, low mobility within the existing stock, and inadequate use of available land. The core problem is not this niche segment, but the overall shortage of housing.