Love thy neighbour?

Housing associations are having difficulty selling market price and shared ownership units in new mixed tenure developments. But new research by the Centre for Housing Policy at York University shows that the problems confronting mixed tenure sales are deep-seated – and not simply the result of the collapsing housing market.

New forms of high-density, mixed tenure, affordable housing have been advocated as a way of addressing the housing shortage, and promoting social cohesion and a renaissance in inner cities. But sales of shared equity and market price properties on new developments have slumped. Recent estimates suggest of the 21,538 low-cost homes built last year, 9,655 (44 per cent) remain unsold.

But our research has raised a number of important questions about the long-term viability of high-density mixed tenure communities as a model for the development of strong and diverse communities.

The research explored residents’ views of eight affordable, high-density mixed tenure housing developments across the UK.

Sociologists and urban geographers have raised concerns about the tendency of economically similar groups of people choosing to live together. The fear is that zones of worklessness will be created from which poor and marginalised people cannot escape, while at the same time prosperous middle class enclaves appear that poorer people cannot enter.

Since the 1970s, it has been accepted that people sort themselves into neighbourhoods of similar types, even on the basis of small differences in income. Mixed tenure developments are designed to counteract the risk that poorer people become trapped in zones of worklessness.

In our research, we found residents were often unhappy about different tenures in the same development. Residents tended to express their opinions quite forcefully. ‘We just tolerate each other,’ said one low-cost homeowner.

Among owner occupiers and low-cost home ownership residents a belief was found that social rented tenants did not ‘maintain’ their homes, or ‘respect’ the surrounding area. Some respondents said that where problems existed it was the responsibility of social rented tenants, who were assumed to be the cause of vandalism, antisocial behaviour and other problems within the developments. ‘When you’re only renting I don’t think you look after the flat as much as when you own it,’ another low-cost homeowner said.

There was greater tension in developments where there was a physical separation between the affordable and market value housing. ‘Everybody knows who moves in, they know which is going to be a homeowner, shared owner or what,’ a social rented tenant said.

  ‘Or there’s a slight design difference or a bigger garden… or there’s an extra shower and so basically even though they’re trying to integrate, they’re not because they’ve already set a difference.’

Clearly there is work to be done if mixed tenure developments are to be successful from the point of view of all residents. If blocks or units aren’t separated according to tenure, the extent to which such a divide fosters a ‘them and us’ mentality might be reduced.

  The successful mixing of tenure within a development may only be achievable by ensuring tenure types are well disguised by maintaining build and design quality across all tenures. The assumption that this form of housing will generate a mixed and strong community, merely because households that would normally live in physically distinct neighbourhoods are located on the same site, is questionable if the basic design reinforces tenure difference.

  Potential residents will have to be attracted to the wider area and community in which the development is sited. It is fundamental that new developments integrate well within the existing neighbourhood.

The findings from our study did not suggest that developments were interacting with the surrounding neighbourhoods in a positive way. A prominent observation during fieldwork was the finding that many respondents felt under siege from deprived neighbourhoods seen by many residents as a source of crime and antisocial behaviour.

Beyond the concerns about whether mixed and sustainable communities are being created, there are questions about the attractiveness of buying housing in some mixed tenure developments. The space and quality per pound offered, plus the attractions of low-cost shared ownership, should in theory have guaranteed high demand during the housing boom.

However, as the cost of other housing options falls, the tendency of even slightly higher earners to separate themselves off into areas in which their neighbours resemble themselves might have a more lasting effect on sales. This is likely to have the greatest impact where there is a visible physical separation of tenures on a small site.

The term ‘high density’ summons up images of tower blocks beset with social problems, rather than places people might want to buy and rent. The study explored whether modern high-density living could be attractive to potential buyers and tenants.

Historically, people do not like high-density living and many people do not like cities, particularly once they have children. However, the research found that it was not density itself that was problematic. Modern design, especially internal design, with high levels of natural light and access to open space were fundamental in alleviating perceptions of density. Residents were often unaware that they were in a ‘dense’ housing development. ‘I certainly doesn’t feel like it’s overcrowded,’ said one low-cost homeowner.

Natural light was an aspect of architecture and design praised repeatedly by residents and contributed to a feeling of space within their immediate vicinity. ‘That was a good selling point to me. High ceilings and a big window space to create light rooms,’ another low-cost homeowner said.

However, this could all change with something as simple as insufficient parking or high child density. Common complaints were about people parking everywhere or large numbers of children in communal areas which left residents feeling overcrowded. ‘Seems to be a lot of “visitors” as all the visitor parking bays are full,’ one owner-occupier said.

The study also demonstrated that issues around density can be designed out. Modifications to design and management could help attract buyers to unsold properties and overcome some effects of the economic downturn.

But the long-term future of mixed tenure schemes, both as a mechanism for delivering affordable housing, and promoting mixed and sustainable communities is likely to remain problematic. Without good design and management, some developments will struggle to attract buyers while house prices continue falling.

Joanne Bretherton is a research fellow at the Centre for Housing Policy, University of York. The study on which this article is based, Residents’ views of new forms of high density affordable living, is written by Joanne Bretherton and Nicholas Pleace. It was published by the CIH/Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The full report can be downloaded from the JRF website.