How Britain’s homes failed the pandemic stress test

Given the findings of the Housing Design Audit it was unsurprising – although profoundly worrying – that people living in housing built in the last 10 years were the most likely to report feelings of discomfort with their home environment, as well as a weaker sense of community. By contrast, those that lived in developments built before 1919 were more likely than those that lived in the most recently built homes to be comfortable and to feel a strong sense of community. People in the oldest developments (pre-1919) were also twice as likely as those in the newest to say that their neighbourhood met their everyday needs. Indeed, the data showed a progressive deterioration of the neighbourhood experience of lockdown from old to new: older neighbourhoods scored better than more recent ones.

There is much in the Home Comforts report to make future planners and policy makers reconsider current approaches, in a positive and negative way. The report concluded that two thirds of people felt comfortable or very comfortable during lockdown, with access to private open space in the form of a garden or terrace being the key factor contributing to this comfort. Proximity to a park or green space was the most important factor in terms of satisfaction with neighbourhoods, closely followed by access to local shops.

Urban density may be positive in some ways, but our report suggests density has its drawbacks. Unfortunately, respondents were more likely to say they were uncomfortable in their homes if they lived in flats; if they were socially renting or if they lived in high-rise blocks. Of those living in blocks of five storeys or higher or among social renters, around a third felt profoundly uncomfortable during lockdown. This compared with around half that number for those living in terraced housing and amongst owner occupiers.

Proximity proved to be very important. Around three quarters of people living within a five-minute walk of a park or local facilities such as shops felt that their neighbourhood met their everyday needs well. Yet if parks or local facilities were more than a 10-minute walk away, satisfaction with the neighbourhood fell sharply to only around a half of respondents. There has been much talk of 15- or 20-minute city principles during the pandemic, advocating that people should be able to meet most of their needs within a short walk or cycle. The study, however, suggested that even 15 minutes is too far for many of us, and that in urban areas we ought to be aiming for a ten- or even five-minute city.

The pandemic has put us under huge strain, yet it has also revealed new opportunities and reminded us of some fundamental things we value: nature, family, freedom to walk, and community. As we look likely to continue to spend more time at home in the future – using new technologies to free us up from the daily commute – we need to build our homes and neighbourhoods as decent places where people wish to spend time in, and in which they can build better lives. Yet as A Housing Design Audit for England suggested and Home Comforts confirmed, in recent years we have let design standards drop.

Homes should have access to private open space. They should be big enough to comfortably live in; be well lit and have good insulation from noise. Neighbourhoods need basic amenities, including open space and local shops and residents should be able to comfortably walk or cycle to them. We should learn from the stress test that lockdown has given our homes and neighbourhoods and consider how we might adapt those we are already living in. Good design is needed to incorporate and reconcile these demands.

These are complex multi-faceted research and practice agendas, which The Bartlett is fully committed to addressing. For its part, the Place Alliance has moved on to explore and examine the skills and capacities which would unlock better housing design in the future.