Living in Utrecht: the figures, the costs and solutions for the housing market

In the Netherlands we've grown used to space. A home with a garden, three bedrooms, a place to work and preferably within cycling distance of the city. For many people that feels like a right, not a luxury. But meanwhile that picture is clashing ever harder with reality. Our homes are too big. House prices are rising sharply. There's a huge shortage. The housing crisis is real.

The housing market in Utrecht is overheated. First-time buyers can't find a place, families can't move up, investors are dropping out. And while we like to point at the shortage and the rogue landlords, the core of the problem is often slightly different. It's not just about the number of homes, but about how we use those homes, who they are available to and what we are willing to accept.

We realise these aren't popular views. We also realise that we ourselves were lucky to buy our first home 8 years ago. We realise that very well, better than anyone. But I started out with a wreck, where I showered in a cupboard and the tiles were coming off the wall in the toilet. But how proud I was. I had to start somewhere…

At Gusto Casa we believe you can only look for solutions once you face the facts. Start small, don't start Pinterest-worthy, but take a level-headed look at the housing market and try to make the best of it. However hard that sometimes is. Start in Nieuwegein, for example, and then move up to an ever nicer, more enjoyable and better home. Who knows, you might end up on the Nieuwegracht in Utrecht.

Utrecht in figures: the current state of affairs

According to the latest figures (2025):

• Number of residents: 359,370
• Number of households: 181,775
• Number of homes: 159,671
• Average home value (March 2025): €506,000
• Average private-sector rent (2024): €1,345 per month
• Average rent per m²: €18.46
• Mortgage interest rate for buying a home (March 2025): 3.57% – 4.3%

What stands out straight away: Utrecht is a relatively young and compact city, with lots of small households, a high level of education and a rapidly growing demand for housing – particularly in the mid-market rental and owner-occupied segments.

What does living in Utrecht really cost?

That houses are expensive in Utrecht is no surprise. That rents are high isn't either. The headlines are full of it. At every birthday party it's the conversation of the evening. But what are the real figures? And is renting really that expensive? Is buying really that expensive? Or is it not as bad as all that? The figures don't lie:

Buying in 2025

• Average house price: €506,000
• Mortgage costs at 4% interest (30 years): ± €2,416 gross per month
• Own funds required: often at least €25,000–40,000

In 2025, homebuyers aged between 18 and 35 pay no transfer tax on a home of up to €525,000. But you do pay your mortgage adviser, a building survey, the notary and any buyer's agent and the valuer. If you've overbid substantially and the valuation comes in lower, you have to pay the difference between the purchase price and the valuation out of your own funds.

Don't forget that the asking price is not the value. So it doesn't mean that everything you overbid has to be paid out of your own funds.

Renting in the private sector

• Average rent: €1,345 per month
• Average price per m²: €18.46

So for people without savings of their own, renting is considerably cheaper in monthly costs. But on the other hand, you don't build up any wealth. ‘You're paying someone else's mortgage,’ people say. True. But you do buy peace of mind, flexibility and clarity about your monthly costs. Unfortunately, with the new regulations there are no more homes to be found in the mid-market rental segment. A huge number of investors are selling off their rental properties one by one and investing in Spain, Germany, the UK or Dubai instead.

Utrecht in perspective: how are we really doing?

Compared with the other big cities (the G4), Utrecht does surprisingly well. Not the cheapest, not the most expensive – but remarkably balanced.

Over the past ten years purchase prices have risen by 81%. Private-sector rents went up by around 40%. If we factor in inflation (20%) and wage growth (25%), it turns out that the real cost of renting has risen far less sharply. The big problem is simply that there's no supply any more. All the investors are selling, because letting now costs money. Rents were actually quite reasonable. We often forget that our salaries have gone up. That there's been substantial inflation. And so a great many costs for investors are considerably higher. Just the cost of servicing the central heating boiler, the service charges and the painting, for example, have all risen sharply.

You often saw a tenant living somewhere for €1,350 per month, while exactly the same house was sold for €500,000, which means gross monthly costs of €2,396. And yes, you're paying off the loan, and yes, you get some mortgage interest back. But you could also lose money on a house, instead of only making a profit. And don't forget that maintenance costs are at your own expense. So sometimes renting is the more interesting option. But then there do have to be rental homes available.

Buying, on the other hand, has become a lot more expensive, especially for people getting on the ladder now. Those moving up from an existing home often have very low monthly costs. But don't forget: if you buy now, one day you'll be the one moving up.

On average, over the years, we've kept spending about 30% of our household income on housing. And yes, we all know people who spend maybe 50%. But there are also lots of people who have hardly any housing costs at all. Here too, the same applies. Everything is an average.

We don't have a shortage of space, we're using the space wrongly

In the Netherlands we have an average of 65 m2 per person. That means we live much larger than the Germans, for example. They have around 46 m2 per person at their disposal on average. The British have slightly fewer square metres still. They have to make do with an average of 44 m2 per person.

You can see that, on average, people living alone have the most space. On average, single people in our country live on 88 m2 per person. But in cities such as Amsterdam, Utrecht, Wageningen, Delft and Groningen, single people live on less than 70 m2 per person. Everyone thinks that we live smallest in Amsterdam. There, people have to make do with 49 m2 per person. But in reality, the people of Scherpenzeel live on the fewest square metres per person, namely 44 m2 per person. Funnily enough, then, Amsterdam is not the city where people live smallest on average.

In Utrecht, about 43% of the housing stock consists of family homes. These are increasingly occupied by single-person households, which now account for more than 90,000 households in the city. So we live spaciously.

We often talk about averages, and everyone knows plenty of people who live in a really small space, with lots of people in a small house. But that's always the way with an average. It also means lots of people live in a big house, or on lots of square metres on their own. We see many older people still living in a large apartment or a family home.

What is a really big problem is ‘scheefwonen’: people living in homes that no longer match their income.

Social housing is intended for people on a low income or in a vulnerable position. Yet research and practice show that thousands of homes are occupied by people with an above-average income, or even with property of their own. Like in the well-known case of the housing association Ymere, where a tenant who owned two homes stayed on in a social rented home himself. The court ruled in favour of the housing association. In our own street alone, there's a home that has stood empty for as long as we've lived there. This gentleman lives in a social rented home, but owns a huge number of homes that he lets out. I could name plenty more examples. It simply isn't right. But then again, let's be honest. Living in a top location for less than €800 a month while buying and letting out property yourself. That's pretty sweet, isn't it? My moral compass couldn't handle that. But I can understand that other people take advantage of this opportunity in the system.

This isn't a plea to evict people from their homes. But it is a plea to keep the system fair. Moving on starts with a fair test: does the home still suit the occupant's situation? After all, we have the largest number of social rented homes. We also have more social rented homes than people who are entitled to them. But because so many people live in them who don't really belong there, there aren't enough homes for the people who really need them. A social rented home is in fact subsidised by us as a society. Even if you don't receive housing benefit. The running costs are higher than the rental income.

What works?

• An annual assessment of income and assets: if you earn too much or own too much, you have to move on
• A transition period of two years to find suitable housing

That way, social housing remains available to those who really need it at that moment.

We have to build, but building has to pay off again

In the debate about affordability, people often shout: “Build, build, build.” And yes, we do need to build. But building isn't a given. Put simply, the sums don't add up. Not if you know the figures.

In Utrecht, building land costs around €1,000 to €1,200 per m². Permit procedures often take 3 to 7 years. The new Wet betaalbare huur (Affordable Rent Act – which, incidentally, doesn't really exist as a single law, but is a set of measures amending other laws) makes mid-market rental less attractive to investors. The permanent tenancy agreements also limit flexibility. Add to that the tax burden on property (box 3 tax). Then you know it's no wonder developers and investors are washing their hands of it. In fact, why would you build something that only costs money? Nobody takes a risk when they already know they're going to make a loss.

Take Greystar, the international player that said in the podcast BNR Vastgoed gezocht that it does want to invest in affordable housing. They have the money, the knowledge, the people. But what they lack is clear policy and a fair chance of a return. They're supposed to build now just to make a loss? That doesn't work. Stop seeing investors as rogue landlords all the time. Use them as part of the solution to the housing market problem instead.

We have to dare to say it: the market alone won't solve it, but we won't get there without the market either.

What can we do? Five feasible proposals

1. Match the right home to the right occupant Introduce an annual assessment for social housing. If income or assets are too high, allow two years to move on.

2. Encourage affordable mid-market rental Lower land prices for projects with rents under €1,250. Offer tax benefits for long-term letting. And give developers certainty in regulations. And make sure the land the municipality releases for housing is affordable.

3. Don't build more, build smarter Compact homes for one- and two-person households. Homes for life for older people. Shared housing for students and first-time buyers. Not every house needs a garden and three bedrooms to be a home.

4. Redistribute the space we already have Encourage home-sharing. Make it possible to split homes. Facilitate home swaps. Small interventions, big effect. Yet this is being discouraged. Room rents have to be extremely low, while the notional return on the WOZ value (the municipal property valuation) is extremely high. As an investor, you then have to pay to let people live in your property. Obviously nobody does that.

5. Redefine ‘affordable’ Not every household has the same financial capacity. So let's work with rental and purchase standards as a percentage of income, instead of absolute amounts. But also look at the actual costs. Right now nothing is being built, and that makes everything even more expensive and the shortage even bigger.

Finally: a home for everyone starts with daring to make choices

If we want housing to work again in Utrecht, or anywhere else, we need to look beyond tables and sentiment. We have to accept that the housing ideal of the past is no longer achievable for everyone. Simply put, there are too many of us and our welfare state has become too expensive. In the past people also lived with their parents for a long time. They saved every euro and renovated slowly, bit by bit. Unfortunately, we have to start small again and be a little less demanding. Otherwise we'll end up like the IT workers in Silicon Valley who earn $150,000 a year and live in a tent outside the tech campus.

By taking an honest look at how we live, where we build and for whom, we can make room. Not just on paper, but in the city. In neighbourhoods where rented and owner-occupied homes exist side by side. Where first-time buyers, families, older people and investors don't get in each other's way, but complement each other. I know, it's not what everyone wants to hear. People want ‘affordable’ housing. Big, in the middle of the city, in a prime location. But unfortunately, we have to be realistic. We expect prices to keep rising in the coming years. Simply because no new homes are being added. And because there's mainly symbolic politics. There's a huge ageing of the population; perhaps a few years from now there will be more balance. But I fear we're so far behind with construction that even that won't really make much difference.

We have some really nice listings again. Do you still want to get on the housing ladder or move up? Then come and take a look.