Why Homes Stay Empty: Understanding Property Owner Withdrawal in Lisbon’s Housing Crisis

  1. Jorge Gonçalves
  2. Sílvia Jorge

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Amidst Portugal’s ongoing housing crisis, particularly pronounced in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, thousands of residential units remain vacant. This article investigates why property owners often refrain from placing these homes on the rental market, despite high demand and rising prices. Drawing on empirical data from successive editions of the ALP (Lisbon Landlords Association) Barometer and framed by the literature on housing financialization, institutional trust, and patrimonial ownership cultures, the study shows that vacancy is not merely a result of speculation or neglect. Rather, it emerges as a rational response to a complex interplay of regulatory instability, legal mistrust, and deeply rooted socio-cultural norms. Landlords act not only as economic agents but also as custodians of family heritage, navigating uncertainty in a legal and symbolic environment increasingly perceived as hostile. The article argues that mobilizing Lisbon’s empty housing stock requires more than tax incentives or coercive measures. It demands rebuilding trust, ensuring legal predictability, and acknowledging the cultural meanings that shape property decisions. Policy recommendations include stabilizing rental legislation and designing culturally sensitive engagement strategies for small landlords.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/urbansci10010030
  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17613808.

    I encountered this article on PREreview. This manuscript got a very funny title on PREreview of

    <p class="MDPI12title"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Why <span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">H<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">omes <span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">S<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">tay <span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">E<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">mpty: Understanding <span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">P<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">roperty

    The title shown on PREreview is not readable, it consists of mixed English, Chinese characters and many coding languages. The Chinese characters of 等线 are repeating. It is of simplified Chinese, if converted to traditional Chinese, it means 等線 . In English, it means equal line. Please revise the title to a readable one. Thank you.

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  3. Version published to 10.20944/preprints202511.0479.v1