Vienna != Austria same how London != UK, Berlin != Germany, Tokyo != Japan, Washington != US. If you only apply a succesful policy to one big city while ignoring the others, you can't claim you fixed national housing in the whole country, if the rest of the cities are still left behind.
Not much use if a policy only applies to a subset of the population of the capital city, and can't scale to the whole country so the whole populaiton can benefit from it, leaving >75% of the population out for themselves.
Mostly when we talk about housing, we are talking about cities, since that is where economic opportunity is. So studying Singapore and Vienna makes sense and are models to look at replicating in other cities.
No reason to ignore a possible solution because a city level solution doesn't work in rural Austria... or even "less dense urban austria".
I am not an expert, but it is clear Vienna and Singapore have some models that are working when the rest of the cities in the developed world are struggling.
Austria has many more cities than just Vienna and rural countryside, it's not just one city-country like Singapore.
You're intentionally omitting several other large economically strong cities within Austria that do not have the Vienna housing model adopted and are instead like the rest of the world, with a housing model based around private renting and private ownership instead of the large public housing model. Why is that?
And why aren't other cities in the world that are struggling trying to replciate Vienna's model if it's so good and so easy? /rethorical question
Think about how and when the Vienese housing model started, and let it sink in on why it most likely it's adoption wouldn't work in the world of today in a democratic country with a capitlistic economy based on private property ownership.
