Transcript Open
New affordable high density living Residents’ views Joanne Bretherton and Nicholas Pleace About the research • Deliberately focused on latest brown field site developments by housing associations • Mixed tenure • Relatively high density • Innovative architecture at least in the sense of not being conventional flats and houses • Brownfield sites • 8 schemes: 7 HA developed, one private sector • All but one mixed tenure (owner occupied full price, LCHO, social rented and private rented sector) • All less than five years old (but older than one year) The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp For example The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp For example The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp For example The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Arguments for • Attract key workers back into cities • Promote socioeconomic balance and cohesion through mixed communities • Balances population more generally adds families with children to cities • Address chronic shortages of affordable housing • Counteract residualisation the notion of zones and ‘cultures’ of worklessness’ • Ecological arguments around using brown field sites, reduction of commuting • Innovative architecture can overcome resistance to higher density living The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Arguments against • People do not like ‘high density’ living • Middle classes do not like cities because they fear crime, anti-social behaviour etc • Once children enter a household there is suburban flight by families • Housing preferences essentially centre on suburbia or countryside • Preference of people to live alongside who are similar to themselves and to avoid other socioeconomic groups, especially middle class • Only move into this housing because it is the sole affordable option not a positive choice The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Higher Density living • Evidence that design that gave greater sense of space and light overcame density • People did not view their homes as ‘high density’ • Asymmetrical/curved buildings helped with this, as did maximisation of natural light • Architects arguments about the role of design basically borne out • Density noticed in relation to parking, kids and noise The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Mixed communities • Results less positive • Evidence that people in full market price owner occupied units were uncomfortable with presence of social and private rented tenants • Same with people in LCHO units • Worse when SRS units or Section 106 units were physically separated from full market price owner occupied or LCHO units The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Mixed communities It doesn’t mix, we just tolerate each other I don’t think there should be social housing personally…It should all be key workers. I don’t believe that they would do that if they were buying it. There’s somebody who constantly brings in a trolley from Tesco’s and then just leaves it in the corridor. I’m living on a council estate…People getting shot at. The police are here every five seconds …unsupervised kids, breaking everything. The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Mixed communities • Feeling of safety within homes • But more often than not, the surrounding urban environment was viewed as a negative • Fear of crime, fear of anti-social behaviour, sense of developments as ‘islands’ surrounded by higher deprivation • Reflects some research on gated communities • Related to the need for brown field sites to be cheap The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Affordability • Mixed evidence on this • Innovative design meant that better space standards, better insulation and generally higher quality housing was made accessible to low income households via these developments • But some LCHO respondents were struggling, particularly in relation to paying service charges on top of rent and mortgage • People paying full market price for owner occupied units tended to find the housing most affordable, their incomes were often considerable The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Ecology • Homes were energy efficient • Markedly more so than traditional designs • Most respondents reported that ecological considerations were ‘important’ • But were imprecise about how green their homes or their lifestyle within those homes was • Limited evidence suggesting environmental gains related to transport, many people had cars and lack of parking was a major issue in some schemes • Some sites were rather out of the way The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Balancing urban population • There were aspirations for ‘nicer areas’ • Sometimes this was expressed as a wish for the scheme to be in a nicer area • And evidence people would move if children arrived • But the research did not suggest a universal yearning for suburbia or countryside I’m not really that type of person that says I’d love to live in the country. To me it’s all fields and no shops and restaurants. The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp Importance of emotional responses • Research showed that relationship to homes and to what sociologists call habitus is not straightforward • Individuals react to the same circumstances in markedly different ways • Some delighted • Some not at all delighted • But thinking about design and location clearly important The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp More information • www.jrf.org.uk • www.york.ac.uk/chp • http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/2191.asp The Centre for Housing Policy www.york.ac.uk/chp