Search

The national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the prevalence and importance of informal mutual support in neighbourhoods and social networks. Mutual support structures and functions are strong in collaborative housing, in which people often intentionally form resident communities to enhance support practices. Using qualitative methods, this article examines how lockdown restrictions have impacted on practices of mutual support in collaborative housing, when the infrastructures of shared facilities and proximate neighbourliness were challenged. There were ambiguous definitions of ‘households’ associated with collaborative housing communities when interpreting the lockdown rules to provide mutual aid and support. Shared values, commitments and length of time of establishment mattered when operationalising such support. Moreover, the lockdown helped some communities re-evaluate their governance structures, decision-making and the limits of mutual support as they experienced what changing care needs of individual members meant to their communities. It resulted in a more realistic appraisal of their local social capital.

The national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the prevalence and importance of informal mutual support in neighbourhoods and social networks. Mutual support structures and functions are strong in collaborative housing, in which people often intentionally form resident communities to enhance support practices. Using qualitative methods, this article examines how lockdown restrictions have impacted on practices of mutual support in collaborative housing, when the infrastructures of shared facilities and proximate neighbourliness were challenged. There were ambiguous definitions of ‘households’ associated with collaborative housing communities when interpreting the lockdown rules to provide mutual aid and support. Shared values, commitments and length of time of establishment mattered when operationalising such support. Moreover, the lockdown helped some communities re-evaluate their governance structures, decision-making and the limits of mutual support as they experienced what changing care needs of individual members meant to their communities. It resulted in a more realistic appraisal of their local social capital.

This report sets out the ways in which a new cohousing scheme can be expected to benefit its wider neighbourhood and community, as well the residents themselves. It is based on a case study of Bridport Cohousing in Dorset, but many of the lessons will also be relevant to prospective developments elsewhere in the UK.

This report sets out the ways in which a new cohousing scheme can be expected to benefit its wider neighbourhood and community, as well the residents themselves. It is based on a case study of Bridport Cohousing in Dorset, but many of the lessons will also be relevant to prospective developments elsewhere in the UK.

Co-housing communities, which are designed to encourage interaction in everyday life and informal mutual support, are often seen as a lifestyle that can improve residents’ health and well-being. This viewpoint considers how spatial design, resident control and home technologies matter to ‘successful ageing’ in the increasingly popular co-housing communities- both intergenerational and senior. Based on the authors’ long-term research into these schemes, as well as on an interactive learning day that focused on the health and ageing dimensions of co-housing, the authors argue that the physical and mental well-being of older populations in the UK could be enhanced through this model’s social and material practices. Research, however, is still needed and lacking to determine its true potential for combatting loneliness, increasing social and physical resilience and improving older residents’ health.

There is increased interest in the UK in cohousing as a desirable alternative for older people. The economics of developing cohousing differ from the normal model for residential development; in particular, the participatory nature of the process increases the time required and there are higher risks for both resident/purchaser and developer. We examine the nature of supply and risk using the case of a new senior cohousing community in south London. Given its evident benefits, senior cohousing may eventually become more widespread, and perceived risks will fall. However, the nature of the residential development process means that cohousing will always be at a disadvantage when competing for land in high demand areas like London, and the time required for participatory processes increases costs. To currently increase the small number of cohousing communities in the UK and ensure affordability, targeted measures may be necessary to enable groups to access land and mitigate the higher costs associated with longer term collaborative processes.

The national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the prevalence and importance of informal mutual support in neighbourhoods and social networks. Mutual support structures and functions are strong in collaborative housing, in which people often intentionally form resident communities to enhance support practices. Using qualitative methods, this article examines how lockdown restrictions have impacted on practices of mutual support in collaborative housing, when the infrastructures of shared facilities and proximate neighbourliness were challenged. There were ambiguous definitions of ‘households’ associated with collaborative housing communities when interpreting the lockdown rules to provide mutual aid and support. Shared values, commitments and length of time of establishment mattered when operationalising such support. Moreover, the lockdown helped some communities re-evaluate their governance structures, decision-making and the limits of mutual support as they experienced what changing care needs of individual members meant to their communities. It resulted in a more realistic appraisal of their local social capital.

This article explores the potential of community-led housing (CLH) in combatting loneliness, and represents a mixed-methods research project carried out from just before the beginning of the pandemic, through 2020. Methods comprised a nationwide quantitative online survey of members of CLH groups (N = 221 respondents from England and Wales), followed by five case studies of communities representing a range of different CLH models. This qualitative element comprised participant observation, and semi-structured interviews at each group. The article also considers data from a smaller research project carried out by the same team in July 2020, that aimed to capture the experience of the pandemic for CLH groups, and comprising an online questionnaire followed by 18 semi-structured interviews. We conclude that members of CLH projects are measur-ably less lonely than those with comparable levels of social connection in wider society, and that such benefits are achieved through combinations of multiple different elements that include physical design, social design and through social processes. Notably, not all aspects of communities that contribute positively are a result of explicit intentionality, albeit the concept is considered key to at least one of the models.

The capital’s most pressing problem is how to accelerate the production of new housing, which has been stubbornly unresponsive to market and demographic pressures. Over the past two years LSE London has been conducting a wide-ranging academic and practical inquiry into the issues and the possible solutions. Over the course of the project we held discussions in council chambers, architects’ studios and City offices, donned hard hats to tour construction sites and pored over financial models. This document presents our findings and recommendations. In the boxes five key players on the London development scene speak frankly (and anonymously) about the challenges they face.

Over the last year LSE London organised a series of seminars, round tables and site visits around this the question of how to accelerate new housing development in the capital. Together with practitioners we have analysed barriers to increasing the pace of development in London and explored possible solutions. Participants at our events have included architects, developers and academics, as well as representatives of central government, boroughs, the GLA and housing advocacy groups. More detailed reports can be found at lselondonhousing.org/.

I call myself a Londoner but really, I live in a village: Forest Hill, SE23. My kids went to the village primary school, I meet my friends in the village cafes (or pubs, of an evening), and the pound-a-bowl fruit and veg man often gives me a free punnet of something as I’m a regular. One of the best things about my village is how easy it is to get to the rest of London—but really Forest Hill has almost everything I need.

The Metropolitan Green Belt (henceforth MGB) has been proposed since the late nineteenth century but was first realised in the 1930s, and expanded under Abercrombie’s 1944 Greater London Plan. After decades of growth the MGB measures 5,160 square kilometres and covers parts of 68 local districts and London boroughs. Local planning authorities do have the power to modify the MGB through ad hoc reviews, although only in ‘exceptional circumstances’. These can include a shortage of housing land (though this alone doesn’t guarantee that change will be permitted). An early reason for proposing a MGB was to give access to the countryside but later it was to physically constrain the growth of London. The current aims of the policy are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which says that “The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”. To do this it seeks to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, keep neighbouring towns from merging, safeguard the countryside from encroachment, preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and promote urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Despite the name, Green Belt is not an environmental designation — in fact Duncan Sandys, the minister responsible for its expansion in the 1950s, said Green Belt land did not have to be green or even particularly attractive, as its purpose was to stop urban development. However, government guidance suggests that after establishing a Green Belt, the local authority might want to improve public access, provide recreation opportunities or improve the appearance or quality of the land — but actual use or enjoyment of the Green Belt is clearly seen as an incidental benefit of the policy. In the post-war period there was a two-pronged approach to directing development in South East England: the MGB constrained the supply of land, and at the same time New Towns were cr

A new focus on private renting has been brought into sharp relief by the global financial crisis, with its profound impact on mortgage finance, housing markets and government budgets. Kath Scanlon finds Private Rental Housing: Comparative Perspectives a readable and well-organised introduction to private rented housing systems in other countries. The contributors are all well-known housing scholars (mostly economists), and provide a good overview of the various policy frameworks that condition private renting—including overall housing policy, rent and tenancy regulation, and tax treatment. The careful reader will come away with a better understanding of why simple policy transfer is not straightforward, especially in an area as complex, culturally meaningful and system-embedded as housing.