Why Buying a Home in Finland Is Simpler Than Abroad: A Comparative Journey Through Housing Practices in Denmark, Belgium, and the U.S.

By Mika Horelli, BRUSSELS | During my career as a foreign correspondent, I have lived in four countries across two continents. This has allowed me to observe housing market practices not only in my native county Finland but also in Denmark, the United States, and here in Belgium. I can confidently say that Finns should be grateful for how easy buying apartments—especially in multi-unit buildings—has been made in Finland compared to many other countries.

In Finland, nearly all aspects of buying a home, from negotiating loans to choosing a property and transferring shares, can now be done smoothly online. By contrast, in Denmark, current legislation makes the process of purchasing owner-occupied homes much more complex. The country has several types of housing ownership, including the cooperative model known as ”andelslejlighed”, which resembles Finland’s housing company system most closely.

In Denmark, however, the cooperative legally owns the property, whereas in Finland, the housing company does. In both systems, the owner holds only the right to occupy a specific unit, and buying or selling involves a transaction over this right. 

  

Denmark also has another type of ownership: "ejerlejlighed", where residents literally own their apartments as well as carefully defined parts of the entire building. Instead of shares, transactions involve purchasing portions of the physical property. Every staircase, courtyard, facade, and even roof section is allocated so that each owner’s deed ("skøde") specifies exactly what they own beyond their apartment. In Belgium, a similar system applies, often resulting in buildings where windows, paint, or even roof tiles visibly differ from one unit to another.

This fragmented ownership also creates challenges for maintenance. Unless collective agreements are reached, each owner is responsible for their own property. Renovations are often done piecemeal, meaning one apartment might have pristine plumbing while the unit above remains a time bomb of deteriorating pipes.

Most of New York’s Owned Apartments Have Finnish Origins  

While much of Europe’s housing bureaucracy lags behind Finland, the U.S. is in a league of its own. Real estate laws vary by state, but take New York City, which I know best after living there for 12 years. Surprisingly, only a quarter of NYC’s owned apartments are condominiums, where owners have property rights similar to those in Denmark or Belgium. The remaining three-quarters are cooperatives ("co-ops"), and for this, we can thank Finnish immigrants.  

The first non-profit co-ops in the U.S. were built in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park in 1916 by Finnish settlers. These inspired other immigrant groups, and the Finnish model became the most common ownership form in New York. Today, co-op rules closely resemble Finnish housing companies.

Even so, buying a co-op in New York is far from straightforward. The first challenge is selling yourself to the building’s board. This requires attending a personal interview, armed with documents like a clean criminal record, years of bank statements, a credit report, and reference letters from prominent figures. But reputation is a double-edged sword: for example, high-profile buyers like Madonna and Bill Clinton have been rejected due to concerns about publicity and lifestyle risks. Diplomats, though wealthy, are also often denied because their presence is perceived to bring protests or security concerns.

The Bureaucratic Marathon  

A decade ago, I witnessed the sale of a co-op in the Bronx. After the buyer and seller agreed on a price of about $200,000, the deal took a year to finalize. Securing board approval alone took a month, after which the buyer’s loan broker had to ensure the bank still upheld its initial approval. Then, the bank needed the building’s financial statements audited, which cost the co-op an unaffordable $15,000. When no audits were forthcoming, the first bank withdrew, and the buyer spent months finding another lender.  

Finally, when the pieces aligned, a crowded closing included the buyer, seller, their respective lawyers, the co-op’s representatives, a notary, brokers, and even guarantors. The fees—including legal, notary, and broker costs—amounted to about 10% of the sale price. To top it off, payments were made with handwritten checks.

The differences in housing transactions stem from historical and cultural factors. Denmark and Belgium urbanized earlier than Finland, establishing traditions in property ownership long before housing companies existed. Such societies often favor conservative systems that protect property rights through long-standing customs.

In New York, co-op boards value exclusivity, ensuring new residents align with existing values and lifestyles. Ethnic and cultural biases also influence these decisions. In contrast, Finland’s egalitarian system allows anyone with the money or credit to become a homeowner, a freedom that remains elusive in many other parts of the world.