 |
|
Housing Research 214 - June 1997 Qualitative research through focus groups, by Caroline Oakes and Eleanor McKee for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, studied consumer views of market renting in Leeds. Extended group discussions with 'middle-income', working single men and women, and young childless couples, discovered:
Feelings about renting Home purchase was still seen as the ultimate goal by most of those taking part in the focus groups. But renting was growing in popularity, not least because it was seen to offer greater flexibility/freedom in the ability to move home relatively quickly and to spend time and money on other interests. Participants also expressed some negative views of renting: they talked about 'dead money' paid in rent, about less control and fewer rights, about the lack of incentive to invest time or money in the property. The general standard of available rented accommodation was heavily criticised. But the phase before committing to purchase was felt to be longer now; people were aware of others' unsatisfactory experiences of home purchase and did not feel there was an urgency to 'get a foot on the ladder'. Buying was no longer thought an investment certainty with a guaranteed profit.
More positively, changes in the job market had increased the appeal of renting; people felt there were few 'jobs for life' and relocation was often necessary for employment reasons. Renting was seen as bringing a limited commitment, with no substantial deposit or liabilities for repairs or maintenance; it allows freedom to focus on other activities like work and leisure; and it allows investment in other priorities like one's own business, or greater leisure spending on holidays, etc. This tenure was also seen as ideal for sharing where the partnership is not necessarily permanent.
Attitudes to location The highest priority for renters was the location of the property. Potential residents would not be prepared to move into an area that they perceived to be unsafe or inconvenient and which lacked appeal for them. Of greatest importance was the reputation of an area. A 'dodgy' area - which was felt to be one with high rates of burglary, car theft or drug abuse - would be avoided. Proximity to basic amenities (newsagent/off-licence/corner shop) and leisure pursuits (pubs, restaurants, etc) was important, as was proximity to the workplace and to both public transport (in this case the railway station) and roads out of town (again in this case, the ring road).
Importance was also attached to the environment and the ambience, including proximity to open spaces and a sense of mixed community. For some, an 'escape from work' was vital.
People and location There was a clear division between those with a propensity to enjoy the 'buzz' and social anonymity of city life ('the urbanised') and those for whom the suburbs, and rural areas beyond, offered more - a quieter pace and more outdoor pursuits (the 'country life'/the 'suburbanised'). The former were not attached to the area where they were brought up and appeared more adventurous. The latter often had family ties outside the city and were more 'settled'. The advantages to living in the city centre were seen as less time wasted in travelling, the ability to get around easily without driving, freedom to lead a more cosmopolitan social life, and shopping and leisure opportunities. But there were fears about crime, about the lack of open space and the dirtiness of the city.
Cars and parking Despite living closer to amenities (and probably to the workplace), potential inner city renters regarded car-ownership as important. No doubt mileage would be much reduced for those who ceased to commute and this has distinct advantages in terms of pollution and congestion. But secure parking was regarded as essential. Car-related crime was an anxiety and all groups wanted a parking facility which had an exclusive entry-system for residents and, preferably, designated spaces - at least one per flat - with some provision for visitors. Whilst people felt they would use their car less regularly, they felt they would still need to use the car to 'escape' the city or for bulk shopping. The idea of a separate car-parking charge was not popular; but if a charge were to be imposed, £500 per year was regarded as reasonable. It was felt better to present the rent/parking charges on the basis of offering a discount to those who did not have a car, rather than charging extra for the car space. Security Security was important, particularly for women. Required security measures included an entry phone for individual flats, strong and secure doors and locks, and a light sensor outside the entrance; some also wanted security cameras and burglar alarms for each flat. Internal security was a priority and the presence of a caretaker would be greatly welcomed.
Furnished versus unfurnished The general preference was for neither fully furnished nor unfurnished accommodation; part-furnished was preferred, including only curtains, carpets, fitted wardrobes and kitchens. People wanted the opportunity to install or accumulate their own furniture. Experience of renting furnished accommodation was not good.
Heating and insulation Participants expected flats to have an economical heating system and there was consistent, spontaneous criticism of electric storage heating as inflexible and ineffective:
Insulation was not an issue which people raised spontaneously and environmental concerns were not mentioned by the renters/potential renters. For some, insulation was associated with noise; where sound insulation was drawn to people's attention, they stressed its importance:
Communal considerations No one wanted a designated communal area which was there solely to encourage neighbours to meet together. Residents' committees/rooms were felt to be reminiscent of institutional homes or student residences. Some had no desire to mix; others felt they would meet their neighbours anyway.
However, an outdoor communal area was a very popular idea, eg a courtyard or roof garden. People wanted their own washing machine but drying was perceived as a problem: a hanging and tumble drying facility was of interest. There was also interest in a fitness room and even a pool; but people recognised that the cost of these might be prohibitive. Rents Participants expected to pay rent levels from £80 to £110 per week (including any car-parking charges) for flats with one or two bedrooms. The preferred price range was £80 to £90 a week for one bedroom. The higher price band was more than most were currently paying - but those interested would expect to pay a premium to live in the city centre.
For two bedrooms, there was greater flexibility on rents because the costs might well be shared. The premises The characteristics of the interior were regarded as more important than the external appearance. But there was a clear preference for a renovated/old building rather than newly built apartments. Conversions of traditional buildings, with perceived architectural merit, gained most approval. Large impersonal blocks of flats were universally disliked:
If a modern development was built, there was frequent mention of the need for space and light. The outside should avoid the impression of a 'boxy', uniform design. Balconies were felt to be a desirable feature. Pokey, dark, small flats were disliked. First importance was given to the living-room and there was a consensus in favour of a hall.
All would like a shower but not at the expense of a proper bath. Whilst some were opposed to open plan, for others it could offer the opportunity for space and light. Most had a preference for eating in the living room rather than the kitchen, perhaps with an L-shaped room; a spacious kitchen was not a priority (although a fitted kitchen was). Some needed a second bedroom for family/friends, but most younger participants thought that two bedrooms would be too expensive unless the accommodation was shared. Conclusions This qualitative research showed, unsurprisingly, that tastes and requirements varied in the choice of a home. But there were areas of consensus:
About the study This market research was commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of its City-centre Apartments for Single People at Affordable Rents (CASPAR) project. Five focus groups were convened of people with earnings in excess of £14,000 (£22,000 for couples) who were renting or wanting to rent in and around Leeds but not in the city centre. These covered single women and single men separately, in four age-related groups, and childless couples in their twenties or thirties. Further information A report, City-centre Apartments for Single People at Affordable Rents: The requirements and preferences of potential occupiers, is published by York Publishing Services (ISBN 1 899987 50 9, price £11.95 plus £1.50 p&p). This title is now out of print. |
