Boyana Buyuklieva, Ivana Bevilacqua, Adam Dennett, Jonathan Reades, Phil Hubbard
{"title":"租房生活:伦敦不断发展的住宅基础设施与 \"建造转租赁 \"的兴起","authors":"Boyana Buyuklieva, Ivana Bevilacqua, Adam Dennett, Jonathan Reades, Phil Hubbard","doi":"10.1177/00420980241277684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Build-to-Rent (BTR) developments have expanded rapidly in the UK since 2013, often advertised as providing better quality rented accommodation for university-educated Millennials than available elsewhere in the private rental sector. However, the implications of this type of housing development, and especially its affordability, are poorly understood at the city scale, partly due to a lack of evidence of where these developments cluster and what they add to the housing stock in terms of property type, amenities and cost. This article draws on data relating to 373 BTR developments in London (representing over 40,000 housing units) to show that developments are clustered where transport-related infrastructural investments have opened ‘rent gaps’ that can be exploited by developers. Exploring how these BTR schemes are marketed, the article shows that this accommodation is typically provided through new short-term ‘subscription services’ which allow developers to rent property at a premium. Questioning whether BTRs really add affordable ‘local’ homes to the city, the article concludes that BTR provides ‘quick-fix’ rental accommodation which is doing little to solve London’s housing crisis. We focus on the London BTR market and how the expansion of this housing type is reshaping the sociospatial geographies of the city.","PeriodicalId":51350,"journal":{"name":"Urban Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Life for rent: Evolving residential infrastructure in London and the rise of Build-to-Rent\",\"authors\":\"Boyana Buyuklieva, Ivana Bevilacqua, Adam Dennett, Jonathan Reades, Phil Hubbard\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00420980241277684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Build-to-Rent (BTR) developments have expanded rapidly in the UK since 2013, often advertised as providing better quality rented accommodation for university-educated Millennials than available elsewhere in the private rental sector. However, the implications of this type of housing development, and especially its affordability, are poorly understood at the city scale, partly due to a lack of evidence of where these developments cluster and what they add to the housing stock in terms of property type, amenities and cost. This article draws on data relating to 373 BTR developments in London (representing over 40,000 housing units) to show that developments are clustered where transport-related infrastructural investments have opened ‘rent gaps’ that can be exploited by developers. Exploring how these BTR schemes are marketed, the article shows that this accommodation is typically provided through new short-term ‘subscription services’ which allow developers to rent property at a premium. Questioning whether BTRs really add affordable ‘local’ homes to the city, the article concludes that BTR provides ‘quick-fix’ rental accommodation which is doing little to solve London’s housing crisis. We focus on the London BTR market and how the expansion of this housing type is reshaping the sociospatial geographies of the city.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Studies\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241277684\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241277684","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Life for rent: Evolving residential infrastructure in London and the rise of Build-to-Rent
Build-to-Rent (BTR) developments have expanded rapidly in the UK since 2013, often advertised as providing better quality rented accommodation for university-educated Millennials than available elsewhere in the private rental sector. However, the implications of this type of housing development, and especially its affordability, are poorly understood at the city scale, partly due to a lack of evidence of where these developments cluster and what they add to the housing stock in terms of property type, amenities and cost. This article draws on data relating to 373 BTR developments in London (representing over 40,000 housing units) to show that developments are clustered where transport-related infrastructural investments have opened ‘rent gaps’ that can be exploited by developers. Exploring how these BTR schemes are marketed, the article shows that this accommodation is typically provided through new short-term ‘subscription services’ which allow developers to rent property at a premium. Questioning whether BTRs really add affordable ‘local’ homes to the city, the article concludes that BTR provides ‘quick-fix’ rental accommodation which is doing little to solve London’s housing crisis. We focus on the London BTR market and how the expansion of this housing type is reshaping the sociospatial geographies of the city.
期刊介绍:
Urban Studies was first published in 1964 to provide an international forum of social and economic contributions to the fields of urban and regional planning. Since then, the Journal has expanded to encompass the increasing range of disciplines and approaches that have been brought to bear on urban and regional problems. Contents include original articles, notes and comments, and a comprehensive book review section. Regular contributions are drawn from the fields of economics, planning, political science, statistics, geography, sociology, population studies and public administration.