The proposal for one-krone houses would allow Copenhagen residents with a personal connection to an empty property in Jutland to acquire it for 1 Danish krone (€0.13).
The idea was floated by Jens-Kristian Lütken, Copenhagen’s Employment and Integration Mayor (Beskæftigelses- og integrationsborgmesteren) from the Liberal Party (Venstre), in a commentary for Jyllands-Posten and in remarks reported by TV 2 Kosmopol. Lütken argues the measure could curb dereliction in shrinking villages while offering an ultra-low entry price to people priced out of the capital’s market.
What the plan proposes
Lütken suggests a targeted pathway for Copenhageners to buy long-vacant houses in Jutland for one krone, provided they can demonstrate a personal tie to the property (for example, family ownership or previous residence). He indicates the purchase would not carry additional obligations beyond that link, aiming to prevent speculative buy‑to‑let activity while nudging empty homes back into use.
According to Lütken, the concept responds to two pressures at once: rising housing costs in Copenhagen and depopulation in parts of rural Denmark where many homes stand empty or dilapidated.
How it compares to Italy’s €1 homes schemes
Lütken explicitly cites Italy’s “€1 houses” as inspiration. Italian towns use token‑price sales to revive historic centres, typically attaching conditions such as mandatory renovation within a set timeframe, proof of funds, and sometimes a refundable guarantee deposit ranging from around €1,000 to €10,000. Some municipalities also require residency or minimum occupancy.
The Danish iteration, as outlined by Lütken, would be lighter on obligations—focusing on the buyer’s connection to the home rather than on fixed renovation or residency rules. That difference could make transactions simpler, but it would also require clear safeguards to ensure maintenance and local benefit rather than absentee ownership.
Legal and policy questions in a Danish context
Translating a €1‑style scheme into Danish law raises questions. Municipalities would need legal authority and administrative capacity to identify eligible properties, verify buyers’ ties, and set anti‑speculation rules. Denmark already deploys tools like demolition funding and local planning rules to address derelict housing.
A one‑krone transfer mechanism would have to fit alongside existing planning law and housing standards, while avoiding conflicts over property rights and municipal liability. Policymakers will likely debate whether to add minimum renovation, habitability, or use requirements to secure tangible local gains.
Rural depopulation and empty homes in Jutland
Research on rural Denmark documents higher shares of empty homes in peripheral parishes compared with urban areas, with some localities seeing a marked increase over the past two decades. Empty or unfit dwellings can depress neighbouring property values, deter newcomers, and add safety and blight concerns.
Against that backdrop, proponents argue that symbolic‑price sales could help stabilise village centres, whereas critics caution that token prices can understate renovation costs and shift risk to buyers without guaranteeing long‑term occupancy.
Potential benefits and risks
If designed well, a one‑krone houses pilot could: (1) reduce the stock of abandoned homes; (2) channel private investment into renovation in places where market values are thin; and (3) broaden access to affordable second‑home or return‑migration options for people with ties to rural areas.
Risks include absentee ownership, minimal works that leave buildings marginally habitable, and pressure on local services if investments cluster unevenly. The Italian experience shows public interest can be high, but outcomes depend on municipal follow‑through, permits, and clear timelines for works.
What happens next
For now, Lütken’s intervention is a political proposal rather than a formal bill. Any move toward implementation would likely require pilot agreements with interested municipalities in Jutland, criteria to verify eligibility and ties, and a framework for maintenance or renovation standards.
The debate aligns with a broader Nordic‑EU conversation on revitalising shrinking communities while maintaining housing quality and non‑speculative use. Whether Denmark adopts an Italian‑style model—or forges a tailored variant—will hinge on how lawmakers balance flexibility, consumer protection, and local development goals.
