If developers want to shake off their reputation for putting profit before people, they should start by listening more carefully to the needs of the communities they serve, writes Rhiannon Curry.
So-called “poor doors”, segregated playgrounds and unwanted gentrification: it is not hard to find negative headlines about the property industry.
Developers regularly face accusations of putting profit before people, of building poorly designed and poorly constructed buildings that do little to serve the communities they are in.
But how much of this is true? The industry seems to be suffering from a fundamental image problem, but how much do the wider headlines reflect reality? And what can the people who work in the sector do to change the perception of an industry that ultimately exists to improve the places we live and work?
The problem at the heart of this issue is that the industry doesn’t always listen to people, says Martyn Evans, creative director at U+I.
“Right now I think our industry is generally out of step with things that the people who live and work in the buildings that we build want and think about and care about,” says Evans.
Property has become lazy because it has been relatively easy to make money without necessarily taking into account what people want, he suggests. This had led to many of the negative feelings about the sector’s impact.
Jason Hawthorne, managing director at VU.CITY, agrees. He says his experience of helping property developers through the consultation process has often amounted to little more than a box-ticking exercise, rather than a genuine desire to find out how to engage the local community.
“I think if I reflect on probably some of the better cases of consultation, where development has actually changed and been shaped by listening to the public, it has definitely worked for the better and created less conflict through the whole process,” he says.
A new report recently published by respected academic Tony Travers, called Building Trust, explores the breakdown of public trust in planning and development, and outlines some of the ways this might be overcome.
We are seeing a shift from the public being a tenant towards being a customer who must constantly be consulted and listened to and flexed around if they are going to stay, and that is a really positive change
Travers suggests that politicians should play a greater role in explaining the trade-offs in the planning system and the way new development pays for infrastructure, and that developers should engage with local communities at an earlier stage to better understand local concerns and needs.
Tim Lowe, who runs guardianship company Lowe, suggests the consequences of not changing are serious. The industry is lagging behind the real needs of today’s property users and this could lead to a decline in our cities.
“I think one of the biggest issues we are facing at the moment – and I’m actually including myself in this – is that unless there is a dialogue [between developers and public] you are just going to start losing people.”
There is evidence to suggest that, particularly in London, younger people are being priced out of the city centre and are instead choosing to pursue a better working and living environment elsewhere. He claims that guardianship offers a solution to this – although the initiative hasn’t been without its critics.
But Virginia Blackman, partner at Avison Young, says there are signs that the disconnect between what people want and what the property industry provides is beginning to improve.
“I think if you look at the existing building stock and how that’s being used we are beginning to see things such as co-living in some private rented sector residential developments, and flexible office space,” she points out.
“We are seeing a shift from the public being a tenant… towards being a customer who must constantly be consulted and listened to and flexed around if they are going to stay, and that is a really positive change.”
Part of the industry’s problem is that it is seen as being populated by rich white men, she says, although more is being done to diversify the workforce and that is filtering down into the way people engage with communities.
“There are developers and registered providers out there who are being collaborative and are really interested in listening to people,” she says.
The Grenfell Tower disaster has gone some way to empower communities to speak out when they do not feel their voices are being listened to, and social media has given them a platform to do so. But Evans suggests that a shift in the market itself is playing a part in encouraging developers to have a longer-term view.
“The money is also changing,” he says. It used to be “fast in, develop, take a return, and fast out”, he explains, but the rise of the private rented sector has forced investors to commit to an area over a number of years. This is helping people see that the industry can play a role in the wider improvement of an area.
But the public’s perception of the industry will not change until there is a rethinking of the role it has to play, Hawthorne suggests. “We are now seeing space as a service, which is changing the thinking about how we expect to work.”
Having a wider view of the impact of a development, engaging with the planning process and speaking to the people who want to use buildings will begin to improve the property industry’s reputation.
But fundamentally, the industry cannot rely on clever marketing to change the public’s mind. “We’ve got to do, not say,” says Evans. “If we are doing good things, then the saying is really easy.”
Main image © Wolfgang Runge/EPA/Shutterstock
In partnership with
