José Andrés tells Spain's Government: less propaganda, more houses

José Andrés tells Spain's Government: less propaganda, more houses

Building more housing does not fix the access problem on its own, but without new construction no arithmetic can hold it up. That is the thesis the chef José Andrés posted on his social media, picked up by THE OBJECTIVE: "The shortage of housing is not solved by better distributing the few homes that exist. It is solved by making many more exist." The closing line left no room for doubt: "Less propaganda and more houses". And the recipient was explicit, because the message criticises the Government over its housing policy.

The reaction came from every side. Some applaud the economic part of his diagnosis, while others dispute absolutely everything else. The chef carries a public profile tied to social initiatives and humanitarian projects, and now finds himself in the awkward position of lecturing on bricks and mortar from outside the field where decisions are made.

What exactly is José Andrés's message about

The post targets measures that act on the distribution of what has already been built and defends new construction as the way to a solution. "Less propaganda and more houses" is a short, almost slogan-like formula aimed at the Government. One reading made in the debate goes beyond the content: some place this week's mobilisation in a pre-electoral calendar and interpret it as government propaganda channelled through subsidised associations. There is no evidence whatsoever for that chain of events; it is political interpretation, not fact.

How many homes are missing? The deficit, figure by figure

Here the issue stops being a phrase and becomes arithmetic. The starting point is a calculation put forward by one participant in the debate: a shortfall of 750,000 homes, which would also grow by around 150,000 every year. The comparison that explains it is simple: some 250,000 households would be created each year while around 100,000 homes are produced. With those numbers, closing the gap would require building four times more than at present.

The full projection exercise —how many would be needed, over how many years and on what land— goes beyond any headline, but the figure that sums it up speaks for itself: 400,000 homes a year for five years just to half-fix the problem, according to that same calculation. The precedent cited is 2006, when 650,000 were delivered, an all-time record; with the caveat, in the same breath, that those were very different times. In the political crossfire another number appears, likewise backed by nothing more than the word of whoever brandishes it: 184,000 homes promised in the 2023 elections, with three quarters of the legislative term already used up.

Who gets in and who buys: the reproaches added to the deficit

Part of the response does not dispute the need to build more, but shifts the focus to demand. The argument, held by several participants, is that any construction effort would be absorbed by the continued arrival of population from abroad, so the deficit would replenish itself. It is a thesis very present in the current climate of the debate on demographics and housing, and it is stated without a single figure to back it up.

The second reproach targets the buyer. Some claim that investment funds buy housing to resell it later at far higher prices, turning scarcity into a business. There is no data to support that claim here either. What is verifiable is the framework: the law of supply and demand, the one summed up by saying that when there are few homes and many buyers, prices rise.

A lucky chef preaching about bricks and mortar

The most personal flank of the debate does not attack his figures, but his standing to state them. He is reproached for signing up by default to any social initiative while, in contrast, calling a specific public housing measure propaganda. Others add the biographical argument: contacts, ease and a fortunate career that, in that reading, would leave him without the authority to lecture those who only find obstacles in their way.

According to the figures used in the debate, the deficit would grow by 150,000 homes a year and production would be four times below what is needed, so the likely outcome is that the gap keeps widening, unless many things change, many of them on the State's side. Though it is wise not to bet your salary on that happening soon: in housing, almost everything that is announced arrives late or never arrives at all.