The shortage of affordable housing in cities is one of the most significant global challenges. It affects 1.6 billion people ( one- third of urban population) and is a key priority for policy change identified by the United Nations in the New Urban Agenda ( Tsenkova, 2016). Globally, cities and central governments have championed housing strategies and action plans, with a strong emphasis on effective partnerships to ensure housing efficiency in an effort to make cities livable and sustainable. In the context of the COVID- 19 public health crisis, access to affordable and adequate housing has become extremely important, providing a refuge in the midst of rapid urban transformation and collapsing urban economies. The need for a resilient housing system, capable of responding to external shocks with the inherent ability to bounce back, will indeed define the success of cities in the future. Problems of housing affordability and accessibility have become more pressing during the pandemic. Cities during lockdowns have delivered a rapid response through rent freezes, tenant protection, provision of emergency shelters, conversion of underutilised hotels and offices into affordable housing and the building of more permanent solution using modular and prefabricated technologies. In many places, the crisis has triggered political commitments and action to address the supply challenge, providing a sustainable range of affordable housing solutions. In the wake of p ost- p andemic recovery, the unprecedented challenges to public health in cities have demonstrated the need to consider affordable housing as a critical part of social infrastructure that requires sustained investment and support to estab-lish a resilient ecosystem of housing providers ( Tsenkova, 2021).This stands in sharp contrast to the l ong- t erm decline in social and affordable housing invest-ment in many contexts since the late 1970s (A ngel, 2000). While there is no common definition of social housing, the book recognises the contextual differences in the structure, policies and trajectories in different countries ( van Bortel et al., 2019). We use the term ‘social housing’ to recognise these differences and important nuances in interpretation to as housing systems are path- d ependent. In European countries with a large share of social housing, the sector operates like a ‘ social market’ in direct competition with private renting. The institutional arrangements favour ownership by not- fo r- p rofit or private landlords, rents are based on cost recovery prin-ciples and allocation extends access to a more diverse income group. Europe, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Austria exemplify the characteristics of such unitary systems Kemeny, Kersloot and Thalmann, 2005). The United Kingdom and France have a strong legacy of public/ council housing, which despite some residualisation, has seen a growing com-mitment to provision of social housing through m ixed- income, mixed- tenure projects in the last decade ( Bailey et al., 2006; Kearns et al., 2013). At the other end of the spectrum, in most countries, social housing has a residual role, and the small s ector— less than 5%— operates as a safety net. Access is reserved for low- income households, allocation is rationed, rents are heavily subsidised and management is carried out by public institutions. The terminology in housing policy discourse refers to public housing as the dominant form of social housing, while more recent programmes will target affordable housing, usually in some form of mixed income. All post- s ocialist countries, after a dramatic privatisation of public housing in the 1990s, fall in this category, as well as Canada and the United States ( Tsenkova, 2021).