This fear is reality for millions of young people in major cities like Hanoi and HCM City, where apartment prices have skyrocketed.

In 2024 alone, apartment prices in Hanoi surged by 40–50 percent compared to the previous year, with some projects rising even higher, according to the Ministry of Construction (MOC). In HCM City, prices were no less daunting, with an average increase of 20–30 percent.

Older apartments built a decade ago, with modest sizes, jumped to VND70–80 million/sq m in the last six months. High-end apartment prices reach VND150 million, with some areas even quoted above VND200 million/sq m.

These prices are not only out of reach for young people but also leave the middle class struggling.

According to one economist, the situation has pushed the time required to save for a home to 60 years, double the 30-year threshold the International Monetary Fund considers a sign of a real estate bubble.

In other words, with current average incomes, a Vietnamese person might need to work their entire life to own a home, not including living expenses, raising children, or other financial shocks.

Early this July, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment warned of “significant fluctuations” in land prices in the near future, as many localities will issue new land price tables under the 2024 Land Law.

Why are house and land prices rising so fast?

The 2024 Land Law stipulates that local land price tables (set by local authorities) must “align with market prices.” However, the land price tables, a new tool expected to honestly reflect market value, unfortunately have the effect of legalizing land “fever” caused by speculation and manipulated auctions.

The so-called “market price” is often based on fictitious transactions, short-term speculative bubbles, abnormally high auction bids, or inflated individual land plots – which are then used as a basis for entire regions.

Moreover, soaring land price tables push related taxes, fees, and charges up. Businesses seeking to change land-use purposes to develop commercial  projects, and individuals who want to build houses on their hands or even build homes face exorbitant land-related costs.

Many cannot afford to change the use of their own land due to massive financial gaps.

Everyone is caught in a land price spiral: individuals cannot buy homes, businesses lose motivation to invest. And as a result, the economy loses energy from both consumption and production.

Experts say that high land prices have stifled motivation rather than fueling development.

At the conference reviewing three years of Resolution 18 and one year of the 2024 Land Law on July 10, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh pointed out bottlenecks: complicated procedures for land recovery, land allocation, and land leasing procedures; opaque land pricing; auctions exploited to manipulate prices; and incomplete institutionalization of land finance policies.

Chinh noted that the state’s role as the representative of public land ownership is not clearly defined.

Conference delegates also noted that understanding of the public land ownership system remains limited. The participants at the event also said the awareness of the regime of public ownership of land "is still limited".

In reality, the concept of public land ownership lacks clear definition. The state represents ownership, but in practice, only a few agencies – or even a handful of officials – have the authority to decide land-related matters: from planning and allocation to use changes and pricing. 

When this power is not strictly controlled, land can easily become a tool to serve local interest.

Discrimination in land pricing is another major injustice. Foreign investors or “favored” businesses may receive land at low prices or full incentives, while most domestic private enterprises face sky-high land costs. 

This distorts the business environment, making land – a unique resource – used inefficiently and wastefully.

What can be done?

There are solutions that can be adopted. First, clarify the concept of “market-based land prices” and separate it from “speculative prices” or “bubble prices.” Second, the state’s role as the representative of public land ownership must be clearly institutionalized. 

Third, deeply reform land finance policies. Fourth, land use planning should adopt a two-tier governance model, with a long-term vision tied to socio-economic development strategies. 

Tu Giang